Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health

[Paidiske]

I linked some highly credible sources from health Authorities and Child Organisations as well as top Pediatritians who agreed. Are you saying they are wrong.

That "the single factor ultimately responsible for child maltreatment is the inability of parents to control their aggressive impulses"?

Yes. I am saying that anyone who wants to put all the blame for the abuse of children onto inability to control aggression is wrong. Aggression may be an influence on some people's abusing, but some abusers are not out-of-control aggressive, and those aggressive people who do abuse, do so because of their beliefs and attitudes which justify their behaviour.

But absent the priming conditions people would not believe such things.

But they don't believe them for the reasons you've put forward.

So yes considering that abuse is so often associated with anxiety and other everyday psychological disorders which are compounded by other risk factors as well as psychiatric disorders on top the majority of parents who aggress and use abuse and violence have some some sort of problem with cognitive and emotional dysfunction and even neurological and brain chemical issue.

Where's your evidence? This is not what the literature says. There are many abusers who do not have mental health issues.

Yes and as I said you have misrepresented what it said. First this was about psychiatric patients and not people with everyday psychological problems. So though there may be parents psychiatric conditions they are only a small proportion to parents with psychological disorders. But taken together they make up a fair %.

No, again, you have missed the point. This was a comparative study between psychiatric patients and the general population, and abuse was higher in the general population. The key quote there was "most abusive parents are not mentally ill."

So your paper is supporting what I am saying that mental illness and psychological disorders are a high risk for abuse and violence

You are ignoring the results from the general population in order to make that statement!

How is it begging the question

Begging the question: when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. Saying that something is "self-evident" and providing no arguments for that position, is begging the question.

No that contains no such support about parents not suffering psychological and emotional problems and in fact it supported what I was saying.

Again, only if you ignore the general population cohort in the study.

Do you think males are more aggressive and if so does that aggression make any difference to their tendency to be involved in more abuse and violence.

No, not really. I have read that men tend more towards physical aggression and women tend more towards relational aggression; that is, we are socialised to express our aggression differently.

Thanks it was an interesting read. But this doesn't refute that most abusers have psychological or emotional problems.

What it does, is situate the problem firmly in the realm of beliefs and attitudes.

I think todays child abuse seems different where its not so much the traditional forms of abuse but any form of abuse.

Not what the research says, though. Remember, corporal punishment is still the most common form of physical abuse.

 

[stevevw]

That "the single factor ultimately responsible for child maltreatment is the inability of parents to control their aggressive impulses"?

Yes. I am saying that anyone who wants to put all the blame for the abuse of children onto inability to control aggression is wrong.

So your saying highly credible sources are wrong and the research is wrong. Can you give evidence that these credible sources are wrong on this.

Aggression may be an influence on some people's abusing, but some abusers are not out-of-control aggressive, and those aggressive people who do abuse, do so because of their beliefs and attitudes which justify their behaviour.

Can you give me evidence that abusers are not influenced by their out of control aggression. I cannot see how you can refute this because all abuse is an act of negative aggression.

When we couple this with the fact that acting on negative aggression is itself being out of control generally for any behavioural problem it stands to reason that abusers are at least having trouble controlling their aggressive feelings and impulses.

And its not a case of all the blame is on aggression. Aggression is just the end result of other problems. Theres also stress, feelings of threat, irrational anxiety, low frustration tolerance, feelings which all contribute. But aggress is always the end result when it comes to abuse and violence.

But they don't believe them for the reasons you've put forward.

How do you know that. Whatever it is that makes people beieve that abuse and violence towards others is good must be something deeply negative with the person that makes them feel this way. Like because they are hurting them must hurt others. Its no coincident that past abuse and living with DV is a high risk for people to go on and abuse others. They get damaged and they go on to damage others.

But people don;t have to be damaged by past abuse. They can be damaged by the devastation of disadvantage where they suffer many setbacks which act in a similar way to past abuse on their psyche. They have experienced being controlled and the depreivation it causes so they see that as how the world works and thus do it to others.

Where's your evidence? This is not what the literature says.

I just literally provided tons of evidence throughout this thread. Even you own link was my evidence when it said that it is by treating mental illness and not their beliefs that we stop them abusing. It is the same for those with psychological disorders. Treat the psychological disorders (not the beliefs) and they will stop abusing. Of course treating the disordered thinking and feelings also is what stops the belief.

There are many abusers who do not have mental health issues.

Like I said show me the evidence. The link you gave last time actually supported my case not yours.

No, again, you have missed the point. This was a comparative study between psychiatric patients and the general population, and abuse was higher in the general population. The key quote there was "most abusive parents are not mentally ill."

And as psychiatric disorders (mental illness) is relatively rare for parents this is different to what I am talking about as far as psychological and emotion problems like anxiety disorders.

These are common and as abuse is basically negative aggression and negative aggression is linked to anxiety and other psychological disorders then all abuser will suffer some psychological dysregulation because of the simple fact that they acted on their aggression (feelings) rather than regulate them.

You are ignoring the results from the general population in order to make that statement!

So what does it mean when it says "However, mental illness that is adequately treated would not be expected to lead to increased violence risk".
This implies that untreated parents with mental illness will be at risk. That it is the treatment that deminishes the risk.

They were also comparing newly released patients who had treatment to abusers in the general population. So psychiatric patients with treatment were less at risk that abusers in the general population which makes sense because they have been treated.

But untreaded parents with psychiatric conditions are still at risk. This also doesn't negate the fact that abusers in the general population don't have psychological disorders as opposed to psychiartic disorders which is a different thing.

So the study doesn't show that abuser don't have mental illness or psychological disorders. In fact it implies that if mental illness like psychological disoders are not treated then this is a risk for abuse. The reason I am sure of this is that just about every other source says that psychological and mental disorders are a risk for abuse.

Begging the question: when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. Saying that something is "self-evident" and providing no arguments for that position, is begging the question.

I just gave you the arguement. So your saying its not self evidence that nature has designed things that unless theres some psychological or other problem a mother, parents don't naturally want to bond, care and protect their child. That they don't empathise with them of all people. The reason I said this is because all evidence including from behavioural science to biology and evolution point to this fact.

Again, only if you ignore the general population cohort in the study.

It doesn't say anything about the state of abusers in the general population. They could be suffering psychological and emotional problems. We just don't know because they don't tell us.

No, not really. I have read that men tend more towards physical aggression and women tend more towards relational aggression; that is, we are socialised to express our aggression differently.

So does testosterone have anything to do with aggression.

What it does, is situate the problem firmly in the realm of beliefs and attitudes.

Of course it does because its only speaking about beliefs and attitudes so its looking at abuse from one angle when theres several. I could as I have done link a dozen articles that never mention beliefs and attitudes and talk about reducing the risk factors which directly prevents abuse.

Not what the research says, though. Remember, corporal punishment is still the most common form of physical abuse.

Any abuse that is asociated with a childs behaviour is CP because its harm done in relation to controlling a childs behaviour. THe traditional methods such as slapping over the back side with a hand or implement usually a wooden spoon or paddle is outdated now.

Most abuse happens by hitting anywhere on the body including the head, using implements like actual weapons, shaking, throwing against walls, dropping on the floor, kicking, burning and choking. These are not traditional forms.

Physical Abuse​

Physical abuse refers to striking or beating another person with the hands or an object, but may include assault with a knife, gun, or other weapon. Physical abuse also includes such behaviors as locking someone in a closet or other small space, depriving someone of sleep, burning, gagging, or tying them up, etc. Physical abuse of infants may include shaking them, dropping them on the floor, or throwing them against the wall or other hard object.

What are the Types of Abuse? Psychological, Physical, and More

Abuse refers to harmful or injurious treatment of another human being that may include physical, sexual, verba

psychcentral.com

The most common forms of child abuse involve skin lesions (such as bruises and burns) and bone fractures

https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/portable-guide-to-investigating-child-abuse.pdf

The most common abuses include burns and fractured bones. That is more than just bending a kid over the knee. This is from extreme abuse like throwing kids against walls, fist punching them, shaking them violently, dropping them onto the floor and hitting them with something more than their hand or a wooden spoon like a weapon of somesort such as a baseball bat or steel pole.

 

[stevevw]

I mean that they are using clinical scales to measure irrational thinking, but those clinical scales don't necessarily relate to the beliefs and attitudes which drive abuse.

Yes they do. You said the abuser believes that the abuse is justified and rational because its good for their health and wellbeing, makes them a better person behaviour wise.

So obviously evidence that objectively shows that their rational and justification are wrong, are baseless means they are believing in a false belief based on no evidence. Just like a person who claims eating rat poison is healthy. We can show the evidence that its not. So if they persist in their false belief and truely believe its real and correct then they are deluded.

But not the difference between those who abuse and those who do not, some of whom might be "compromised," but some of whom are not.

They did not need to do that because they linked the thinking to abuse. In other words it takes a certain kind of thinking to abuse in the first place which non abusers don't have.

Not if the discipline is abusive, and for many people, it is. That's what I've been trying to point out to you. There are plenty of people exercising "controlled discipline" which is way over the line of abuse.

You are missing the point. We know in reality, factually that abuse over the line is abuse right. Thats why we can prosecute them. Its over the line because as the OP said its damaging to the child and not as the abusers claim in their deluded thinking that it makes them a better person.

Thats the delusion that they believe that what they are doing is good for the child when in reality its not. They have a false belief, their thinking is in error to believe such unreal things. Its like believing rat poison is good for your dog when in reality it isn't.

But this is not the majority of physical abuse. Remember, we're talking about hitting a child with an implement, or more than six times, or hard enough to leave a mark. Plenty of people will do that, but will never break a limb.

We keep going over this. As I have said many times your logic has to apply to all damage from abuse. Just as the abuser may believe that a small harm may be good for the child the same logic must apply they they can take this further and believe that split lips, black eyes, burns, kicking, and fractured bones are good for the child.

By the way the most common injury from child abuse is fractured bones so the majority of abuse is more serious than just hitting a child 4 times over the limit or with a wooden spoon.

Some people learn (for example) to go and hit a punching bag, rather than a person. My point is, there's not only one way to express aggression.

Thats right. But as you said the person "learned" to hit a punching bag instead. So it implies they had some insight, some emotional intelligence to realise this and choose it. But some people don't even have that insight and perhaps your example may not have at one point and thats why they choose to use a punching bag.

Yes theres more than one way to express aggression but this does not mean that everyone has the same ability to choose which way they express their aggression. That negative aggression is itself about intending to harm someone there is already a greater inclination within a person with aggressive disorders to abuse and be violent compared to those without these tendencies who don't abuse.

You haven't shown this to be true. Sure, they don't admit that what they're doing is abuse, but plenty of them do intend to do exactly what they're doing.

