Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health

[Paidiske]

You keep repeating this and I keep knocking it down.

You haven't knocked it down at all.

How can you say that when I just posted evidence that some parents lose control of their feelings.

Of course "some parents lose control of their feelings." But that's not why they abuse. Some parents lose control of their feelings and never abuse. Some parents have very strong control of their feelings and still abuse.

This portrait of the overwhelmed, disregulated, irrational parent who just "loses control" and that's why they beat their children... it's just not accurate.

You keep saying this but I keep knocking it down.

Again, you haven't knocked it down at all.

If the person is thinking irrationally, has a warped perspective due to distress when they are aroused or reactive to situations that trigger agression and abuse then how is that same irrational thinking not effecting them.

I'm not saying no abusive parent is ever affected by irrational thinking. But that's not why they abuse. Some parents think irrationally and never abuse. Some parents are entirely rational and still abuse.

Again, this portrait of the overwhelmed, disregulated, irrational parent who just "loses control" and that's why they beat their children... it's just not accurate.

If the abuser believes damaging a child is good for them then its irrational.

Not necessarily. They may have very rational grounds for believing in this kind of discipline.

Possibly but I find it strange how every single explanation about the complexity of human behaviour your one stock standard answer is belief, its because of belief, everything is caused by belief and takes precedence.

When it comes to abuse, yes. We know - we have a very good profile - of the beliefs which drive abuse, and which distinguish abusers from people who don't abuse.

How about acknowledging the explanation as it is without all that interjection. It was talking about the distressed parents anxiety and paranoia to think and believe a certain way not because of belief but because of their emotional and psychological disordered thinking.

But the point is the "certain way" that abusers believe. That's the issue. And it's not driven by distress and paranoia for everyone who thinks that way. The distress or paranoia may heighten the way it's acted on, but the beliefs have to be there in the first place, or the distress and paranoia would manifest in different behaviours.

But what you are doing is dismissing a large chunk of the mechanisms that are involved. The stresds and anxiety and perceptions of unreal threat is what creates the belief.

Please provide evidence of these things giving rise to the very specific beliefs which have been shown to underpin abusive behaviour. (Not just "irrational beliefs" or the like in general).

What is reasoning, We all can reason but that does not mean the reasoning is rational to begin with.

My only point is that you can't just claim that all abusive parents are overwhelmed, thinking irrationally, stressed and distressed to the point where they're not making choices about their behaviour. It's not accurate.

Then why is the premise of the OP based on a Risk to Mental Health. Then cites a study where the scientific evidence shows that abusive CP causes phsychological harm. Thats based on the scientific facts and not ethics.

But the conclusion we might draw from that - that the harm done by corporal punishment therefore outweighs any benefit in terms of discipline - is an ethical judgement, not a scientific one.

If it was about ethics then we would have no basis to say its wrong because ethics are subjective, just differing opinions.

Well, as a democracy we do have mechanisms to enshrine majority ethics into law.

So a parent claims how good it is to break their kids legs as part of a healthy upbringing to make them a better person you would not tell them they are mistaken in thinking that.

I wouldn't tell them they're "imagining things."

You can't just pick out the bits you like because they align with your ideaology.

I was pointing out that there was, potentially, some point of connection in that source between your model of abuse, and mine.

Demandingness doesn't come from nowhere. Its a psychological need for control.

And if that psychological need is felt in someone who also happens to believe in the acceptability of violence, the value of hierarchy and rigid roles, the necessity of power and control... yes, then you have a convergence which could well see abusive behaviour. But it's not just because of the irrational thinking. Demandingness could just as well be expressed in all sorts of other ways, which are not physically abusive.

So as you can see beliefs don't come from thin air,

I have never claimed that beliefs come from thin air. I just don't believe they come from most of the things you were positing as "risk factors" for abuse.

 

[stevevw]

Science cannot make the value judgement of whether or not a particular action is "okay."

Its not about ethics. we know that humans require a certain health and wellbeing to live and function. Otherwise they break down. So we can measure that standard and damaging a childs body and mind is not conducive of a human functioning to their potential. In fact it degrades them.

Like I said if it was about values and ethics then as these are subjective and relative on this basis we have no right to tell another person or nation who is being cruel to kids or humans that they are wrong because that is their relative belief and value. Who are we to say we hold the truth to what is valuable and morally right.

It's their actions that tell you what they really believe, not what they say. Anyone can be a hypocrite, even to themselves.

Thats right so a good person who occassionally does bad stuff does not believe that bad stuff is ok. They just stuffed up a couple of times. Good people do bad stuff and it doesn't mean they have some secret evil belief.

There is no way that anyone can prove anything about "every single person," but in establishing a normative pattern, this is not a bad read: https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/a...nd-beliefs-about-violence-within-families.pdf

You will notice that it's all about beliefs and attitudes causing various forms of abuse.

Yes its just speaking about beliefs and doesn't mention the psychological and emotional distress or the other risk factors. Like some of my articles that only mention a certain risk or the psychological aspects.

But your article doesn't explain why people end up with such beliefs and thing. Though I did notice that it listed low income groups having more beliefs about abuse being ok.

I also noticed they went on a fair bit about the traditional family as though that in itself was a bad belief. They also were talking as though any CP even a smack that doesn't leave a mark as being a wrong which may indicate that NZ is against all CP.

So this shows that in some cases beliefs differ and what we may think or believe is ok other cultures will disagree.

But I am not making any value judgement about "good" or "evil" people. I don't find that helpful in this discussion.

So what do you base the line on which clearly shows the beliefs people hold is the right ones as you say. When I say good people I also mean they are rational enough to know the difference between what the believe or don't believe amd what they believe doesn't conform to supporting harm or dmage to others even if they may occassionally slip up and cross the line due to acting on their feelings and not their better judgement.

Anyone "may" abuse. That's pretty meaningless.

I said that like anything if you stress something it will eventually snap. You said that this doesn't mean they will abuse. I countered that with the same logic in say but it also means that they may well abuse because they have snapped or become so stressed that the breakdown mentally and emotionally and abuse.

I'm not buying that abusers can be accurately depicted as "troubled."

Why, if it gets to a point where a parent is damaging their child and we know that this is psychologically damaging for the child and the parent and the household then why is this not a troubled household.

There is trouble there in that a parent has got to a point in their life where they are actually acting against human nature and reality. In stead of caring and protecting their offspring which is a natural instinct they are damaging it. That counts as being troubled in any medical or psychologists books.

But this is not why people abuse.

Yes it is. I just linked evidence here it is again. I think this article sums it up for most articles I've linked though some go into a more detailed explanation.

The Psychology Behind Lashing Out
Peel back the layers of human consciousness, and you’ll find an intricate dance of thoughts, emotions, and beliefs. Lashing out isn’t an anomaly; it’s a complex psychological response deeply rooted in our survival instincts and life experiences.