Lol so your saying parents get together or on their own and can predict and list the injuries they end up inflicting before hand. Like they tell littel Johnny ok son here is the list of punishments we have come up with if you misbehave. These are a split lip for speaking back, strangulation if you don't eat your dinner, being thrown against the wall which may include a fracture rib and lets see ah yes burning if you speak back.

Parents don't sit there and think I am going to burn my child or split their lip as punishment. They may think I will adminsiter harsh punishment but not that they will do those specific harms. They happen as a result of going over board.

But heres the thing with your logic. Even if they did truely believe they were intending to do those particualr harms this just makes a case that they are not in their right minds to actually believe that these injuries are good for their kids health and wellbeing. It makes it more obvious that they are irrational that they could truely believe such falsehoods in the objective world.

My professional opinion as someone with experience in primary prevention programmes.

But your commenting on psychological and behavioural sciences which you are not a professional in. So if you want to use your credentials as evidence for your claims then you can't then engage in logical fallacies of ad hominems to undermine myself and the other professionals I have used to support my claims. Its gotta work both ways.

It means that what is appropriate in one setting might not be appropriate in another. Think (as a frivolous example) of Captain von Trapp trying to raise his children as if they were naval subordinates.

But how does this refute that if its negative thinking, feelings and perceptions that fule abuse then its positive thinking, feelings and beliefs that prevent it. You said that some parents who have psychological and emotional issues don't abuse. I said thats because they have some preventative factors which enable them to think rationally and have insight into their behaviour and realise its unjustified.

Of course it is.

No emotions have a physical effect on the body and that is not subjective. You can't help but not smile when your happy. You can't help frown when your angry or tense up when your aggressive and violent. Its a basic evolutionary instinct.

However, anger is not necessarily "negative."
There are times when anger is appropriate, and when it functions as a protective mechanism (for example. Expecting people to always feel "positive," no matter their circumstances, is inappropriate and unhealthy.

We are not talking about anger when it comes to abuse and violence but aggression which is a negative feeling and not emotion like anger. All aggression associated with abuse is negative and will often go to its extreme end of violence andf influence behaviour negatively. .

Which is what I have been saying all the way through the thread; that this whole conversation is premised on value judgements about particular behaviours and the beliefs which drive them.

You missed the point. You are making an objective claim that a belief in a hierarchy can be maladaptive at work, or in the home. I am saying according to your logic if its all subjective then you can't make any objective claims about a hierarchy being maladaptive because its only a subjective value judgemnet and holds no weight.

If so, you have done a very poor job of explaining your view.

I don't know some of what I have said is pretty straight forward and not hard to understanding. Like for example your continued misrepresentation that its single risks that cause abuse rather than being a combination which I explained many times. You made many too many to name.

The latest being conflating anger and aggression. Another is using exceptions as rules or either/or fallacy where you think because some parents with mental illness or psychological disorders don't abuse therefore its not something that is a risk for abuse. Or that somehow abusers thinking is rational in the world when its only rational to them. These misrepresented the articles and my arguement.

I'm not saying we have to agree with them. But I am describing the abusive parents' point of view.

You were saying abusers subjective thinking and beliefs as rational in response to my arguement that they are irrational. We can describe their "their" being the destionguishing word as opposed to objective reality.

And I see no reason why that description "cannot be right," and many reasons why it is more often right than the "out of control" explanation.

But as you claim even if its just 10 smacks over the limit its clearly abuse and harmful to the childs wellbeing. So any parent who truely believes even 10 smacks is ok for a childs wellbeing is also irrational because we can prove that its not conducive of good wellbeing.

Thats unless you want to start arguing that going slightly over the limit is ok and healthy thinking. But like I said your logic has to all to all abuse. That the same irrational thinking that believes going over the limit even slightly is ok has to apply to the harsher abuses like split lips and kicks to the ribs.

In other words if you argue that anything deemed abuse even slightly over is rational and ok then you are making a case for abuse being ok for kids wellbeing.

That is not what I am saying. I'm not saying their "thinking is compromised." I am saying they place a higher value on the short term benefits (as they see them) of abusive discipline, and discount potential long term harm.

Yes they discount the truth, they discount the proven long term harm that abuse causes. In that sense they deluded by their belief. As the articles say "they have unreal expectations'. Unreal meaning irrational.

Not at all. But I am saying that we need to recognise the beliefs of the abusive parents, and take them seriously, if we are to have any hope of challenging them successfully.

Yes I agree but we have to recognise those beliefs and thinking for what they are irrational. The fact that we want to re-educate and re-structure their beliefs and thinking into something better, something which is the correct way to believe and think to prevent abuse shows that their thinking is in error.

Being in error is not the same as being irrational. You can be quite rational, and yet be in error.

I mean cognitive error or distortions not errors like 1 + 1 = 3. Or getting a year wrong in history when the content was still rational and supported by objective evidence.

Its more psychological where theres a problem with thought patterns themselves. So the error would be a distortion of reality itself. Truely believing that 1 + 1 = 3 and not being able to recognise the error to correct in due to a distorted perception of the world and reality. Which in turn is caused by psychological distress such as anxiety disorders.

Worry makes the average person sometimes distort reality, making problems bigger than they really are, thinking something bad will happen when theres no real threat. But for some especially when theres increased stressors that worry turns to anxiety disorders and other psychlogical disorders where thinking becomes even more warped.

A cognitive distortion is an exaggerated or irrational thought pattern involved in the onset or perpetuation of psychopathological states, such as depression and anxiety.[1] Cognitive distortions are thoughts that cause individuals to perceive reality inaccurately.

Cognitive distortion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Paidiske]

So your saying highly credible sources are wrong and the research is wrong. Can you give evidence that these credible sources are wrong on this.

I'm saying that particular source is easily contradicted with other highly credible sources, many of which have been provided throughout this thread.

Can you give me evidence that abusers are not influenced by their out of control aggression.

That is not my claim. I am not claiming that abusers are not "influenced by" aggression. I am claiming that aggression is not the determining factor of abuse.

How do you know that.

Because we know very well what shapes these beliefs. I have provided sources which explore this in some depth.

I just literally provided tons of evidence throughout this thread.

That "the majority of parents who ...use abuse and violence have some some sort of problem with cognitive and emotional dysfunction and even neurological and brain chemical issue"? No, you haven't. Not at all. At best you've shown that some do.

Even you own link was my evidence when it said that it is by treating mental illness and not their beliefs that we stop them abusing.

Again, you're ignoring the general population cohort in that study...

The link you gave last time actually supported my case not yours.

No, sorry, it doesn't.

So what does it mean when it says "However, mental illness that is adequately treated would not be expected to lead to increased violence risk".

Exactly what it says. Mental illness (adequately treated) does not increase risk. It does not mean there is no risk in the absence of mental illness.

But untreaded parents with psychiatric conditions are still at risk.

The point is that the general population cohort were not parents with psychiatric conditions.

So the study doesn't show that abuser don't have mental illness or psychological disorders.

Apart from where it actually says that, in so many words, which I have now quoted for you more than once.

So your saying its not self evidence that nature has designed things that unless theres some psychological or other problem a mother, parents don't naturally want to bond, care and protect their child.

Designed? I'd want to query even that point of view.

So does testosterone have anything to do with aggression.

This is off topic to the thread, and I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

He traditional methods such as slapping over the back side with a hand or implement usually a wooden spoon or paddle is outdated now.

You don't think they happen commonly any more? I really seriously doubt that.

The most common abuses include burns and fractured bones.

No; they include a category which include burns and fractured bones, but also bruises. I'd argue, even citing your source, that bruises are far more common.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes they do.

Really? Would you please cite exactly what clinical measures for irrational thinking are measuring? And highlight where those measures relate to acceptance of violence, hierarchy, rigid roles, power and control.

So obviously evidence that objectively shows that their rational and justification are wrong, are baseless means they are believing in a false belief based on no evidence.

That doesn't mean they're irrational.

In other words it takes a certain kind of thinking to abuse in the first place which non abusers don't have.

Indeed it does, but it's not about being cognitively and affectively compromised.

As I have said many times your logic has to apply to all damage from abuse.

And I have now given you a source that says that it does, even in extreme cases.

By the way the most common injury from child abuse is fractured bones

Even your own source listed this as "uncommon"! It might be the most common, for example, to present in an emergency department, because nobody goes to the ER for bruises. But it's not the most common occurrence.

Yes theres more than one way to express aggression but this does not mean that everyone has the same ability to choose which way they express their aggression.

I am not buying that abusers don't have the free will to choose not to abuse. They do.

Lol so your saying parents get together or on their own and can predict and list the injuries they end up inflicting before hand.

Maybe the first time, a parent doesn't realise how badly that belt will bruise and welt a child. But they can hardly claim innocence the umpteenth time. They know exactly what they're doing.

But your commenting on psychological and behavioural sciences which you are not a professional in.

I can read and understand a paper, though. I have done some study in both areas.

But how does this refute that if its negative thinking, feelings and perceptions that fule abuse then its positive thinking, feelings and beliefs that prevent it.

"Negative" and "positive" are meaningless in this sense.

You said that some parents who have psychological and emotional issues don't abuse. I said thats because they have some preventative factors which enable them to think rationally and have insight into their behaviour and realise its unjustified.

And I'm sure I've said that no, it's not about being able to think rationally, because many abusers are quite rational.

No emotions have a physical effect on the body and that is not subjective.

But labelling that effect "positive" or "negative" is subjective. There are times when anger fuels survival. There are times when fear is an appropriate reaction to a threat. And so on.

We are not talking about anger when it comes to abuse and violence but aggression which is a negative feeling and not emotion like anger.

No, it's not a feeling or an emotion. It's a complex personality trait.

You are making an objective claim that a belief in a hierarchy can be maladaptive at work, or in the home. I am saying according to your logic if its all subjective then you can't make any objective claims about a hierarchy being maladaptive because its only a subjective value judgemnet and holds no weight.

We can look at the outcomes in terms of human wellbeing, and see that (for example) hierarchy in marriage has very poor outcomes.

These misrepresented the articles and my arguement.

Lol. Critiquing something is not misrepresenting it.

So any parent who truely believes even 10 smacks is ok for a childs wellbeing is also irrational because we can prove that its not conducive of good wellbeing.

Being in error about something is not the same as being irrational.

In other words if you argue that anything deemed abuse even slightly over is rational and ok

You are the one saying that something that is rational is "okay." I am saying it is possible for it to be rational and yet not "okay" at all.

"they have unreal expectations'. Unreal meaning irrational.

Well, no. I can have unreal but perfectly rational expectations. I can have, for example, a perfectly rational expectation that my husband will cook dinner tonight, based on our habits of sharing household chores and communication on the subject, yet it may turn out to be "unreal" if, in fact, he fails to cook for some reason.