When we perceive a threat, whether real or imagined, our ‘fight or flight’ response kicks in. For some of us, ‘fight’ means lashing out—an attempt to regain control or defend oneself. On a deeper level, lashing out can also be a misdirected attempt to communicate pain, disappointment, or fear.

Lashing out is the sudden release of intense emotion, usually anger or frustration, directed towards oneself or others. It can take various forms – a shouted insult, a physical act, a brooding silence. It’s the emotional equivalent of a summer thunderstorm; it brews silently, ominously, and then suddenly, the heavens unleash their fury.

Physical lashing out is when someone expresses their anger or frustration through physical aggression. It can range from slamming doors and throwing objects to direct physical harm. It’s the embodiment of the ‘fight’ response in our primal ‘fight or flight’ reaction to perceived threats or extreme frustration.

Whether it’s a hurtful word, an aggressive act, a teary breakdown, or a cold shoulder, each form of lashing out reveals a struggle to manage intense emotions.

The Triggers of Lashing Out
Stress and Anxiety
When we’re under stress, our minds are in a constant state of ‘fight or flight’, and lashing out can be an unfortunate byproduct of this psychological siege. It’s the mind’s misguided attempt to fight back, to regain control over a situation that feels unmanageable.
Mental Health Conditions
Mental health conditions, such as depression, bipolar disorder, and PTSD, can also trigger lashing out. These conditions often come with complex emotional disturbances that can manifest as aggression. It’s important to remember that such instances are symptoms of a deeper issue and require professional help.
Insecurity and Low Self-esteem
Finally, insecurity and low self-esteem can be potent triggers for lashing out. When we feel threatened or inadequate, we might respond aggressively to protect our fragile sense of self. It’s like an animal backed into a corner, lashing out not out of malice, but out of fear. Understanding these triggers is the first step towards managing lashing out.
Caught in the Storm: Understanding and Managing Lashing Out - The Daily Positive

Understanding these triggers is the first step towards managing lashing out. This shows thats its not just a simple case of belief or changing someones belief. Its understanding these psychological and emotional dysfunctions that lead to unreal thinking and beliefs that will take the power out of the need to use such agression and abuse.

 

[Paidiske]

Its not about ethics.

Of course it is. Whether or not something is "okay" is absolutely an ethical question.

Like I said if it was about values and ethics then as these are subjective and relative on this basis we have no right to tell another person or nation who is being cruel to kids or humans that they are wrong because that is their relative belief and value.

Well, we can make an argument about why it would be better to behave in a particular way; and we have a right to make laws for our society; but we do so on the basis of values and ethics. Informed by science, sure, but science cannot make ethical decisions for you.

Thats right so a good person who occassionally does bad stuff does not believe that bad stuff is ok.

That's, like, the exact opposite of what I just said. But again, categorising this in terms of "good" or "bad" people or whatever is not so helpful.

Yes its just speaking about beliefs and doesn't mention the psychological and emotional distress or the other risk factors.

Because the beliefs are the relevant drivers of abuse.

So what do you base the line on which clearly shows the beliefs people hold is the right ones as you say.

For the purposes of this discussion, whether they're abusing or not.

I said that like anything if you stress something it will eventually snap. You said that this doesn't mean they will abuse.

Correct. Some people will not abuse another person, no matter what stress you put them under.

I countered that with the same logic in say but it also means that they may well abuse because they have snapped or become so stressed that the breakdown mentally and emotionally and abuse.

But the stress is not why they abuse. They could well "snap" in any number of ways, but if their "snap" is to abuse, then there's something else going on.

Why, if it gets to a point where a parent is damaging their child and we know that this is psychologically damaging for the child and the parent and the household then why is this not a troubled household.

I mean troubled in the way you were describing it, where "they stop functioning properly, stop thinking straight, cannot manage or cope, some cannot even pay the bills or work or manage the home let alone kids.

So they react, fail to think, fail to manage their feelings and this creates more breakdowns in communication, and behaviour ect."

That is not, in my experience, in any way an accurate picture of abusive parents in general.

Yes it is. I just linked evidence here it is again. I think this article sums it up for most articles I've linked though some go into a more detailed explanation.

The thing is, you can describe "lashing out," but most abuse isn't about lashing out. So it's not why people abuse.

 

[stevevw]

You haven't knocked it down at all.

According to the links I posted I have shown that abusers lose control due to their psychological distress.

A very common reason that maltreatment occurs in the home, whether towards a child (child abuse/maltreatment) or a partner (intimate partner violence) is that there is a deficit in emotion regulation skills. Based on this study, parents who are more likely to maltreat their children have these traits in common: difficulties controlling impulsive behaviors when distressed.
Understanding the Risk Factors of Parental Child Maltreatment: Exploring Emotion Regulation — Curious Neuron

Child abuse experts agree that the single factor ultimately responsible for child maltreatment is the inability of parents to control their aggressive impulses. Child abuse is thought to be caused by a number of factors, including the parent’s problems with coping and self-control, https://www.researchgate.net/public...ion_for_work_with_potentially_abusive_parents

Mom rage is a real thing. “Rage is when the anger becomes uncontrollable,” “The anger has overpowered you.
Mom rage is a real thing—here's how to deal with it - Today's Parent

Of course "some parents lose control of their feelings." But that's not why they abuse. Some parents lose control of their feelings and never abuse.

This is exactly why they abuse. Abuse and violence is caused by negative feelings like aggression, fear and threat. Yes some parents can lose control of their feelings but will then rein them and avoid those feelings dictating their behaviour. This is usually because they have the insight, emotional intelligence or a porotective factor in place. They come to their senses.

Some parents have very strong control of their feelings and still abuse.

No that is a contradiction in terms. Having strong control over feelings (emotional resilence) is a protective factor. Its what is usd as a preventative strategy to stop abuse. It gives parents insight into their emotions and how they can fool them and not to act on them (emotional intelligence).

This portrait of the overwhelmed, disregulated, irrational parent who just "loses control" and that's why they beat their children... it's just not accurate.

So they beat their kids when in full control of their feelings and mind. They perfectly understand that the black eyes and broken limbs they dish out is unjustified and will cause their child permanent harm.

To think that damaging a child with abuse is good for their wellbeing is itself a disregulated and irrational idea. They don't have to be losing control at the time of abuse. Its the dysfunctional thinking and feelings well before the act of abuse that is why they are not in control of themselves or their lives.

Again, you haven't knocked it down at all.

Well then you would have to explain the evidence here which I have repeatedly posted and you have repeatedly ignored.

Under stress, controlling parents with fearful and paranoid tendencies psychologically regress to a black-and-white mode of thinking. The world is split into the good camp and the bad camp. In order to find certainty in an unpredictable world, they may subscribe to conspiracy theories, superstitions, fundamentalist religion or cults. Controlling Parents Trauma.

Psychologically regress as in their thinking and lack of emotional regulation. They mispercieve and have a tendency to believe in unreal ideas.

Parents with fearful and controlling tendencies have mind-filters that pay selective attention to danger, catastrophise and imagine only worst-case scenarios. They over-analyse everything and assume people have ulterior motives. They misperceive reality and assume hostility from others when there is none. Their defensive mechanisms are so powerful that complete dissociation from reality can be the result.
https://eggshelltherapy.com/paranoid-controlling parents/#:~:text=Controlling%20parents%20tend%20to%20be,a%20normal%20part%20of%20parenting.

"Misperceive reality". In other words their thinking, perceptions and beliefs are unreal and irrational.

The research notes that physically abusive parents have deficits in their perceptions, expectations, interpretations and evaluations of their child’s behaviour. Furthermore, parents who have high levels of personal distress, as is often the case with parents deemed ‘at risk’, often have information processing difficulties which makes perspectivetaking more difficult.
https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/321630/researchnotes_parental_empathy.pdf

"deficits in their perceptions, expectations, interpretations and evaluations". In other words they have errors in their thinking or what is called Cognitive distortion meaning (an exaggerated or irrational thought pattern).

Research has revealed that violent individuals have different ways of processing and interpreting that information. “They tend to perceive hostility in others when there is no hostility” (APA, 1996, p. 5). This notable tendency is referred to as hostile attribution bias. Violent people are also less efficient at thinking of nonviolent ways to solve social conflicts and disagreements. They also tend to be more accepting of violence in general and believe it is acceptable to behave that way. https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/24081_Pages_272_273.pdf

Irrational beliefs tend to be higher when trait emotional distress is elevated (e.g., Deffenbacher et al., 1986; Chang, 13 1997).Low frustration tolerance is a secondary irrational belief, and research indicates that it is positively associated with aggressive expression of anger, reduced anger control, poor social adjustment, anxiety, depression, procrastination, and dysfunctional affect.

Depreciation is a secondary irrational beliefs, and research has elucidated positive associations with defensiveness to negative feedback, aggressiveness, unhealthy anger expression, fear (internalized) aggressive, and anti-social (externalized) symptoms.
Frontiers | Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), Irrational and Rational Beliefs, and the Mental Health of Athletes

In other words they have deficits or errors in their thinking and perceptions of what is really going on. Their thinking is unreal.

 

[Paidiske]

According to the links I posted I have shown that abusers lose control due to their psychological distress.

A very common reason that maltreatment occurs in the home, whether towards a child (child abuse/maltreatment) or a partner (intimate partner violence) is that there is a deficit in emotion regulation skills. Based on this study, parents who are more likely to maltreat their children have these traits in common: difficulties controlling impulsive behaviors when distressed.
Understanding the Risk Factors of Parental Child Maltreatment: Exploring Emotion Regulation — Curious Neuron

Remember when I said that a necessary standard of evidence would include comparison with a non-abusing cohort?

What is the difference between parents with deficits in emotion regulation skills who abuse, and those who don't? I doubt it's their psychological distress levels.

Abuse and violence is caused by negative feelings like aggression, fear and threat.

No, it isn't. Because many people feel these things and never abuse.

No that is a contradiction in terms.

No, it isn't. I'll state it again: Some parents have very strong control of their feelings and still abuse. This idea that all abuse is perpetrated by people who are emotionally "out of control" is false. It's one of the key weaknesses in your position, because you build your case around it, but it isn't true.

So they beat their kids when in full control of their feelings and mind.

To the extent that we can speak of anyone being in "full" control of their feelings and mind, yes.

They perfectly understand that the black eyes and broken limbs they dish out is unjustified and will cause their child permanent harm.

We are speaking in this thread more of welts and bruises from corporal punishment. Nonetheless, they believe their discipline is justified and that the benefit of this approach will outweigh any harm.

To think that damaging a child with abuse is good for their wellbeing is itself a disregulated and irrational idea.

So you keep claiming, but have not shown. And given your own defence of discipline which our law would classify as abuse, it puts you in a strange position, since you are by your own words defending a "disregulated and irrational idea."

Well then you would have to explain the evidence here which I have repeatedly posted and you have repeatedly ignored.

Under stress, controlling parents with fearful and paranoid tendencies psychologically regress to a black-and-white mode of thinking. The world is split into the good camp and the bad camp. In order to find certainty in an unpredictable world, they may subscribe to conspiracy theories, superstitions, fundamentalist religion or cults. Controlling Parents Trauma.

This is off topic; it is not about the abuse of children.

The research notes that physically abusive parents have deficits in their perceptions, expectations, interpretations and evaluations of their child’s behaviour. Furthermore, parents who have high levels of personal distress, as is often the case with parents deemed ‘at risk’, often have information processing difficulties which makes perspectivetaking more difficult.
https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/321630/researchnotes_parental_empathy.pdf

Again, I'd like to see comparison with a cohort who have such deficits and yet do not abuse.

They also tend to be more accepting of violence in general and believe it is acceptable to behave that way. https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/24081_Pages_272_273.pdf

One of the beliefs I have been insisting underpins abuse.

Irrational beliefs tend 12 to be higher when trait emotional distress is elevated (e.g., Deffenbacher et al., 1986; Chang, 13 1997).Low frustration tolerance is a secondary irrational belief, and research indicates that it is positively associated with aggressive expression of anger, reduced anger control, poor social adjustment, anxiety, depression, procrastination, and dysfunctional affect. Depreciation is a secondary irrational beliefs, and research has elucidated positive associations with defensiveness to negative feedback, aggressiveness, unhealthy anger expression, fear (internalized) aggressive, and anti-social (externalized) symptoms.
Frontiers | Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), Irrational and Rational Beliefs, and the Mental Health of Athletes

This is about athletes, not parents, and does not mention the abuse of children at all.

Their thinking is unreal.

What they are not, however, is so emotionally out of control that they are not exercising a choice to abuse.

 

[stevevw]

I'm not saying no abusive parent is ever affected by irrational thinking. But that's not why they abuse. Some parents think irrationally and never abuse.

Yes because they come to their senses. They realize that their thinking and feelings are not a true representation of what is happening. That takes the wind out of they impulse or need to agress.

Some parents are entirely rational and still abuse.

I don't think this is the case. It doesn't make sense. How can a parent be completely rational as in reasoning the facts that their behaviour will damage their child and then still damage their child.

They would have to have some irrational thinking going on which will turn those facts and that reality into some sort of rationalisation that what they are doing is good for the child. That in itsefl is the irrational thinking because its tuening a falsehood into a fact or truth. .

Again, this portrait of the overwhelmed, disregulated, irrational parent who just "loses control" and that's why they beat their children... it's just not accurate.

Not all parents who have lost control over their feelings and thinking will express this in single episodes where they beat a kid uncontrollably. They may control and abuse in more regulated ways such as locking kids in their room, making them do particular things which deny the childs autonomy. They may slowly abuse such as pinching them, burning them with a cigarette.