Unreal is not the same as irrational.

Yes I agree but we have to recognise those beliefs and thinking for what they are irrational.

And I am saying that categorising them as irrational is both incorrect, and unhelpful. Because instead of dealing with the real reasons people hold these beliefs, we will end up pursuing the false idea of "irrationality."

 

[stevevw]

You yourself were pointing out that only relatively recently in our history, it was something pretty much everyone in society believed. I wouldn't say none of them were "good;" just that they did the best they had with what they knew. We now know better, so we can try to do better.

Yeah we also use to believe the earth was flat or that labotomies cured insanity. It doesn't make it rational to believe back then or now. The fact that we do know better means that anyone who believes in such things is delusional. It would be like someone believing in a flat earth still and making out of this world rationalisations that the earth is flat when its clearly not.

I would agree if we were both talking about restructuring cultural norms around violence, hierarchy, rigid roles, power and control, and so on. I suspect you are not.

Yes but those beliefs like I said are the symptoms of what needs to be restructured and changed. Its the underlying reasons people want to believe in rigid roles, controlling and abusing others. What motivates them.

A big part of that restructuring even according to your own links is things like making society more equal as its the abuse of power that oppresses people causes the suffering of the oppressed which includes the psychological distress they end up experiencing. Which then perpetuates the cycle of abuse where the oppressed learn to abuse and so on.

So this means making the economically disadvantaged more equal and supporting them so they don't suffer. You can't just change peoples beliefs about abuse and violence without changing the individual, famility and community wide inequality and the suffering of that inequality.

Again, that is a subjective value judgement.

I broke it down earlier. Anxiety disorders lead to irrational thinking and perceptions of self and the world. The negative beliefs about control, abuse and violence stem from the distorted perceptions ie unreal percieved worries, threat ect. Risk facts like stressors financial, relationship conflict ect compound the anxiety that increase the irrational thinking and beliefs. Its a self feeding loop.

But you don't need any of those traits in order to hold the beliefs which underpin abuse.

Well you need negative aggression and that requires negative feelings and thinking. Positive feelings and thinking like happiness and thinking good of people don't produce negative outcomes where you want to harm them. But negative feelings and thinking does. So actually you do need those traits to abuse.

No, I want to emphasise these particular beliefs because they are the ones which have been shown to underpin and drive abuse. They are the beliefs which abusers hold, and non-abusers do not.

Abuse is basically about power and control. So roles, hierarchies ect are the vichicles where power and control happen. But this can happen any situation or structure. Its basically the denial of someones autonomy by others through unjustified power and control over them. But its the need to want to abuse and control others and use violence that seems to be the underlying motivation.

No, they don't.

But abuse is based on irrational beliefs about power and control not hierarchies and roles themself. So anywhere there are beliefs in power and control regardles of what the structure is relates to the same beliefs. Belief in a hierarchy itself is not an irrational belief. Belief in a traditional marriage itself is not an irrational belief. Its the underlying belief in power and control.

Therefore we can identify a hierarchy which has been used as a vichle for abusing power and control as opposed to a hierarchy that does not involved abuses of power and control. Your giving hierarchies a bad name lol.

It's the cluster together of beliefs in hierarchy, rigid roles, power and control, and acceptance of violence, which add up to abuse. So not belief in hierarchy alone, but it is part of the problem.

I get concerned when people narrowly focus on specific aspects like they are the abuse itself. For example you say rigid roles. So what about Christian adoption agencies who have the policy to only adopt to married mums and dads as the roles for children. They technically have a belief in the rigid role of a child needing a mum and dad. Is that a belief is power and control, is that a belief in abuse. Some progressives say it is.

Sure.

Or a child can develop a positive belief even when their parents believe in abuse. Such as that one sibling may believe and the other one doesn't. Both hear the same message and see the same examples but one doesn't end up believing and the other one doesn't. So its more than the belief. Each person has to be primed to believe.

Or because those beliefs are modelled to them as culturally normative.

But if two people can have different and opposite beliefs from the same beliefs that were modelled then its more than just trying to convince a person who doesn't want to believe or doesn't have the priming to believe to take on those beliefs.

Perhaps, but individual susceptibility can't be boiled down to psychological issues.

When it comes to beliefs it can. Psychological issues include emotional problems. To believe in something negative you have to relate to the negative. You have to be primed within yourself to be attracted to take on those beliefs which contradict driving force of human nature to empathise and be kind to others as you would want them to be kind to you. .

I'm sorry, no. There are plenty of abusers who can rationalise and who do have emotional intelligence, but still believe that these things are right and appropriate.

Thats a contradiction in terms and in psychology 101. If abuse is negative feelings and thinking and emotional intelligence is about exposing negative feelings and thinking then how can a person be emotionally intelligent and hold negative feelings and thinking. Emotional intelligence is designed to expose the type of immature thinking that abusing others is ok.

In fact your actually saying emotional intelligence is a risk factor when in fact its a well known preventative factor for violence and abuse.

Emotional Intelligence: A Violence Strategy
Emotional intelligence at the individual, family, community, and society levels is proposed as a cognitive–behavioral strategy to conquer violence. Emotional intelligence is also known as the emotional quotient. An emotionally intelligent person has the capacity or ability to recognize his or her own feelings and emotions, recognize the feelings and emotions of other persons, and discriminate and differentiate the various types of emotions appropriately, and use this emotional knowledge to guide his or her thinking and behavior.

Education Today

 

[Paidiske]

Its the underlying reasons people want to believe in rigid roles, controlling and abusing others. What motivates them.

Yes and no. Those motivations can find more appropriate, even healthy outlets.

A big part of that restructuring even according to your own links is things like making society more equal as its the abuse of power that oppresses people causes the suffering of the oppressed which includes the psychological distress they end up experiencing. Which then perpetuates the cycle of abuse where the oppressed learn to abuse and so on.

Except that's not it at all. It's more that inequality feeds the entitlement of the oppressors, leading them to feel justified in their abusing.

The negative beliefs about control, abuse and violence stem from the distorted perceptions

Not necessarily. If that were true, social norms would be irrelevant; but they are highly relevant.

Well you need negative aggression

To hold beliefs which justify violence, power and control, hierarchy, and rigid roles? No, you don't. You can believe those things without being personally particularly aggressive.

Abuse is basically about power and control. So roles, hierarchies ect are the vichicles where power and control happen. But this can happen any situation or structure.

Well, no. If the structure does not give the abuser power over the abused, they can't enforce their power and control.

But abuse is based on irrational beliefs about power and control not hierarchies and roles themself.

No. It isn't. This is where your whole argument falls apart. The claim that abuse rests on "irrational" beliefs is just wrong.

And the hierarchies and roles set up and reinforce the social norms which reinforce the beliefs which underpin abuse. Telling people they have a God-given right to control others does lead them to thinking it's right for them to control others (whodathunk?).

Belief in a hierarchy itself is not an irrational belief.

No, it isn't. But it is one of the cluster of beliefs which underpin abuse. Which is part of why I've been arguing that the beliefs which drive abuse aren't irrational.

Its the underlying belief in power and control.

What is hierarchy, if not the structural expression of power and control?

Your giving hierarchies a bad name lol.

I didn't invent the research. Reality is giving hierarchies a bad name.

For example you say rigid roles. So what about Christian adoption agencies who have the policy to only adopt to married mums and dads as the roles for children.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing. I am talking about rigid roles in the sense that they limit the options and potential of people (for example, discouraging wives from working, or girls from finishing school, because their role is seen to be in the home).

Is that a belief is power and control, is that a belief in abuse.

Well, to some extent the adoption agency is exercising power and control in that situation. I don't think I'd go so far as to say that it's abusive, but we do need to recognise the power dynamics involved.

Or a child can develop a positive belief even when their parents believe in abuse.

Sure. I have never claimed that our beliefs are formed solely by the beliefs of our families of origin. That would be clearly false.

Such as that one sibling may believe and the other one doesn't. Both hear the same message and see the same examples but one doesn't end up believing and the other one doesn't. So its more than the belief. Each person has to be primed to believe.

We would also have to note that siblings do not have identical life experiences.

When it comes to beliefs it can.

Yeah, no, it really can't. We know there is a whole complex interplay of factors, internal and external, influencing belief formation.

If abuse is negative feelings and thinking and emotional intelligence is about exposing negative feelings and thinking then how can a person be emotionally intelligent and hold negative feelings and thinking.

Because your first premise is flawed. Abuse is not "negative feelings and thinking."

 

[stevevw]

I'm saying that particular source is easily contradicted with other highly credible sources, many of which have been provided throughout this thread.

How can it, its logically impossible as all abuse is an act of aggression. So aggression is involved every time. When aggression is not controlled that indicates a psychological and emotional problem.

That is not my claim. I am not claiming that abusers are not "influenced by" aggression. I am claiming that aggression is not the determining factor of abuse.

Ok So its one of the determining factors in abuse. You can't abuse unless you aggress in a negative way. You can't aggress in a negative way unless there is a psychological and emotional problem.

Because we know very well what shapes these beliefs. I have provided sources which explore this in some depth.

But we want to know what shapes people to believe such things. Like I said two people can believe the opposite. So a person has to be primed to believe in abuse and violence.

That "the majority of parents who ...use abuse and violence have some some sort of problem with cognitive and emotional dysfunction and even neurological and brain chemical issue"? No, you haven't. Not at all. At best you've shown that some do.

Its simple really. Abuse is negative aggression, negative aggression only happens with psychological and emotional problems. All aggression is intended to physically harm. So its a negative feelings that is not being controlled due to emotional dysregulation.

Again, you're ignoring the general population cohort in that study...

Whats the general population got to do with it. It clearly states that treatment prevents mentally ill parents from abusing.

Exactly what it says. Mental illness (adequately treated) does not increase risk. It does not mean there is no risk in the absence of mental illness.

It means that if the patient was not treated then they were at risk to abuse. The only reason they were deemed not at risk is because they were treated. In other world all untreated parents with mental illness will by at risk of child abuse.

The point is that the general population cohort were not parents with psychiatric conditions.

Yes but this does not mean they did not have psychological disorders like common anxiety which are not psychiatric conditions. So the abusers in the general population they were comparing to could have all had psychologucal problems of one sort or another.

Your assuming abusers in the general population had not issues.

Apart from where it actually says that, in so many words, which I have now quoted for you more than once.

It doesn't matter how many times you quote something out of context it doesn't change the fact that your assuming things without evidence. Speaking in so many words the article said in so many words that unless parents with mental illness are treated they will be at high risk of abusing.

Designed? I'd want to query even that point of view.

lol, gee designed is such a dirty word, considering God did design us with natural human desires, emotions and bodily functions. One of those is that a mother has a natural bond with their baby and matural instinct. The same with a father. So abusing a child goes against this natural instinct.

This is off topic to the thread, and I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

Its completely on topic. We are talking about aggression, aggression is linked to abuse and high testosterone can cause higher aggression. If testosterone is not relevant then why is it so often brought up when discussing male violence, the tendency of males to be more violent.

How is this tendency related to belief. No one believes themseves into having higher rates of testosterone. Its a hormonal brain chemical and irregularities in brain chemicals are linked to abuse and violence.

You don't think they happen commonly any more? I really seriously doubt that.

Do you think new parents do the old fashioned bending over the knee or desk. I though they didn't really care. Anyway if burns, bites and broken bones are the most common they certainly don't happen from bending someone over your knee. So at least a majority seems to happen in non-traditional ways today.

No; they include a category which include burns and fractured bones, but also bruises. I'd argue, even citing your source, that bruises are far more common.

I would tend to agree as a bruise can come from a number or ways. But according to this article the most commom place brruises appear are around the head and face. Thats certainly not on the bottom and is an immediate crossing the line as even light hits to the head are deemed abuse. But to go for the head rather than the bottom shows its not controlled or routine but lashing out at the head.

The most common area of bruising for the abused children includes the head and face.

Child Abuse and Neglect - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Paidiske]

How can it, its logically impossible as all abuse is an act of aggression.

No, it isn't. A parent administering what they see as loving and necessary discipline is not necessarily aggressive.

But we want to know what shapes people to believe such things.

I gave you an example earlier, of social dominance orientation as the tendency to believe in or value hierarchy. There is plenty of literature out there on what shapes people to believe in it, and guess what? It's complex and multi-faceted and not down to being irrational or the like.

Abuse is negative aggression,

Except when it isn't. As long as you're working with this definition, you're going to miss much of what's really going on.

Whats the general population got to do with it.

It's that, in comparison to the psychiatric patients, there was more abuse in the general population. Who did not have mental illness in the first place. And the study specifically said, as I quoted for you several times, there were people who abused who did not have mental illness.

The only reason they were deemed not at risk is because they were treated.

Not at increased risk, which is not the same thing.

In other world all untreated parents with mental illness will by at risk of child abuse.

Everyone is at risk of abusing.

Yes but this does not mean they did not have psychological disorders like common anxiety which are not psychiatric conditions.

Nor does it mean that every single one of them did. The report clearly stated "most abusive parents are not mentally ill." Let that sink in!

Its completely on topic. We are talking about aggression,

You are talking about aggression. I am dismissing aggression as a relevant issue in the prevention of abuse, and I am therefore uninterested in (for example) sex differences in aggression.

Do you think new parents do the old fashioned bending over the knee or desk.

Or some other similar form of corporal punishment, of course. You don't actually think this has been eradicated, do you? Because we know it hasn't. It's still the most common form of physical abuse.

 

[stevevw]

Yes and no. Those motivations can find more appropriate, even healthy outlets.

Yes some can and some can't find healthy ways to outlet their unhealthy and negative feelings and thinking.Unlike the healthy outlets that come from emotional intelligence some are emotionally dumb.

Except that's not it at all. It's more that inequality feeds the entitlement of the oppressors, leading them to feel justified in their abusing.

It would work both ways.There would be the feeling of justified power and position from the abusive priviledge while at the same time causing the disadvantage and disempowerment of the victims which we know from the rearch leads to psychological distress and dysfunction.

That in turn creates the perception of threat and injustice and leads to aggression and violence as a response and reaction within their own communities. Thus feeding the cyle of abuse and violence.

Thats why I am saying the priviledged and oppressors psyche is also warped perceptions by the same stressors and lack of ability to regulate emotions where they think and see the world as oppressors and victims, rigid thinking, us and them thinking. The oppressors,the abusers are projectin that thinking and beliefs onto the victims thus feeding the cycle of abuse and violence.

Not necessarily. If that were true, social norms would be irrelevant; but they are highly relevant. '

Its the distorting of the positive aspect of the social norm. Its the twisting of a social norm into a negative and harmful belief and behaviour. For example the social norm that we raise our children to be responsible and well behaved citizens is a positive norm we have come to realise.

But its when irrational beliefs about how that should be done is what leads to radicalism, fundementalism, viole4nce.The ideological thinking based on unsupported assumptions about people, society and the world to the point where the belief takes over (actually operating on feelings and not facts) and drives them to inappropriate behaviour.

To hold beliefs which justify violence, power and control, hierarchy, and rigid roles? No, you don't. You can believe those things without being personally particularly aggressive.

Not if those negative beliefs lead to abuse and violence as all acts of abuse and violence are acts of aggression. You can have positive beliefs about power, control, hierarchies and rigid roles that won't lead a person to aggression and violence.

But to get fromthe belief to violence and abuse there has to be a negative twisting of the persons beliefs towards violences and abuse as opposed to peace and kindness.

No. It isn't. This is where your whole argument falls apart. The claim that abuse rests on "irrational" beliefs is just wrong.

Call it irrational, cognitive errors, mistaken thinking, unreal thinking the idea that any abuse whether just over the line or a long way over the line is good for a childs health and wellbeing doesn't cohere with the real world, with what actually happens in the real world.

You can't make that thinking into something that coheres with real world experiences of the damage done to a childs health and wellbeing. If a parent truely believes that this proven abuse is good for the child rather than unhealthy and psychologically damaging then they are just plain deluded.

And the hierarchies and roles set up and reinforce the social norms which reinforce the beliefs which underpin abuse.

Only if those hierarchies and roles are specificlly setup or evolve into abusive situations. There are many natural hierarchies for example whyere people end up at the higher positions which have nothing to do with them abusing. We have to destingush between abusive hierarchies and natural non abusive ones.

Otherwise peoplewill be falsely accused of being oppressive when they may have naturally got there without abusing others even if some people percieve they have it better off or some prividdged as a result.

Telling people they have a God-given right to control others does lead them to thinking it's right for them to control others (whodathunk?).

The problem with your logic is that not everyone believes that when they are told or hear the message. In fact the majority don't. Sothere is something that destinguishes those who do from those who don't.

As abuse and violence are negative and soul destroying they have to come frtom a person who sees the world that way and is more inclined to pickup the belief.

No, it isn't. But it is one of the cluster of beliefs which underpin abuse. Which is part of why I've been arguing that the beliefs which drive abuse aren't irrational.

But what exactly are those fundemental beliefs in. They are in the abuse of power and hiearchies or marriages or organisations. Not the hiearchies, marriages and organisations themselves.

In other words its in the actual mindset, the mindfilters that percieve the world as a place of power and control over others. The rigid and black and white thinking, the perceptions that the world is about oppressors and victims, controlling outside situations and people to achieve that percieved unreal world.

The article I linked from Ellis was a good insight into the mindset of abusers and violent people. How core beliefs such as low friustration tolerance, awefulizing, demandingness and global evaluation of human worth. These core beliefs are what lead to the idea of enforcing rigid roles and other behaviours of abuse and violence.

What is hierarchy, if not the structural expression of power and control?

But it doesn't mean that the person on the higher position is abusing power or got there abusing power. For example we can form a hierachy of sports people from amerature to professional with the elite sports people at the top who got there through natural ability and/or effort such as dedicated training.

There are differences in status, and even earning capacity where some may benefit compared to others. But no one is abusing or controling others. In fact there are natural hiearchies such as nested hierarchies in evolution for a number of traits and behaviours where many apply to humans. Ie males will dominate certain elite sports because they evolved physically stronger.

I didn't invent the research. Reality is giving hierarchies a bad name.

The research has not claimed hierarchies themselves are abusive. If it does then its bad research on a fundemental basis.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing. I am talking about rigid roles in the sense that they limit the options and potential of people (for example, discouraging wives from working, or girls from finishing school, because their role is seen to be in the home).

So this cannot extend to SSM where there may be two daddies or mummies instead of a mummy and daddy. To modern day secular ideology this is enforcing rigid Cis gender norms that deny certain gender roles such as two mummies.

Well, to some extent the adoption agency is exercising power and control in that situation. I don't think I'd go so far as to say that it's abusive, but we do need to recognise the power dynamics involved.

Well its disempowering SSM and their roles as opposed tothe role of mother and father. They are more or less enforcing the role of mother in society.

Its abusive because if this was done to a women in a heterosexual relationship where society said they must conform to a different role than the natural and automouse role that recognises their gender as real this would be classed as oppression and control.

We would also have to note that siblings do not have identical life experiences.

Yes at last you finally acknowledge that its not just belief and in fact beliefs are the end result of our experiences positive or negative. So for someone to believe in negative and soul destroying ideas like abuse they must have had some experiences which has led them to relate or be attracted to that belief due to their psychological makeup. Glass half full or empty kind of thing.

Yeah, no, it really can't. We know there is a whole complex interplay of factors, internal and external, influencing belief formation.

Yes your agreeing again. This is a break throgh lol. Your seeing the reasoning as to why its not just belief. You cannot convince a person to believe such negative stuff unless they have been primed by their life experiences. Negative life experiences prime for negative feelings, thinking and beliefs.

Because your first premise is flawed. Abuse is not "negative feelings and thinking."

How can you say this. Its certainly not positive. Aggression is a feeling that boils within. Its intended to do harm. The thinking, feeling and belief is about doing harm to others. Thats all negative.

This is like your earlier attempt to make the irrational or cognitive error of thinking factual abuse is actually good for kids health and wellbeing. Trying to make irrational into rational and now trying to make negative into the positive or at least dismiss the negativity of the thinking and feelings.

 

[stevevw]

No, it isn't. A parent administering what they see as loving and necessary discipline is not necessarily aggressive.

Thats because it doesn't cross that line into abuse. Its controlled and mangaged so its done with emotional regulation and within the limits of what is said to be healthy dicipline. But once it crosses that line into abuse thats when its deemed unreasonable force and thus into aggression.

I gave you an example earlier, of social dominance orientation as the tendency to believe in or value hierarchy. There is plenty of literature out there on what shapes people to believe in it, and guess what? It's complex and multi-faceted and not down to being irrational or the like.

I agree and I have been explaining the complex mechanisms for several pages now. But whenever I explained this complex process you kept claiming its irrelevant and its all about belief. You gave belief as the reason for every aspect of the complexity of why people come to believe in control, abuse and violence.

Heres a question. Do you believe men were rational to believe that women were inferior.

Except when it isn't. As long as you're working with this definition, you're going to miss much of what's really going on.

Then you will have to explain how abuse is positive aggression. Where talking about abuse and not controlled discipline. But abuse when it crossed over to be harmful. Considering the definition of negative aggression is to intend harm I cannot see a coherent arguement that can refute this.