But these are all still the result of overwhelmed, disregulated, irrational parents who have little control over their emotions and thinking. Its just a different way they express their anger and anxiety.

Not necessarily. They may have very rational grounds for believing in this kind of discipline.

No grounds can rationalize damaging a child as good for their wellbeing. They may think and truely believe that its good for them at the time but in reality its not and this is the determination of whether theeir thinking is rational.

When it comes to abuse, yes. We know - we have a very good profile - of the beliefs which drive abuse, and which distinguish abusers from people who don't abuse.

But thats only part of the explanation. Like I said beliefs don't happen out of thin air. People are primed for believing such things through their experiences.

Your dismissing the most relevant part which is why people believe such things which is connected to their experiences which involves their psychological distress. Negative beliefs are cultivated by negative experiences just as positive experiences cultivate positive beliefs.

Prevention stategies don't just expose the beliefs they change the experiences of people so they see no need to believe such things.

But the point is the "certain way" that abusers believe. That's the issue. And it's not driven by distress and paranoia for everyone who thinks that way. The distress or paranoia may heighten the way it's acted on, but the beliefs have to be there in the first place, or the distress and paranoia would manifest in different behaviours.

I disagree and so does the evdience. The psychological distress is what leads people to believe such negative ideas, base reality on negative perceptions and feelings like anxiety, threat and agression. These are negative feelings, perceptions and beliefs and for a person to be inclined to relate to such things means they have been primed to that negative thinking which is usually the result of distress.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes because they come to their senses.

No. Amazingly, it is possible to have irrational ideas and yet not beat someone else.

I don't think this is the case. It doesn't make sense. How can a parent be completely rational as in reasoning the facts that their behaviour will damage their child and then still damage their child.

Recognising the harm done by abuse is not the litmus test of rationality.

Many parents physically abuse because they believe that is good and necessary discipline.

Not all parents who have lost control over their feelings and thinking will express this in single episodes where they beat a kid uncontrollably. They may control and abuse in more regulated ways such as locking kids in their room, making them do particular things which deny the childs autonomy.

That is off topic to this thread, which is about the physical abuse of children.

But these are all still the result of overwhelmed, disregulated, irrational parents who have little control over their emotions and thinking. Its just a different way they express their anger and anxiety.

I disagree. And I refer you to my earlier statements about the kind of evidence you would need to provide in order to be convincing.

this is the determination of whether theeir thinking is rational.

No, it isn't. Not at all.

Your dismissing the most relevant part which is why people believe such things which is connected to their experiences which involves their psychological distress.

I don't think that's the most relevant part at all. There are plenty of psychologically distressed parents who never abuse, because they don't hold the attitudes and beliefs which would justify them doing so.

I disagree and so does the evdience. The psychological distress is what leads people to believe such negative ideas, base reality on negative perceptions and feelings like anxiety, threat and agression. These are negative feelings, perceptions and beliefs and for a person to be inclined to relate to such things means they have been primed to that negative thinking which is usually the result of distress.

You have missed my point. Without also holding beliefs and attitudes which justify abuse, that distress would manifest in different behaviours.

 

[stevevw]

Please provide evidence of these things giving rise to the very specific beliefs which have been shown to underpin abusive behaviour. (Not just "irrational beliefs" or the like in general).

Why when its the same basis for all irrational thinking whether thats a belief that abusing drugs or financially abusing old people or DV. Its just different expressions of irrational and dysfunctional thinking based on personal experiences..

The term “irrational” is not a judgment. In this context, it’s a clinical term. It refers to something that’s not based on reason, logic, or understanding. From a psychological perspective, irrational thoughts: are not based in evidence, operate mostly on assumptions and are rooted in beliefs based on past experiences — positive or negative.

What causes irrational thoughts?
Irrational thoughts are a coping mechanism. Many people will be able to recognize these thoughts as irrational, push through, and shake them off.. “Others hold onto them and give them too much weight.” While we all have irrational thoughts, the line between problematic and not is when they start negatively impacting our life or cause functional impairments in our behavior,”

Some mental health conditions that may lead to persistent irrational thoughts include: anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders and substance use disorders. Irrational thoughts can act as fuel for the fire of anxiety, leading to rumination. Rumination can then put you into a cycle of fear: The thought loops make you anxious, and then the anxiety makes your thoughts even more persistent.

How to Manage Irrational Thoughts and Cognitive Distortions

We all have irrational thoughts from time to time. But what happens when they start affecting your mood and relationships? Here's what that could mean and how to cope.

psychcentral.com

Under stress, controlling parents with fearful and paranoid tendencies psychologically regress to a black-and-white mode of thinking. The world is split into the good camp and the bad camp; people are divided between the tyrants and the tormented, the blamers and the blamed, the persecutors and the persecuted. In order to find certainty in an unpredictable world, they may subscribe to conspiracy theories, superstitions, fundamentalist religion or cults. Controlling Parents Trauma.

Why Do Parents Physically Abuse Their Children
Essentially, abuse occurs when risk factors outweigh protective factors.
Abusive parents have unrealistic expectations, rigid thinking and are more likely to use coercive disciplinary methods and believe that harsh punishment is the only way to discipline. They tend to have low self-esteem and self-efficacy (believing they have effective parenting techniques). They tend to experience higher stress levels, depression, self-blame, and social isolation.

Parents who use coercive disciplinary strategies, such as physical punishment, tend to be over-sensitive to their children’s emotions. They can be overreactive even when the child is not yet defiant or resistant. For example, abusers have greater physiologic responses to children’s crying.
Why Do Parents Physically Abuse Their Children

To parents with fearful and controlling tendencies, the world is a threatening place. They live in a state of constant vigilance, always on the verge of paranoia. Not only do they have mind-filters that pay selective attention to danger, but they also habitually catastrophise and imagine only worst-case scenarios. They over-analyse everything and assume people have ulterior motives. As a result, they misperceive reality and assume hostility from others when there is none. Their defensive mechanisms are so powerful that complete dissociation from reality can be the result.
Controlling Parents Trauma.

Child abuse is thought to be caused by a number of factors, including the parent’s problems with coping and self-control, inadequate knowledge of child development resulting in unrealistic parental expectations, and poor ability to empathise with their child. Walker, Gayann; Ensor, Jane --- "Understanding the victims of child abuse" [2014] PrecedentAULA 51; (2014) 124 Precedent 46

Core beliefs are the fixed statements, thoughts or ideas that we have about ourselves. They help us to predict what will happen, and help us to make sense of our world. These core beliefs are formed in childhood, and our early experiences develop them into fairly rigid assumptions about:  how we see ourselves and others  how we judge what we and others do  how we view the future.