It's that, in comparison to the psychiatric patients, there was more abuse in the general population. Who did not have mental illness in the first place.

Yes it compared treated and not existing mental health patients. So as a result of their treatment they were no longer a risk and became like non abusers. Sotherefore they were on the same par as non abusers compared to those in the community who abuse. But what they don't tell us is whether the abusers in the generalpublic had the more common psychological dystress like anxiety disorders which are not psychiatric conditions.

And the study specifically said, as I quoted for you several times, there were people who abused who did not have mental illness.

Yes did not have mental disorders but may still have had psychological disorders. The article was only looking at psychiatric conditions and not the more common psychological and emotional problems most abusers suffer from. Nor did it factor in the other risk factors that contribute to abuse which may have contributed to abuse in the general public.

Not at increased risk, which is not the same thing.

Actually the term used was at high risk compared to the general public. So the treatment brought them back down to an even lower risk compared to those who abused in the general public which may have abused for a number of risk factors but not to do with psychiatric conditions.

Everyone is at risk of abusing.

Yes but the risk increases with the factors than increase risk to a very high risk. Then you have the protective factors that minimize and even prevent the risk in varying degrees. Its these two things combined that results in abuse or not.

Like everyone is at risk of heart disease. But there is a varying degree of risk depending oin the risk factors like smoking, poor diet and lack of exercise. Then there is the preventative factors like good diet and exercise and quit smoking. But a person with a good diet and exercise who smokes has an increased risk compared to someone who does none and has the least risk.

The same with abuse. You may have past abuse and financial hardship that increases the risk and add to that substance abuse and the risks increases. But then add to that the person has a family member to gets involved and gets her helpwith the substance abuse. She learns to handle stress better and reduces her risk.

Its a fluctuating scale of interactions between risk and protective factors that increase abuse actually happening. Its when there are high risks usually comorbid (2 or 3 risk factors working together) and zero or little protective factors where the risk is very high for abuse to happen.

Nor does it mean that every single one of them did. The report clearly stated "most abusive parents are not mentally ill." Let that sink in!

Yes but they are talking about mental illness (psychiatric disorders) only. They are comparing treated and untreated persons with psychiatric disorders. But those "most abusive parents" in the general population may have all sorts of other risk factors like psychological distress and emotional regulation problems combined with relationship conflict and/or poverty going on that contributes their abuse.

You are talking about aggression. I am dismissing aggression as a relevant issue in the prevention of abuse, and I am therefore uninterested in (for example) sex differences in aggression.

But how can you dismiss aggression as relevant to the prevention of abuse when aggression is abuse and violence. If there was one feeling we would want to eliminate from relationships its aggression. Aggression literally means doing harm. Just like any non accidental harm to another is abuse. Aggression intends non accidental harm which therefore intends abuse.

Or some other similar form of corporal punishment, of course. You don't actually think this has been eradicated, do you? Because we know it hasn't. It's still the most common form of physical abuse.

I am not sure If going by the injuries I am not sure that most are exactly on the backside. But rather all over the place and with all sorts of means and methods. Nothing really fixed. But I would have to look into this as its something I have not dove deeply into. I have enough on my hands with all the other deep dives into the literature. Its doing my head in lol.

I guess its just when I hear or see examples its always horrific, bruises all over the body, and not just in a fixed spot like it has been controlled.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes some can and some can't find healthy ways to outlet their unhealthy and negative feelings and thinking.

Well, clearly, since we see differences in behavioural choices. My point is simply, whatever underlying motivations people have for holding the beliefs that they do, those motivations are not necessarily themselves the problem.

It would work both ways.There would be the feeling of justified power and position from the abusive priviledge while at the same time causing the disadvantage and disempowerment of the victims which we know from the rearch leads to psychological distress and dysfunction.

That in turn creates the perception of threat and injustice and leads to aggression and violence as a response and reaction within their own communities. Thus feeding the cyle of abuse and violence.

The point is, you can't draw a line from the experience of generalised inequality or oppression, to the beliefs which drive abuse. There's not a causative relationship there.

Its the distorting of the positive aspect of the social norm.

That assumes that the social norm has a "positive aspect" in the first place. Not all do.

all acts of abuse and violence are acts of aggression.

I'm still not seeing the case for this. There are people who are abusive in a variety of ways who are not necessarily or particularly aggressive at all.

You can have positive beliefs about power, control, hierarchies and rigid roles that won't lead a person to aggression and violence.

I'm not sure that you can value power, control, hierarchy and rigid roles in a way that is actually healthy, though.

Call it irrational, cognitive errors, mistaken thinking, unreal thinking the idea that any abuse whether just over the line or a long way over the line is good for a childs health and wellbeing doesn't cohere with the real world, with what actually happens in the real world.

My point, though, is to reject the picture you're painting of someone emotionally unregulated and not in possession of their rational faculties, who is out of control and abuses. That is just simply not an accurate picture of many, many people who physically abuse children as a deliberately chosen discipline strategy.

Only if those hierarchies and roles are specificlly setup or evolve into abusive situations.

Not necessarily. Take the male-female hierarchy. I don't believe it was specifically set up to be abusive. There are many people who live within that hierarchy to some degree and yet are not abusive. But every abusive male can point to that hierarchy as justifying his abuse; can draw reassurance from it that he is justified to reinforce that hierarchy through violence and control.

There are many natural hierarchies for example whyere people end up at the higher positions which have nothing to do with them abusing.

"Natural hierarchies" among people?

We have to destingush between abusive hierarchies and natural non abusive ones.

I don't believe in "natural" hierarchies among humans. We construct our social order. And the only hierarchies I could accept as not being abusive are those which are limited, voluntary, and in which people are able to move between positions in the hierarchy.

The problem with your logic is that not everyone believes that when they are told or hear the message.

No, but again, social norms provide a context in which many people do form these beliefs, and then legitimises and reinforces them.

Sothere is something that destinguishes those who do from those who don't.

Wouldn't it be better to remove the conditions which lead to anyone forming those beliefs?

But what exactly are those fundemental beliefs in. They are in the abuse of power and hiearchies or marriages or organisations. Not the hiearchies, marriages and organisations themselves.

It's both. Belief in the hierarchy, the right to control and exercise power over others, is part of what allows people to believe that abuse is right, and good, and acceptable.

But it doesn't mean that the person on the higher position is abusing power or got there abusing power.

No, but it gives them scope to do so, if they so choose. And my observation is that it is extremely difficult to never abuse power, once you have it.

For example we can form a hierachy of sports people from amerature to professional with the elite sports people at the top who got there through natural ability and/or effort such as dedicated training.

That is not hierarchy in the sense that we are discussing it here, though; where position in the hierarchy equates to power over others.

The research has not claimed hierarchies themselves are abusive.

In certain contexts - such as marriage - it is, I think, extremely difficult to have any degree of hierarchy without any degree of abuse. Since abuse within marriage is basically about one spouse controlling the other.

So this cannot extend to SSM where there may be two daddies or mummies instead of a mummy and daddy.

It's irrelevant to what is being discussed as "rigid roles." Rigid roles in this sense is not about who is or is not married or parenting, but the split of responsibilities between people in the household.

Its abusive because if this was done to a women in a heterosexual relationship where society said they must conform to a different role than the natural and automouse role that recognises their gender as real this would be classed as oppression and control.

I can't even work out what you're trying to say here. Refusing to place an adopted child with a same-sex couple is not enforcing any particular role on either (or both) parents.

Yes at last you finally acknowledge that its not just belief and in fact beliefs are the end result of our experiences positive or negative.

Not once have I denied this! That's why things like social norms are so important, because they shape our experiences and thinking.

Yes your agreeing again.

No, I'm not, because I have a very different view of what shapes our beliefs than what I can apprehend of your view.

How can you say this.

Because you're placing a simplistic and subjective value judgement on what is, for the person doing it, a very complex situation.

Thats because it doesn't cross that line into abuse.

No, I mean even when it does cross the line.

I agree and I have been explaining the complex mechanisms for several pages now.

You haven't been offering a very convincing explanation, at all.

Heres a question. Do you believe men were rational to believe that women were inferior.

I think some men probably believed that (and even continue to believe that) in a rational way, even though I might disagree with them strenuously.

Then you will have to explain how abuse is positive aggression.

It's not always aggression.

Where talking about abuse and not controlled discipline.

These are not mutually exclusive categories.

So as a result of their treatment they were no longer a risk and became like non abusers.

Or, technically, not at increased risk due to their diagnosis, which is not the same as "no longer a risk."

But what they don't tell us is whether the abusers in the generalpublic had the more common psychological dystress like anxiety disorders which are not psychiatric conditions.

And yet they did tell us that the majority of people who abuse don't have mental illness. So there's that.

Yes but they are talking about mental illness (psychiatric disorders) only.

I don't think that's correct. I think they mean what they are saying; that the majority of people who abuse have no diagnosis of any mental illness. (Which would include the common diagnoses such as depression, anxiety, etc).

But those "most abusive parents" in the general population may have all sorts of other risk factors like psychological distress and emotional regulation problems combined with relationship conflict and/or poverty going on that contributes their abuse.

But the authors were at pains to point at that a good majority of them didn't have any mental illness. They were not looking at other risk factors, nor are they relevant to the point being made here.

But how can you dismiss aggression as relevant to the prevention of abuse

Because an aggressive person who doesn't hold beliefs which justify abuse, won't abuse. The aggression's not the problem.

when aggression is abuse and violence.

It's not. It's a personality trait which may be expressed in a variety of ways.

I guess its just when I hear or see examples its always horrific, bruises all over the body, and not just in a fixed spot like it has been controlled.

Those tend to be the ones which get a lot of attention, end up being reported or in hospital. But most physically abused kids are abused in private little domestic hells, where nobody sees, and nobody hears, and the horror is covered up.

 

[stevevw]

Well, clearly, since we see differences in behavioural choices. My point is simply, whatever underlying motivations people have for holding the beliefs that they do, those motivations are not necessarily themselves the problem.

They are exactly the problem If those mptivations and actions are based on unreal thinking and beliefs.

The point is, you can't draw a line from the experience of generalised inequality or oppression, to the beliefs which drive abuse. There's not a causative relationship there.

Then why do preventative measures for abuse even from your own links focus on generally restructuring society to be more equal. Equal status in marriage and relationships, work, ect. A big part of stopping IPV is marriage equality.

That assumes that the social norm has a "positive aspect" in the first place. Not all do.

Not all people or not all norms. WE can determine positive norms from negative ones by the way they effect humans in the real world and with facts. If the norm causes unjustified harm according to the facts then its negative. If it causes positive effects like peace and harmony between people then its positive.