Over time, these early childhood beliefs become entrenched and unconscious, but can be triggered automatically, i.e., without us being consciously aware of them, by events or interactions with others in our day-to-day lives. In other words, our problem thinking/ automatic thoughts echo our core beliefs. The more negative our core beliefs, the more negative our automatic thoughts will be. The beliefs can confirm, in the person’s mind at the moment they act abusively, that the behaviour is “right” (when in fact it is not).
https://www.hma.co.nz/wp-content/up...liefs-schema-that-support-family-violence.pdf

As these are negative thoughts and beliefs they stem from negative experiences which fuel negative feelings (anger, anxiety, threat) which lead to violence and abuse. The abuser believes they are right (thats the irrational part) when they are in reality not.

In the present study it was hypothesized that negative beliefs about emotion and psychological inflexibility would mediate the relationship between childhood maltreatment and emotional distress. It is believed that childhood maltreatment is associated with negative conceptualizations, beliefs, thoughts about emotion, and ineffective strategies in coping with emotions and psychological inflexibility, which is further related with negative affect.

Results show that depression, anxiety and stress symptoms were all determined by the stated associations, suggesting that all three types of symptoms were determined by the association between childhood maltreatment, negative beliefs about emotion and psychological inflexibility.
Childhood maltreatment and emotional distress: The role of beliefs about emotion and psychological inflexibility

Batterers with CFV presented with more irrational beliefs both about women and about violence as a strategy to cope with everyday difficulties. Moreover, they had significantly higher scores than batterers without CFV on all psychopathological symptoms as assessed by the SCL-90-R, as well as on most of the STAXI-2 subscales. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886260520958648

So the abusers had more irrational beliefs and significantly higher psychopathological symptoms which include psychological distress such as anxiety and depression.

 

[Paidiske]

Why when its the same basis for all irrational thinking

Because it isn't. These are very specific beliefs, and they're not necessarily "irrational."

 

[stevevw]

My only point is that you can't just claim that all abusive parents are overwhelmed, thinking irrationally, stressed and distressed to the point where they're not making choices about their behaviour. It's not accurate.

I don't think all parents always get completely out of control and react over the top each time they abuse. But being overwhelmed, thinking irrationally, being stressed and distressed can also be expressed in uncontrolled ways which are more restrained and routine.

But its still the result of a parent being compromised and losing control due to their psychological distress caused by their experiences which distort their thinking and lead them to believe that these controlling measures are good for the kid when there more about the parents psychological makeup.

But the conclusion we might draw from that - that the harm done by corporal punishment therefore outweighs any benefit in terms of discipline - is an ethical judgement, not a scientific one.

It seems to me more a factual one if anything. How do we measure the benefits or not but by the facts. The claimed benefits from dicipline are it may produce a better behaved and responsible adult presumerably with better health and wellbeing.

How else could we measure that but through the behaviour and health sciences.

Well, as a democracy we do have mechanisms to enshrine majority ethics into law.

Part of democracy is enlightened thinking and as a democracy we determine whats best by reasoning what is best based on the facts and out experience and reality. Thats the difference between a radical ideology in an undemocratic nation and the West our ability to seek truth regardless of assumptions and belief.

I wouldn't tell them they're "imagining things."

Why, what they are thinking is not reality. Its delusional thinking. So what about mistaken or an error in thinking.

I was pointing out that there was, potentially, some point of connection in that source between your model of abuse, and mine.

But what about the rest of the theory. Like Demeaning ones self, others and life. This is the psychological aspect where parents can have a warped perception of reality by seeing the negative. There is nothing positive about hiting your child let alone abusing them.

And if that psychological need is felt in someone who also happens to believe in the acceptability of violence, the value of hierarchy and rigid roles, the necessity of power and control... yes, then you have a convergence which could well see abusive behaviour. But it's not just because of the irrational thinking. Demandingness could just as well be expressed in all sorts of other ways, which are not physically abusive.

Yes and abusers have this mentality and even when they are not abusing. The point is its a psychological need that stems from adversity and stress that creates in the person the need to be demanding, to contrl and use force and violence.

I have never claimed that beliefs come from thin air. I just don't believe they come from most of the things you were positing as "risk factors" for abuse.

Thats exactly where they come from. A person who ends up believing in controlling others, using force and abuse has been primed through their experience to see things that way. Its the psychological need that creates the perception that the world is about control and force and violence.

This is usually caused by psychological distress they experience due to the risk factors. A healthy minded person who is emotionally intelligent and is aware that their feelings don't create reality can difuse the need to use control and abuse.

They see it for what it is and thankfully the majority of us are like this. Though I have noticed this sort of thinking coming back to a degree in society with identity politics.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't think all parents always get completely out of control and react over the top each time they abuse.

But this is not then about what causes the physical abuse of children. This whole thing we've been on where you've been carrying on about being out of control, overwhelmed, "just snapped," whatever... now you're backtracking and saying that's not what's happening during abuse.

And I agree, it's not. It's just been a colossal red herring and waste of time.

How do we measure the benefits or not but by the facts.

By our values and beliefs. Some parents may discount the long term trauma and highly value the short term compliance. In their eyes, the results speak for themselves.

Part of democracy is enlightened thinking and as a democracy we determine whats best by reasoning what is best based on the facts and out experience and reality.

That's an endearingly optimistic take.

Why, what they are thinking is not reality. Its delusional thinking.

I would have to engage with them on the level of their beliefs and values. And just telling them that they are delusional is not going to help in that discussion.

But what about the rest of the theory. Like Demeaning ones self, others and life.

That seems not to be so related to the beliefs and attitudes which underpin abuse.

Thats exactly where they come from.

But which you have not demonstrated. Not once, for example, have I seen you look seriously at how people might come to believe in hierarchy, rigid household roles, and so on. Rather, I've seen you argue that those aren't actually drivers of abuse.

 

[stevevw]

Because it isn't. These are very specific beliefs, and they're not necessarily "irrational."

Yes and those articles I link went towards explaining why those beliefs are taken up by some and not others. You have to be primed by your experiences to take on those beliefs. The links I provided were explaining how people can be primed or how situations can be cultivated where people are more supceptible to take on those negative beliefs.

The hint is these are negative beliefs as opposed to positive ones. So they are cultivated by negative situations and experiences that produce negative feelings especially agression and fear (anxiety) which alter or rather warp perceptions of the world which then open the door for people to be supceptible to believe such negative stuff about others and life.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes and those articles I link went towards explaining why those beliefs are taken up by some and not others.

No, they don't. Because your whole premise is that these beliefs arise out of emotional dysregulation and dysfunction, and that's simply not the case.

The hint is these are negative beliefs as opposed to positive ones.

That's a value judgement. And, I'd argue, a poor one. Each of those beliefs may be better or worse adapted to a particular social context, and better or worse expressed in particular ways.

It's not as simple as "belief in hierarchy/rigid roles/violence is negative."

 

[stevevw]

No. Amazingly, it is possible to have irrational ideas and yet not beat someone else.

Yes we all have irrational thoughts. But most people recognise them, thats maturity or emotional intelligence. Because if we have irrational thoughts about beating someone until their damaged and we think about how that is a negative action with negative consequences as the evdience shows this then deflates the irrational feelings and thinking. It exposes it and we come to our senses. Which is what most people do.

But some due to an inability to have insight into themselves and control their feelings these irrational thoughts to take hold. I liken it to a young persons thinking because their pre frontal cortex is yet to mature. They think more with emotional reasoning rather than rationality. Adults are supceptible to such thinking due to psychological distress.

Recognising the harm done by abuse is not the litmus test of rationality.

Of course it is. If rationality is about the facts, the evidence and irrationality is not then the only way we can determine "harm done" is through the evidence.

What other way is there that is clear, grounded and objective so that we can be confident enough to say its abuse or not.

Many parents physically abuse because they believe that is good and necessary discipline.

Yes and the links covered that if you read it explain why they think and believe that in the first place. But can you see the contradiction even in that statement. They think abuse is good. Thats irrational in itself. That like saying trauma from a car accident is good.

That is off topic to this thread, which is about the physical abuse of children.

Actually its very relevant those more regulated thinking and controls are what is behind physical abuse as well.

I disagree. And I refer you to my earlier statements about the kind of evidence you would need to provide in order to be convincing.

I just limked it and you have said absolutely nothing about those links. The very links that have the convincing evdience when taken together.

No, it isn't. Not at all.

What possible rational grounds could they have for damaging a child physically and mentally.

I don't think that's the most relevant part at all. There are plenty of psychologically distressed parents who never abuse, because they don't hold the attitudes and beliefs which would justify them doing so.

But the reason they don't hold those beliefs is because they don't have any need or reason to. They have seen the folly of the thinking. They were mature enough to think rationally and work through it. This is regarded as a protective factor.

Parents don't abuse just because they have the risk factors. They abuse because they not only have the risk factors but they also lack the protective factors at the same time that have allowed them to work through their emotional and psychologucal problems.

You have missed my point. Without also holding beliefs and attitudes which justify abuse, that distress would manifest in different behaviours.

No it will always manifest in aggression for some if they have allowed their negative feelings to go unchecked especially when theres a high level of persistent stress or percieved stress. Stress usually results in negative feelings like aggression, anxiety and threat and these are the fuel for control, violence and abuse.

The person who believes in violence and abuse has to be primed to believe in violence and abuse within themselves. They have got to relate and feel a need to use control, violence and abuse through their experiences. They have to be that violence and abuse to believe in it.

 

[stevevw]

No, they don't. Because your whole premise is that these beliefs arise out of emotional dysregulation and dysfunction, and that's simply not the case.

Its not the case because your saying so or its not the case that none of the articles are saying so. Because some of those articles clearly say that belief in control, violence and abuse stems from psychological distress and dysfunction.

That's a value judgement. And, I'd argue, a poor one. Each of those beliefs may be better or worse adapted to a particular social context, and better or worse expressed in particular ways.

If the belief is adapted to a different situation that did not result in abuse and violence then its fueled by different feelings, thinking and perceptions. Usually positive feelings lead to positive thinking and these are usually associated with nice things, being happy, kind, sharing the love.

But as abuse and violence are the opposite, unkind, unloving, unhappy, angry, anxious, feeling threat the beliefs are negative. So yes beliefs can be different when applied to different situyations but then thats how we tell when ones positive and the other negative by the seeds that cultivate it and the fruits it bears.

It's not as simple as "belief in hierarchy/rigid roles/violence is negative."

Thats right, and I was pointing this out earlier that a hierarchy and rigid roles are not in themselves abusive or controlling others in a negative way. But rather its the twisting of that position into something negative as opposed to positive.

 

[stevevw]

But this is not then about what causes the physical abuse of children. This whole thing we've been on where you've been carrying on about being out of control, overwhelmed, "just snapped," whatever... now you're backtracking and saying that's not what's happening during abuse.

No I am saying both happen. Sometimes and obviously this is when physical abuse happens parents get physically out of control. But in between they are doing the little things that actually fuel getting physically out of control. Its more a build up then a sudden outburst from nowhere.

These little things may not seem like they are out of control such as controlling their movements, pinching or forcefully grabbing them to conform ect. The actual act of physical abuse is an act of agression. Most parents who physically abuse don't intend to do the damage they end up doing which shows its done out of feelings such as agression at times.

But theres another side to PA where theres almost a controlled abuse except its more routine PA like the grabbing, pinching, that are different from getting wildly out of control. Yet its still being out of control as the thinking behind it comes from the same irrational mentality and emotional dysregulation as going crazy with PA. Its just a different expression or rather irrational way to PA.

And I agree, it's not. It's just been a colossal red herring and waste of time.

Wait a minute I said not all parents will get completely out of control and over the top like they have physically lost control of their bodies and are thrashing around crazily with a belt or stick on the kid. Thats what I mean. Not all PA is expressed that way. But that PA can happen in less crazy ways. The evidence supports this and its not a red herring because its how abuse happens.

To say that all that evidence I just linked which you have completely avoided commentng on or mentioning which usually means its good evidence is just unreal. Those links give good insights into why parents and people in general abuse and use violence and your saying its all a red herring.

By our values and beliefs. Some parents may discount the long term trauma and highly value the short term compliance. In their eyes, the results speak for themselves.

Thats cannot be right. You just pointed out the measure is in the individuals value judgement and not facts. So your saying the measure of whether something is actually of benefit or not health and wellbeing wise is determined "In their eyes". of the abusers value judgements.

Yet the value judgement is made in their subjective view of things. Not fact, not objective reality. So therefore we could not say that the abuser is doing anything that will have a negative effect on their health and wellbeing.

That's an endearingly optimistic take.

Its more than endearing, its helped ward off our nations becoming radical ideologies where radical beliefs rule and all sorts of crazy stuff can happen. Or a communist dictator regime.

I would have to engage with them on the level of their beliefs and values. And just telling them that they are delusional is not going to help in that discussion.

Well of course, you don't just tell individuals they are delusional. Theres better ways to put it than that. But basically the thinking is unreal. If someone believed that starving themselves was good for their health and figure I would not say they are delusional but rather gradually help them understand their thinking through smaller steps.

A straight out confrontation for someone who is not ready is too scary for them and they would not fully understand anyway. But thats similar to prevention programs in that changing beliefs is not as simple as just confronting people that their beliefs are actually destructive. That takes time and education and encouragement and motivating them to come around and change their thinking.

That seems not to be so related to the beliefs and attitudes which underpin abuse.

Well there part of the same theory. Its not so much about beliefs in abuse but how beliefs form which is the same for belief in anything positive or negative. I this case the article is talking about irrational and negative beliefs but the same mechanisms are involved.