I'm still not seeing the case for this. There are people who are abusive in a variety of ways who are not necessarily or particularly aggressive at all.

Luckily the determination is not up to you but the facts. You may see people who don't display obvious signs of aggression when abusing but abuse is still an act of aggression even if its passive aggression or more what seems like subdued aggression. It still is about intentional harm to others.

Low levels of parental empathy have been associated with parental aggression towards one’s child.4 As child abuse is clearly a form of aggression, researchers have looked to existing models of aggression which highlight empathy as an important factor to understand the processes involved in abuse.

https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/321630/researchnotes_parental_empathy.pdf

Violence is understood to be often driven by negative emotions, such as anger or fear.
https://news.vcu.edu/article/what_is_the_psychology_behind_violence_and_aggression_a_new_vcu#:~:text=Conventionally, violence is understood to,other person might hurt them.

I'm not sure that you can value power, control, hierarchy and rigid roles in a way that is actually healthy, though.

I follow Rugby league and the power game is often a strategy for overcoming opposition. Or an individuals power to force their way over the opposition. Positive control can be seen from line managers, supervisors, middle management to CEO's.

LIke I said a sports hiearchy is natural and positive as its about healthy competition and allows people to improve and rise and fall within the hiearchy according to they ability and effort.

We need a form of hiearchy to run society with certain people in positions of more power and influence than others like police, emergency workers, polititians, down to waste collection. Each playing a specific and rigid role that runs the society.

My point, though, is to reject the picture you're painting of someone emotionally unregulated and not in possession of their rational faculties, who is out of control and abuses. That is just simply not an accurate picture of many, many people who physically abuse children as a deliberately chosen discipline strategy.

It may be deliberately chosen but its chosen based on a different perception of the world to someone with emotional intelligence who can see through their psychological and emotional disress. Not everyone is on a level playing field as far as their experiences and negative behaviour is concerned.

Not necessarily. Take the male-female hierarchy. I don't believe it was specifically set up to be abusive. There are many people who live within that hierarchy to some degree and yet are not abusive. But every abusive male can point to that hierarchy as justifying his abuse; can draw reassurance from it that he is justified to reinforce that hierarchy through violence and control.

But the simple fact that the same hierarchy had males who did not abuse and as you said was itself not setup to abuse then its not the fault of the hierarchy but the individual males who were abusive. Otherwise you condemn a natural setup thats not abusive as abusive itself.

Now people can setup abusive hiearchies or they may develop gradually through certain beliefs but this is opposed to the natural way people and society can fall into hierachies that are not designed to do acts that deny others their equality and oppress them.

"Natural hierarchies" among people?

Yes they form naturally without any malice or intent to be abusive but rather develop or evolve through natural behaviours or natural abilities where some people are just different and better at some things than others. This naturally forms hiearchies.

I don't believe in "natural" hierarchies among humans. We construct our social order.

Society naturally evolves mostly as nothing will be accepted and taken on that people don't relate to or believe in. You cannot socially construct an alien idea that has not come up from out of the people and force it onto the people.

For example some have tried to socially engineer society with Woke ideas and they have worked for a while but people begin to see through the folly and reject it. Like trying to change the facts about sex or ban certain words or language. You cannot force something that has not naturally come out of the people.

And the only hierarchies I could accept as not being abusive are those which are limited, voluntary, and in which people are able to move between positions in the hierarchy.

This is a particular view of the world and more ideologically based rather than in reality. There are many natural hierarchies where ever people are different naturally. Or where it naturally forms in the operations of human societies.

Like I mentioned there are natural hierarchies in sports where we have elite sports people at the top and ametuers at the bottom and everything in between which can form a hierarchy. That can happen without people abusing or intending to harm others and the hiearchy thats created is not abusive and in fact is the very basis that allows people freedom.

No, but again, social norms provide a context in which many people do form these beliefs, and then legitimises and reinforces them.

But that doesn't mean those social norms were abusive themselves. Social norms don't form the context but rather the context forms the social norms. The context being the conditions for which people want to change social norms according to their ideological beliefs.

Wouldn't it be better to remove the conditions which lead to anyone forming those beliefs?

Yes thats exactly what I have been saying. The conditions that lead people to believe in controlling, aggressing, abusing and violating others are the Risk Factors, the stressors and dysfunctional upbringings that create in the person the dysfunctional thinking and emotions that disrt their perceptions of others and the world as one in which they need to control others and the conditions around them.

So its not just making people aware but helping people avoid that thinking and emotional problems to begin with so they don't end up being primed to believe such things. Like your article pointed out that giving treatment to psychiartic patients who were high risk to abuse this alone prevented them abusing. Their psychological and emotional dysfunction was treated and they were able to live a realitively normal life.

It's both. Belief in the hierarchy, the right to control and exercise power over others, is part of what allows people to believe that abuse is right, and good, and acceptable.

But the hierarchy itself has no ability to believe in the right to control. Are you saying a hierarchy absent an abuser is abusive itself.

No, but it gives them scope to do so, if they so choose. And my observation is that it is extremely difficult to never abuse power, once you have it.

So are you saying everyone has to be exactly the same across all domains of life. That any difference can be seen as a priviliedge, power, and and something where people are more likely to control.

That is not hierarchy in the sense that we are discussing it here, though; where position in the hierarchy equates to power over others.

Can you give me an example.

In certain contexts - such as marriage - it is, I think, extremely difficult to have any degree of hierarchy without any degree of abuse. Since abuse within marriage is basically about one spouse controlling the other.

But if its about one person controlling another than thats what its about and not the differences in positions or roles if they are voluntarily entered into as part of the relationship.

Plus to a degree there is a loss of autonomy and control naturally in that the marriage is about the other as much as self. That personal wants and desires have to be put aside sometimes to persue the union and not the individual. But then thats more a Christian belief nowadays as people view the marriage like a business contract of equal rights.

It's irrelevant to what is being discussed as "rigid roles." Rigid roles in this sense is not about who is or is not married or parenting, but the split of responsibilities between people in the household.

And that same logic can be applied to SSM and Christian Adoption agencies refusing to adopt out to SS couples. They are promoting a rigid household role model that only males and females can play the role of parents. Its the same logic as the rigid role model of breadwinner male and homemaker women.

 

[Paidiske]

They are exactly the problem If those mptivations and actions are based on unreal thinking and beliefs.

You were saying that it was the motivation that led to the beliefs, not the other way around.

Then why do preventative measures for abuse even from your own links focus on generally restructuring society to be more equal.

Because inequality provides the power gradient which an abuser can use to abuse.

Not all people or not all norms.

Not all norms.

Low levels of parental empathy have been associated with parental aggression towards one’s child.4 As child abuse is clearly a form of aggression, researchers have looked to existing models of aggression which highlight empathy as an important factor to understand the processes involved in abuse.

Again, different sources are using aggression to mean different things. I would stick to understanding aggression as a personality trait, rather than a form of behaviour.

Positive control can be seen from line managers, supervisors, middle management to CEO's.

I would argue that those roles, exercised well, are not so much about control as they are about working with a team to accomplish agreed goals.

We need a form of hiearchy to run society with certain people in positions of more power and influence than others like police, emergency workers, polititians, down to waste collection. Each playing a specific and rigid role that runs the society.

Yes and no. Social mobility is important for a healthy community. The days where your role was determined by who your father was, and there was only very limited scope for doing anything different, are best left behind us.

It may be deliberately chosen but its chosen based on a different perception of the world

That doesn't matter. The key point there is that the whole emotionally unregulated, not thinking straight, lost control, "just snapped," picture is completely inaccurate.

But the simple fact that the same hierarchy had males who did not abuse and as you said was itself not setup to abuse then its not the fault of the hierarchy but the individual males who were abusive. Otherwise you condemn a natural setup thats not abusive as abusive itself.

I don't believe there's anything "natural" about it. And I do think that if we have a hierarchy, a social structure, which normalises and legitimises abuse, and a structure which gives one person power and control over the other simply on the basis of sex, that is pretty well abusive in itself.

Yes they form naturally

Well, no. Humans choose the way we organise ourselves and our relations. We choose to set up structures which either empower all or disempower some.

Like I mentioned there are natural hierarchies in sports where we have elite sports people at the top and ametuers at the bottom

That is not a hierarchy in the sense that we are discussing, though. The elite sportspeople don't get given power over the amateurs.

Social norms don't form the context but rather the context forms the social norms.

I'm not sure it's anywhere near that neat.

Yes thats exactly what I have been saying.

The problem being that you then identify a set of conditions which have nothing to do with forming those beliefs.

But the hierarchy itself has no ability to believe in the right to control.

A hierarchy is the structural expression of that belief.

Are you saying a hierarchy absent an abuser is abusive itself.

It can be.

So are you saying everyone has to be exactly the same across all domains of life.

No, not at all.

That any difference can be seen as a priviliedge, power, and and something where people are more likely to control.

Where there's a power gradient, it's really important to be aware of that power gradient and the possible harm that misuse of it can do.

Can you give me an example.

We have been discussing parent-child hierarchies; or hierarchies in marriage where husbands have power to control their wives' choices and lives. Any hierarchy in which there is power and control expressed is the sort of hierarchy which can foster abuse.

But if its about one person controlling another than thats what its about and not the differences in positions or roles if they are voluntarily entered into as part of the relationship.

The problem is when the role is seen as entailing one person controlling the other. If husbands and wives together freely decide how to split the various responsibilities of the household, and are free to renegotiate that as they wish or as circumstances change, then that's not what we're discussing here.

And that same logic can be applied to SSM and Christian Adoption agencies refusing to adopt out to SS couples.

No, it really can't. It's not the same thing at all. And it's really off topic to this discussion.

 

[stevevw]

I can't even work out what you're trying to say here. Refusing to place an adopted child with a same-sex couple is not enforcing any particular role on either (or both) parents.

Yes it is because its saying that there is a specific qualification for playing the father or mother roles defined rigidly by biological sex and so everyone including people who identify as opposite sex or in relationships with opposite with same sex including when being parents that they must conform to the rigid role based on biological sex and opposite sex as God ordained.

I mean Christian adoption agencies have been tarnised and attacked as descriminatory and oppression SS couples and Trans people so its quite obvious that the Christian position and belief is in conflict with the modern secular ideology of marriage and parenting. Many progressives say the Christian position is itself hateful and abusive for even suggesting that kids should be placed with a married mother an dfather.

Not once have I denied this!

You have resisted all along to the idea that psychological and emotional distress due to experience has anything to do with abuse or the belief in abuse and violence.

That's why things like social norms are so important, because they shape our experiences and thinking.

And our experiences shape our social norms. They cannot be seperated.

No, I'm not, because I have a very different view of what shapes our beliefs than what I can apprehend of your view.

It seems you agree when you say our beliefs are shaped by our experiences positive or negative.

I find it interesting how people can have such different almost opposing assumptions and views on how people and the world works (worldview). How each is blind to the others reasoning or lack thereof. Its definitely shaped by our experiences.

This seems to be the same basis for people who behave inappropriately sometimes they have a differrent view though distorted but they are blind to how others see things like you and me but in a more extreme way.

Because you're placing a simplistic and subjective value judgement on what is, for the person doing it, a very complex situation.

No I am describing one of the feelings associated with abuse and violence which is aggression as opposed to say controlled anger. Anger is natural but anger left to simmer and not dealt with becomes a negative feeling of aggression which puts people in a higher risk of acting on that aggression because of the fact that it has such an intense effect on the physical body.

It puts people into the fight mode ready to act rather than the flight mode or someone who is able to deal with their anger. If the persons aggression is the result of undealt with psychological stressors then not only is their thinking compromised by aggression itself (feelings over thinking) they are also subject to cognitive errors (distortions) due to the anxiety and feelings of threat that was behind their anger becoming aggressive.

No, I mean even when it does cross the line.

So are you saying that when disicpline crosses from whats deemed reasonable force into what is unreasonable force theres no difference in the intensity. JUst the increase in intensity demands greater aggression.

Keep in mind that we have set the line for reasonable force based on the intensity of what will cause harm according to the science. But in some ways even smacking within the limit takes some amount of aggression to exert as any raised intensity of feeling to exert that effort is on the same spectrum as rage. Its just people have different levels of intensity they can handle.

You haven't been offering a very convincing explanation, at all.

I don't know about that because its not my arguement but that of the evidence within the articles I linked. All I am doing is summarizing them for you. I know I am not the best at grammar and a bit dyslexic but this doesn't effect my comprehension and understanding of the concepts, principles and theories behind the words.

Like for example how you say psychological and emotional dysfunction has nothing to do with a persons capability in decisions and resulting behaviour.

I not only gave evidence it does for those who abuse and violate as risk factors but I even gave it as a general principle of psychology 101 for everyone and just life that people experience stuff that screws their heads up and effects their thinking and behaviour and you still dismissed this as having nothing to do with why people abuse and become violent. I mean the principle is easy to understand but you still dismiss this.

I think some men probably believed that (and even continue to believe that) in a rational way, even though I might disagree with them strenuously.

On what basis could you strenuously disagree though that is not objective and therefore exposes that their beliefs are in fact irrational to hold. Could you give a rational basis to defeat them and prove they are wrong.

It's not always aggression.

Yeah I think its on a spectrum of intensity which is combined with positive and negative markers with anger at one end and rage or extreme violence at the other. People will fall into this spectrum depending on experience but also genetics and biological reasons.

But when anger becomes aggression your entering the red flag zone where theres a fine line between controlled and uncontrolled feelings. The more intensity the more out of control and damage. Or what psychologists use as the measure 'when the behaviour becomes problematic for self and others. That may be different in people according to experiences (nurture), temperament and traits (nature) and conditioning.

These are not mutually exclusive categories.

I agree, one is controlled within a set limit deemed acceptable according to the evidence and the other not.

Or, technically, not at increased risk due to their diagnosis, which is not the same as "no longer a risk."

They were at risk or in a risk group because of their disagnosis fullstop. They were at less of a risk or even no risk because of their treatment. Their treatment reduced or took the risk away.

And yet they did tell us that the majority of people who abuse don't have mental illness. So there's that.

Considering that actual psychiatric conditions are not common this is probably correct for various reasons such as being managed more than others because of their mental disorders also impacting on their daily living. The fact that many end up in treatment centres such as the group the study was about is evidence of this.

But this doesn;t discount that those in the general population who do abuse don't have more common psychological problems. Your assuming that the abusers in the population have absolutely no issues with anything which is unfounded.

As the evidence I linked said for example around 83% of single mothers have psychological problems like anxiety disorders and around the same % abuse their children. So theres a strong link between anxiety disorders coupled with other risk factors and abuse.

I don't think that's correct. I think they mean what they are saying; that the majority of people who abuse have no diagnosis of any mental illness. (Which would include the common diagnoses such as depression, anxiety, etc).

But that contradicts the majority of evidence that those who abuse and are violent towards other have psychological and emotional dysfunctions. I gave you this evidence a long time ago and see now how its coming back to support what other articles are saying.

But the authors were at pains to point at that a good majority of them didn't have any mental illness. They were not looking at other risk factors, nor are they relevant to the point being made here.

Yes the majority of parents with psychiatric conditions probably have more management to help them avoid the problems that go with mental illnesss that usually lead to deterioration is behaviour such as substance abuse which has a high comorbity and relational conflicts as well as helping directly with child management to take the stress off.

The simple fact that psychiatric problems are associated with a number of behavioural problems is evidence that it needs managing in society.

Because an aggressive person who doesn't hold beliefs which justify abuse, won't abuse. The aggression's not the problem.

What do the beliefs suddenly take the power out of the aggression. If aggression can get to a point where it takes over physically, tense body, shaking, in defensive mode ready to react physically how can belief or lack thereof make a difference at that point. The power of the feeling of aggression is what takes over.

I suggest its the same reasons that allow the aggression to become negative and a problem is the same reasons that the person came to believe aggression was the answer. Which is they were primed to believe it was the answe due to their psychological distress that turned their world negative and aggressive and controlling.

What person in their right mind would really want such an existence where everything is negative and bitter and strict rules to the point everyone is afraid to act. The child becomes intimidated and freaked out and this must deteriorate the parent child relationship where it becomes an unhappy existence or one walking on egg shells where kids are afraid of their own parents.

It's not. It's a personality trait which may be expressed in a variety of ways.

Are you suggesting aggression is a normal human personality trait. When you say expressed in a variety of ways what do you mean. That suggests that aggression can be expressed as more extreme in some people than others. That everyone does not react the same depending on their experiences.

Those tend to be the ones which get a lot of attention, end up being reported or in hospital. But most physically abused kids are abused in private little domestic hells, where nobody sees, and nobody hears, and the horror is covered up.

Well thats why its important to expose these hidden hell holes. INstigate more social support and people in the parents and childrens lives.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes it is because its saying that there is a specific qualification for playing the father or mother roles defined rigidly by biological sex and so everyone including people who identify as opposite sex or in relationships with opposite with same sex including when being parents that they must conform to the rigid role based on biological sex and opposite sex as God ordained.

That would only be true if they would only place children with families where the parents adhered rigidly to particular roles (breadwinner, homemaker, whatever). But they don't. Their objection is not based on paternal or maternal roles, but on the sinfulness of same-sex relationships.

You have resisted all along to the idea that psychological and emotional distress due to experience has anything to do with abuse or the belief in abuse and violence.

Because I don't believe it is about distress, at all. That doesn't mean I think our experiences don't shape us, or our beliefs.

It seems you agree when you say our beliefs are shaped by our experiences positive or negative.

Yes, our beliefs are shaped by our experiences. But the model you're putting forward of how the beliefs which underpin abuse are formed doesn't match my understanding at all.

No I am describing one of the feelings associated with abuse and violence which is aggression as opposed to say controlled anger.

Aggression is not a feeling, it's a personality trait. And aggression can be controlled in its expression. And there is plenty of controlled abuse. Your whole construction rests on connections which are just completely false.

So are you saying that when disicpline crosses from whats deemed reasonable force into what is unreasonable force theres no difference in the intensity.

I'm saying it's not necessarily driven by aggression.

But in some ways even smacking within the limit takes some amount of aggression to exert as any raised intensity of feeling to exert that effort is on the same spectrum as rage.

This is just nonsense. People can smack without rage, and without aggression, and without raised intensity of feeling.

I don't know about that because its not my arguement but that of the evidence within the articles I linked.

You have pulled together an argument, but I would say only loosely based on the evidence.

Like for example how you say psychological and emotional dysfunction has nothing to do with a persons capability in decisions and resulting behaviour.

Not at all what I have said. Good grief.

you still dismissed this as having nothing to do with why people abuse and become violent.

Because it's not why people abuse. We know that. We know the difference between abusers and non-abusers, and it's not psychological or emotional state.

On what basis could you strenuously disagree though that is not objective and therefore exposes that their beliefs are in fact irrational to hold. Could you give a rational basis to defeat them and prove they are wrong.

I could make an argument, but since superiority and inferiority are not an objective matter but a value judgement, I don't know that it's an objective matter at all.

I agree, one is controlled within a set limit deemed acceptable according to the evidence and the other not.

That is not what I was saying. Abuse is not always "uncontrolled" behaviour. I'd suggest it seldom is.

They were at risk or in a risk group because of their disagnosis fullstop.

Well, no. They may have been at risk even without their diagnosis, but with treatment, their diagnosis did not increase their risk over that baseline.

But this doesn;t discount that those in the general population who do abuse don't have more common psychological problems.

What part of "no mental illness" do you not understand?

Your assuming that the abusers in the population have absolutely no issues with anything which is unfounded.

I am reading the paper, and taking from it that the majority of abusers in the population had no diagnosed mental health condition of any kind.

But that contradicts the majority of evidence that those who abuse and are violent towards other have psychological and emotional dysfunctions.

Yes, it contradicts your position. That's why I gave you the paper; it is counter-evidence to your claims.

The simple fact that psychiatric problems are associated with a number of behavioural problems is evidence that it needs managing in society.

I'm not saying it doesn't need managing. I'm saying it doesn't cause abuse.

What do the beliefs suddenly take the power out of the aggression.

Our beliefs shape how we express our aggression. Remember the lecturer I mentioned, who expressed his high aggression in writing biting academic articles, but took pains not to bully his students?

If aggression can get to a point where it takes over physically, tense body, shaking, in defensive mode ready to react physically how can belief or lack thereof make a difference at that point.

Even at that point, we choose our behaviours. We choose whether to hit someone, whether to yell, whether to throw something or slam a door or go for a walk to cool off.

Are you suggesting aggression is a normal human personality trait.

Yes. Almost everyone would have an element of aggression in our psychological make up (although obviously some more than others). It helps drive things like competitive behaviour, ambition, and so on.

The helpful distinction I've seen made is that aggression is the drive to dominate a situation, where violence is the drive to inflict harm. Now, often the drive to dominate can end up being harmful, but it doesn't have to be.

When you say expressed in a variety of ways what do you mean.

I think I've probably answered this above.

 

[stevevw]

You were saying that it was the motivation that led to the beliefs, not the other way around.

Well its for both as its a self feeding loop. The motivation or rather priming towards that belief is due to the personal experiences of each individual positive or negative as well as other factors like temperament. So the persons thinking and feelings about the world is inclined to be in tune with those beliefs. They fit well with how they see themselves, others and the world.