I would say Demeaning about self, others and life would be related in that abuse and violence is demeaning people so you would have to relate to demeaning yourself and life as well. I think another was poor frustration and this may relate to control, not tolerating things outside your comfort zone by others.

But which you have not demonstrated. Not once, for example, have I seen you look seriously at how people might come to believe in hierarchy, rigid household roles, and so on. Rather, I've seen you argue that those aren't actually drivers of abuse.

Thats because I am talking about why people have those particular beliefs. Rigid roles and controlling others through hierarchy is just the symptom of something deeper.

No one wakes up one morning and decides to believe in rigid roles or that they will exploit their higher postion in some hierarchy. They have to be primed for that and this is not about beliefs but negative experiences and then pushing those negative experiences onto others through control and violence.

I think its by understanding the underlying motivations for wanting to believe in control, abuse and violence is the key. Underneath that need are reasons why the abuser wants to be so negative and harm others despite their rationalisations that they think its justified. It comes from twisted thinking not hiearchies or rigid roles in themselves.

Anyway I have given my 10 cents worth and think we have probably gone as far as we can go without beginning to go over the same ground again. I persisted so I could give more details of those articles which explained what I am talking about. I have listened to your arguements and still disagree so I guess we have to agree to disagree. its a case of allowing others to have their say now.

 

[Adam56]

The only acceptable form of punishment is spanking them. Their behind has padding and is designed to be spanked to discipline them.

 

[Paidiske]

Of course it is.

No, it isn't. Even the studies you're citing use a complex measure which is not primarily about this issue.

I just limked it and you have said absolutely nothing about those links. The very links that have the convincing evdience when taken together.

No, you didn't. And I'm not looking for a stack of unrelated links, I'm looking for comparison between abusive and non-abusive parents in the same study.

What possible rational grounds could they have for damaging a child physically and mentally.

They believe that this is what is necessary to form good citizens. Look at the post directly above mine; that person is claiming that children are "designed" to be disciplined in this way.

But the reason they don't hold those beliefs is because they don't have any need or reason to.

We don't hold beliefs only because they meet some psychological need. Our beliefs are formed by what is seen as normative in our culture; by what we are taught in our family of origin; by what we see modelled; and so on.

No it will always manifest in aggression for some if they have allowed their negative feelings to go unchecked especially when theres a high level of persistent stress or percieved stress.

Evidence? And are you claiming there is no possible outlet for aggression other than physical abuse? Because that seems like a highly improbable claim.

Its not the case because your saying so or its not the case that none of the articles are saying so.

It's not the case that that is what the weight of evidence shows.

If the belief is adapted to a different situation that did not result in abuse and violence then its fueled by different feelings, thinking and perceptions.

Or the person is simply relating in a different context.

Usually positive feelings lead to positive thinking and these are usually associated with nice things, being happy, kind, sharing the love.

Labelling feelings "positive" is a subjective value judgement.

Thats right, and I was pointing this out earlier that a hierarchy and rigid roles are not in themselves abusive or controlling others in a negative way. But rather its the twisting of that position into something negative as opposed to positive.

No, again you miss my point. "Negative" and "positive" are irrelevant subjective value judgements here. But belief in hierarchy might - for example - help a large and complex workplace to function, where it becomes maladaptive and abusive in the home.

Wait a minute I said not all parents will get completely out of control and over the top like they have physically lost control of their bodies and are thrashing around crazily with a belt or stick on the kid. Thats what I mean. Not all PA is expressed that way.

But for pages and pages and pages, this is the portrait you were arguing for. And I kept saying no, that's not what is happening, and you kept repeating the claim. Now, finally, you acknowledge that this is not the case!

Thats cannot be right.

Why not?

You just pointed out the measure is in the individuals value judgement and not facts. So your saying the measure of whether something is actually of benefit or not health and wellbeing wise is determined "In their eyes". of the abusers value judgements.

I'm saying that's what's going to determine the actions of the abuser, yes. If they see that when they beat their child, the child is then meeker, more obedient, more compliant, then in their eyes this will reinforce the necessity of the abuse. Rather than recognise the underlying trauma, they will say, "See! This form of discipline works!"

So therefore we could not say that the abuser is doing anything that will have a negative effect on their health and wellbeing.

Well, we could say it. It's doubtful whether they would accept it. That's why the long work of challenging underlying beliefs is necessary.

Its not so much about beliefs in abuse but how beliefs form which is the same for belief in anything positive or negative.

Except if we're talking about the beliefs which drive abuse, those, and those alone, are the specific beliefs which are relevant. Not "irrational" or "negative" beliefs in general.

Thats because I am talking about why people have those particular beliefs.

No, you aren't. You can't generalise from "irrational" beliefs in general to those very specific beliefs, even if we concede that they are irrational, which I don't.

No one wakes up one morning and decides to believe in rigid roles or that they will exploit their higher postion in some hierarchy.

No, it's something they have absorbed from their culture and community since their earliest days.

They have to be primed for that and this is not about beliefs but negative experiences and then pushing those negative experiences onto others through control and violence.

That's where we disagree. It is about beliefs; about cultural norms; about what is modelled and held up as ideal; and so on. People absorb that uncritically before they're even aware of it, and it forms their attitudes and beliefs in ways they may not even be consciously aware of, but which shape their behaviour.

 

[stevevw]

No, it isn't. Even the studies you're citing use a complex measure which is not primarily about this issue.

I am not sure what you mean.

No, you didn't. And I'm not looking for a stack of unrelated links, I'm looking for comparison between abusive and non-abusive parents in the same study.

The articles referred to the difference in thinking and beliefs between those who are compromised due to psychological distress and those who are not. It was those who were influenced by psychological distress were the ones who were more likely to take on the irrational beliefs such as control, rigid thinking, agression, control and abuse.

They believe that this is what is necessary to form good citizens. Look at the post directly above mine; that person is claiming that children are "designed" to be disciplined in this way.

The person above is not supporting abuse. They are talking about spanking on the backside where its padded. This your fundemental problem. You keep conflating a belief in measured and controlled CP and abuse.

There's a difference between believing in controlled dicipline to help a child become a good citizen and abusing a child. The belief itself in dicipline is not abusive.

Anyone who believes in breaking legs and stubbing smokes in an infants face is good for making a good and healthy citizen has an error in their thinking. In other words they are deluded.

We don't hold beliefs only because they meet some psychological need. Our beliefs are formed by what is seen as normative in our culture; by what we are taught in our family of origin; by what we see modelled; and so on.

Yes but people are not empty shells where they believe everything that they see or experience. Why do some believe and others don't in the same situation. It takes a certain kind of person to believe in abuse and violence. That is usually the result of them being primed psychologically.

Evidence? And are you claiming there is no possible outlet for aggression other than physical abuse? Because that seems like a highly improbable claim.