That in turn is the motivation ofr their behaviour. If I percieve something as unsafe due to my experiences and believe its unsafe then I will act accordingly, avoid that situation. Or is if percieved as safe or an unreal threat I will act accordingly and different to another withy that different experience behind their thinking and beliefs. This is es[ecially relevant when it comes to unreal percieved threat and aggression linked to violence and abuse.

Because inequality provides the power gradient which an abuser can use to abuse.

Therefore you can "draw a line from the experience of generalised inequality or oppression, to the beliefs which drive abuse" Because inequality, any inequality "provides the power gradient which an abuser can use to abuse".

Again, different sources are using aggression to mean different things. I would stick to understanding aggression as a personality trait, rather than a form of behaviour.

What do you mean by personality trait. Is that like say aggreeableness or ambitious, adventuress or concientious traits. If so these are unlike aggression which is not stable such as personality traits.

Some personalities may be moe supceptible to aggressive impulses or reactions like perhaps extroverted personalities who act out their feelings. But then introverted personalities are prone to hold in their anger and it can be boittled up and explode or be acted out in negative ways such as passive aggression.

I would argue that those roles, exercised well, are not so much about control as they are about working with a team to accomplish agreed goals.

Yes the roles and structures are just the vehicle and it all depends on whether humans "exercise well" meaning have positive and constructive views about working within that structure together or an individual, a small group or the entire structure and opportunity is used for negative purposes to take advantage of others for their benefit.

Yes and no. Social mobility is important for a healthy community. The days where your role was determined by who your father was, and there was only very limited scope for doing anything different, are best left behind us.

Hum I understand what you mean but I disagree that the idea that we can do what we want when we want is good. Sometimes too many cooks spoil the brothe. Sometimes too many choices and too much freedom actually complicates things where we forget the simple things in life.Sometimes too much individual freedom actually divides us.

That doesn't matter. The key point there is that the whole emotionally unregulated, not thinking straight, lost control, "just snapped," picture is completely inaccurate.

As I said the compromise can happen in varying degrees and its more a combinations of risk factors and lack of protective factors. Within that spectrum people vary in how they are compromised. Some extremely so and obvious and others hanging in there, some days good others not so good.

Its not an either or that some completely lose it as opposed to others not losing it at all. Its a variation and losing control is not just about compleeetely losing it but can be routine and regulated all to maintain the warped world abusers live in. I have posted the evdience that the far majority of abusers have some psychological or emotional disorder.

Like I said 83% of single mothers who abuse also have anxiety disorders among other problems. Thats not far off 100%. When you combine all the evidence of all the risk factors like for example low socioeconomic status is also highly connected to abuse and violence somelike 80%, addiction, DV and past abuse very, very high % association with abuse we cannot deny that abuse and violence is highly linked to psychological problems.

 

[Paidiske]

Therefore you can "draw a line from the experience of generalised inequality or oppression, to the beliefs which drive abuse" Because inequality, any inequality "provides the power gradient which an abuser can use to abuse".

You are missing my point. You were arguing that inequality drives abuse because the oppressed suffer distress and thus form the beliefs which underpin abuse. (I have seen no evidence for that). But I am pointing out that inequality sets up the conditions in which someone who does hold those beliefs, and also is in a position of power, is able to actually abuse.

What do you mean by personality trait. Is that like say aggreeableness or ambitious, adventuress or concientious traits. If so these are unlike aggression which is not stable such as personality traits.

Yes, that's what I mean, and from what I understand, that's probably the best way to understand aggression. A personality trait, a drive to dominance or the like.

I disagree that the idea that we can do what we want when we want is good.

Which is not at all what I said. I said that social mobility - the ability to move between roles (and positions in hierarchical structures) - is good.

we cannot deny that abuse and violence is highly linked to psychological problems.

But that says nothing about causation.

 

[stevevw]

I don't believe there's anything "natural" about it. And I do think that if we have a hierarchy, a social structure, which normalises and legitimises abuse, and a structure which gives one person power and control over the other simply on the basis of sex, that is pretty well abusive in itself.

So the question would be if we remove the people within that structure who "normalises and legitimises abuse" remove the oppostunities that give one person power and control over others simply on the basis of sex would the structure itself be abusive.

What if we filled it with people and opportunities that build equality and autonomy would that structure be then classed as a non abusive structure or rather once again its got nothing to do with the structure but the people within who make it that way.

Well, no. Humans choose the way we organise ourselves and our relations. We choose to set up structures which either empower all or disempower some.

Well take say when we were hunter gathers or when we moved to farming males naturally filled the roles of labourers as this was a natural evolution of where we were at as people. The same may have happened for other roles that naturally suited people and our needs. There was little choice because it just happened to be the best and most suitable way according to our differences and abilities to achieve our needs.

That is not a hierarchy in the sense that we are discussing, though. The elite sportspeople don't get given power over the amateurs.

They do in the sense they get sponsors that increase their ability with better training gear, opportunities and of course wealth, a better standard of life. It may not worry the average amature dad but it will for struggling college students who are after sports degrees. Or a young amature trying to make a career in sports.

There may even be snobbism and prividlegde is sports such as how some clubs only want certain members or get more support than others due to their connections.

I'm not sure it's anywhere near that neat.

Maybe not but basically its the context of which society exists in that will usually underpin the norms. They don't come from nowhere. They are usually lived out more and more because there was a good reason for them, they made sense, helped achieve something ect. But then later they can be manipulated into something negative where the norm is exploited for personal or group advantage.

The problem being that you then identify a set of conditions which have nothing to do with forming those beliefs.

All I did was identify the conditions that lead to psychological distress which is the same for any behavioural problem. Theres ample evdience for this. Even you links mention addressing the same conditions that cause inequality and disadvantage. All I did was identify the protection factors that will miminmise and prevent that psychological distress just as you link did with treating psychiatric patients to prevent them from abusing.

A hierarchy is the structural expression of that belief.

Yes its an abusive hiearchy as opposed to a non abusive one as a whole. But its the controlling thinking behind the hierarchy that expressed through the hierarchy.

It can be.

But its absent of humans. How can a structure itself be abusive when its just a shape. Shapes aren;t anything but shapes. Its like saying a triangle is aggressive lol. Your giving hierarchies a bad name lol.

No, not at all.

Then what about when there are natural differences which create differences. Are those differences a sign of oppressive inequality or abuse.

Where there's a power gradient, it's really important to be aware of that power gradient and the possible harm that misuse of it can do.

Yes of course, power and control in the wrong hands can be deadly. But that doesn't negate the need for that power differences in society. Its an important part of maintaining law and order for example. Or just running a business.

The problem is when the role is seen as entailing one person controlling the other. If husbands and wives together freely decide how to split the various responsibilities of the household, and are free to renegotiate that as they wish or as circumstances change, then that's not what we're discussing here.

You have just repeated what I said. You were just saying that even a hierarchy itself can be deemed abusive, the structure itself. I was pointing out that even a marriage, many marriages can be voluntarily setup with the breadwinner husband and homemaker wife as a structure.

Many progressives claim this is itself abusive just for the fact that each person is within a role where they don't have the autonomy to do whatever they may like, ie seek a career or a life outside the home as that is seen as not having a full and happy life as pained by progressives.

In other words this is an example of how one group see abuse and the other see a happy and healthy setup the aopposite of abuse. So who is policing the beliefs themselves as to what comes under the right or wrong beliefs that can cultivate inequality and abuse.

No, it really can't. It's not the same thing at all. And it's really off topic to this discussion.

I disagree but I'm not bothered whether we talk about it or not. I do think if equality is a big part of stopping control over others and abuse then any prevention approach has to consider all aaaspects from SSM, religious beliefs, media, attitudes about abuse and violence across all domains.

Like I said I don't think as a society we can advocate for non abuse and violence and then send a message supporting inequality, abuse and violence in the media and with the narratives. It sends a mixed message.

 

[Paidiske]

So the question would be if we remove the people within that structure who "normalises and legitimises abuse" remove the oppostunities that give one person power and control over others simply on the basis of sex would the structure itself be abusive.

If you remove the opportunities that give one person power and control over others, the structure would be radically altered.

What if we filled it with people and opportunities that build equality and autonomy would that structure be then classed as a non abusive structure

If it builds equality and autonomy, it's no longer a hierarchy.

Well take say when we were hunter gathers or when we moved to farming males naturally filled the roles of labourers as this was a natural evolution of where we were at as people. The same may have happened for other roles that naturally suited people and our needs. There was little choice because it just happened to be the best and most suitable way according to our differences and abilities to achieve our needs.

But the power and agency we give to people in different roles are chosen, not accidental or fixed.

They do in the sense they get sponsors that increase their ability with better training gear, opportunities and of course wealth, a better standard of life.

But that is not power over anyone else. It's privilege, an advantage others don't have, but it's not control over others.

All I did was identify the conditions that lead to psychological distress

But psychological distress isn't the cause of abuse. That's where your argument falls apart.

Yes its an abusive hiearchy as opposed to a non abusive one as a whole. But its the controlling thinking behind the hierarchy that expressed through the hierarchy.

I think that's what I said. So what is your point?

But its absent of humans. How can a structure itself be abusive when its just a shape.

If the structure limits the agency or potential of people - take a really basic thing, like women not being able to get a bank loan without a man as guarantor - that structure becomes abusive even without having an abusive gatekeeper. This is structural oppression.

Your giving hierarchies a bad name lol.

Like I said, the evidence gives hierarchies a bad name.

Then what about when there are natural differences which create differences. Are those differences a sign of oppressive inequality or abuse.

Difference doesn't have to mean disempowerment.

I think, for example, of the rule in some monasteries that before a superior can make a decision - any decision - which will affect the community, he or she must listen to the views of every member of the community on that matter. There's hierarchy there, but there is also an attempt to structure the life of the community so as not to disempower those who might not have the gifts and skills to rise to leadership positions.

But that doesn't negate the need for that power differences in society.

But it is a reason why we put limits and controls around how that power can be used. And why we seek to remove the difference where it is not needed.

I was pointing out that even a marriage, many marriages can be voluntarily setup with the breadwinner husband and homemaker wife as a structure.

That's not a hierarchy. It would be a hierarchy if one spouse is given the right to make decisions for the other, and to control the other, while the agency of the other spouse is limited. If, for example, the breadwinner gives the homemaker no access to, information about, or input into financial matters, that could well be a risk for financial abuse. But as long as both have information, access, and a say in decisions, it's not.

The fundamental issue is control. Is one spouse controlling the other, or are both free to participate in decision making, to share their views, to offer feedback, to negotiate responsibilities, and so on?