The only outlet would be to deal with the unresolved anger. Unresolved anger will come out in physical reactions. Most parents have enough insight to keep their anger in check but so some don't. Parents who abuse don't intend to abuse their kids but end up crossing a line due to their inability to control their feelings.

I already gave evidence for this.

It's not the case that that is what the weight of evidence shows.

So its your personal opinion then. But the weight of the evidence which I just linked for you says that irrational beliefs about violence, controlling and abusing others stems from psychological distress and dysfunction.

Like I said you have not even commented on the content of any of the articles I linked. So how can you make claims the weight of evidence shows otherwise.

Or the person is simply relating in a different context.

What does this actually mean. If they are relating in a different situation then they have an inclination to relate that way in that different situation compared to another. Their perception causes them to see things that way. Like the perception of a person who has psychological distress will see things negatively.

Labelling feelings "positive" is a subjective value judgement.

No its not. Feelings have a physical effect on people. You can't smile when you cry, you can't cry when your happy. Unless its tears of joy which is completely different to tears of sadnes. You can't be positive when feeling down and you can't feel agressive when your at peace in yourself.

Agression has a physical effect on our bodies, faster heart rate, tense muscles, gritting teeth ect. For some its like its come out of nowhere and intense due to their makeup as far as physical reaction. Its not subjective its a physical reaction that can be measured.

No, again you miss my point. "Negative" and "positive" are irrelevant subjective value judgements here.

No they have real outcomes, real differences in how we see things and real objective outcomes as a result. A person who has a negative outlook on doing a job will not be as into it as a person with a positive outlook. Positive emotions like love and kindness have a completely different effect than negative feelings like agression and hate.

But belief in hierarchy might - for example - help a large and complex workplace to function, where it becomes maladaptive and abusive in the home.

But then according to your logic if everything is a subjective value judgement then so are maladaptive beliefs. Its a value judgement that the belief is maladaptive.

But for pages and pages and pages, this is the portrait you were arguing for. And I kept saying no, that's not what is happening, and you kept repeating the claim. Now, finally, you acknowledge that this is not the case!

Your misrepresenting what I just said. I have not said this is not the case. I said its not the case for all PA which means that some parents especially those who end up physically abusing to the point it does injury have physically lost control.

But there are others who still physically abuse but do it in more routine ways where they don't lose control of their bodies in a wild belting. They pinch, grab hard and leave bruises, intimidate, even burn kids with cigarettes without going crazy. Its more controlled abuse despite the abuser still being out of control in a different way.

The abuser has just learnt to moderate their abuse in their own irrational way. Its just a different expression of the person being out of control. So not I am not changing the basic idea that abusing parents are compromised and don't have control of their feelings and thinking. I am just explaining how abuse can be expressed differently.

Why not?

Because we don't determine what is abuse by the subjective beliefs of a parent. If that was the case we would have to allow breaking legs and all sorts of horrible outcomes for kids because the parents subjectively believe its worth it.

Rather we can determine the truth and facts and tell them parents they are in error with their thinking and resulting beliefs and the objective reality is that breaking legs, stubbing cigarettes in faces, black eyes will actually make things much worse for the child according the the science.

I'm saying that's what's going to determine the actions of the abuser, yes. If they see that when they beat their child, the child is then meeker, more obedient, more compliant, then in their eyes this will reinforce the necessity of the abuse. Rather than recognise the underlying trauma, they will say, "See! This form of discipline works!"

First you have just supported what I have been saying that parents thinking is compromised and they don't see things like healthy parents when you say they don't recognise the damage they do due to their beliefs. Their beliefs are therefore delusional as far as reality is concerned.

Second the traits the delusional parent sees in their child as a result of their abuse at being meeker, more obedient, more compliant, may seem good in the parents eyes but in reality they are being short sighted and acting in ignorance and error of their thinking. The reality is the very opposite will happen and the child will damaged.

Because you are not recognising the difference between a belief and reality your conflating the belief as reality. Its not and we can tell the difference and therefore know that no matter what rationalisation the deluded parent gives we can show that the abuse will damage the child and expose the unreality and irrationality of the parents thinking and beliefs.

 

[stevevw]

Well, we could say it. It's doubtful whether they would accept it. That's why the long work of challenging underlying beliefs is necessary.

So once again your supporting what I have been saying. If we can "say it" say that their beliefs and thinking is in error, they have the "wrong ones" (beliefs) as you say then we can say their beliefs and thinking is irrational. Its not something good and healthy people and society believe.

If theres a lot of long work to do then that also implies that its not just the beliefs, the belief is the symptom of something deeper which is what I have also been saying ie the risk factors and environments that cultivate violence and abuse that need supporting and changing (restructuring).

Except if we're talking about the beliefs which drive abuse, those, and those alone, are the specific beliefs which are relevant. Not "irrational" or "negative" beliefs in general.

I disagree because its the same mechanisms for all negative beliefs. But I went further than this by connecting those same mechanisms to the beliefs in control, violence and abuse. The rigid, dogmatic, inflexible and black and white thinking.

This included Ellis's theory of Irrational Beliefs such as demandingness of self, others, and the world; global evaluations of human worth (self or others); awfulizing or catastrophizing; and low frustration tolerance.

These are the actual mechanisms for the negative beliefs that underpin abuse and violence. Hierarchies and rigid roles, or traditional roles are just the symptoms and only a few examples of many examples of how people think about abuse and violence.

It seems to me that you want to only emphasize these particular beliefs in Hiearchies and rigid roles because of ideological reasons. That seems to be the typical line of thought most feminist and the Woke keep repeating as the cause of just about every problem in society.

No, you aren't. You can't generalise from "irrational" beliefs in general to those very specific beliefs, even if we concede that they are irrational, which I don't.

But they come from the same place and have the same mechanisms. Belief in a Hierarchy is not wrong itself, its not a belief in abuse and control itself. Its like saying that a belief in liquor shops causes alcoholism. Its the underlying beliefs and thinking that drives abuse, violence and wanting to control other.

The controlling thinking, the belief that the world is about control relations, that people are just a means to get what you want. These beliefs come from a negative place where a human cannot empathise which is our natural state unless they have some psychological and emotional dysfunction.

No, it's something they have absorbed from their culture and community since their earliest days.

Yes that and their personal experiences even as an infant. But a child can develop a negative belief about controlling others without their parents and family believing in abuse and control. Thats because if they develop psychological and emotional issues they are inclinced to believe such things.

Its a combination of wider beliefs and individual supceptability to take on those beliefs.

That's where we disagree. It is about beliefs; about cultural norms; about what is modelled and held up as ideal; and so on. People absorb that uncritically before they're even aware of it, and it forms their attitudes and beliefs in ways they may not even be consciously aware of, but which shape their behaviour.

Yes but when it comes to actually commiting abuse and violence against another, in other words putting those beliefs into action most don't abuse. They rationalise that this is not justified against another human. Its those that cannot rationalise and have the emotional intelligence that take on those beliefs.