Spanking Lowers IQ Points

...I specifically mentioned 2-3 spankings in the kids' entire lives. This would seem minimal to me, especially compared to the era I grew up in.

Thats somptin we can agree on... the fewer spankins the beter... i jus thank none is best... an i thank you'r issue is not wit me... you'r issue is tryin to justify the times you hit you'r kids... but i thank i can help you wit that also (farther down in my post).!!!

I am not advocating "beating" or "violence", I'm simply saying (IMHO) that the Pavlov instinct can sometimes be worth the hypothetical trade off to a child's mental health.

Hittin ant violence???... but however you wish to define hittin... why risk the mental heath of a child by unnecessarly hittin 'em.???

<That queston was retorical>

Any time a spanking was administered, there was a full explanation of why (after the fact), when things calmed down.

Thank about it... after you'r "non-violent" act of whippin you'r child... you had to wate until thangs clamed down.???

These punishments, consisting of a slap or two to the behind, admittedly fairly hard slaps, followed by explanation, seemed to offset the idea of "fear the parent" and "randomness".

An i have som "prime" swamp-land id like to un-load to anyone ignerent efuff to be certan the above is true... lol.!!!

Bottom line, we all do the best we can...

...Best for clueluss and his childless friends to sit by and listen (or read, as the case may be), hoping for some enlightenment. Then pick the bits that make sense to them, use them when they are rearing their own children and hope for the best.

Look... i understan you'r anger... all parents woud like to thank they did the bes thangs posible raizin ther kids... but dont take it personal... they all fall short in 1 way or another... yep... even parents who hit ther kids are human... lol... but whats done is done... an like you said... you'r kids seemed to turn out oK in spite of you hittin 'em... but 1 thang we can all agree on... lets hope todays kids do a beter job of raizin ther kids than ther parents did.!!!
 
The beter parent
Better in whose opinion - your's?


woud be mor concerned wit havin a child under control
"Under control?" I am not so concerned about keeping someone "under control" as I am in teaching them about the world, both the good and bad things that can happen.


who ant mature enuff to safely be aroun traffic...
Most children below a certain age are not "mature enuff to safely be aroun traffic". The question is, how do you instill a reflexive reaction to look both ways before entering said street? It is a little late to have a mature conversation covering the dangers of traffic while on the way to the hospital in the back of an ambulance. You would understand this if you had ever had children, and I'm sorry dearie, playing babysitter doesn't count...


than hittin the child because the parent wasnt supervisin good enuff.!!!
That's what is at question here isn't it? What constitutes "supervisin good enuff"? My opinion, complete with actually raising and supervising children, is that spanking is sometimes the best means to the end. I mean, I think we are on the same side in that we both want children to be raised in such a way that they contribute positively to society, have a happy and productive life, and raise fine children of their own, right? We happen to disagree on the best way to get there. And, only slightly disagree. I mean, I am not advocating daily beatings, or even spankings for not eating your green beans. We just have to agree to disagree - get over it.


No... lol... my policy is... touch you'r child wit hugs an kisses an pats on the bak... an dont use hittin 'a teechin tool.!!!
So sorry there, clueluss, I should have guessed that your context comprehension would be on par with your spelling. I would wager that most people would realize that I was speaking of the "spanking" variety of touching, not the "kissing" variety. I promise to go to extra lengths to make sure you do not misunderstand such simple concepts in the future. Please forgive me...


To be clear... im not certan about anythang...
Well, that's a relief...


but i never needed to be hit for my parents to get a pont across to me...
Not sure what a "pont" is, but if you mean "point" , how do you know? You can't go back and do a controlled experiment in which you lead dual lives, one of which you were "hit", the other you weren't. Maybe you would have comprehended a point even quicker had you been "hit".


an it mus be hard for you to emagine...
How would you know? You know nothing about me, nor about my powers of imagination. I can even imagine a world in which you learned to spell beyond 3rd grade level - although that one takes some effort... :rolleyes:


but yes... even tho i didnt have a fear that my parents woud hurt me....
Well, considering they supposedly never did "hit" you, it would be pretty irrational of you to "have a fear that my parents woud hurt me". Don't you think so, clueluss?


i loved an respected them...
Good for you... Unfortunately, it is a meaningless statement. Sad as it may seem, many children who come from truly abusive homes still love their parents and even respect them. So, once again, your statement is meaningless...


an i admire them for the estra time an effort they put in to raizin me wit-out the use of "punishments".!!!
Well, see, I call bullshit here. If you are trying to say that your parents never used punishment of any kind while raising you, then I am of the strong opinion that you, sir, are a straight up liar.


An yes.... the little girl i baby set for... for 9 houres a day over a 6 mounthe period was not my own child... but even if she had been i dont thank i woud have started hittin her...
You don't "thank" so? My, but it didn't take much for your position to waver, did it? Just a little babysitting. You're a hoot... :rolleyes:


you see... i grew up wit the non-violent method of child rearin... an i suspect you dont have that esperience... an thar-for... thats why you'r havin trouble understandin its superiority.!!!
Once again, "superiority" according to whom? Or are you a bit too slow to understand that you need to back up statements like this? I say it was inferior - so why don't you give me some references as to what made it "superior"?


Good luck, oh childless one...
 
I disagree with your argument that corporal punishment has no place in child rearing.
I do also! I merely believe that those who do not know how to correctly implement corporal discipline should not be allowed to do so. Perhaps parents should require permits or licenses for it.

My position is that if you are dealing with a child that misbehaves in a way that may cause them serious physical harm or even death, such as running into the street without looking both ways, then it is better that they feel the pain of a smack to their behind than a smack from the grille of a car.
Therefore, I believe that we should implement a leash-law for children under five!!!!

By the way, I apologize for breaking up your post into such small quotations. There is just so much that comes to mind at the spur of the moment as I read through, and I mean no disrespect by it.

Whether this is effective or not is open to debate, and is debated daily by people far above our paygrade.
Yes, and I have spoken with many of the people who fit that description. Most of them tend to believe that it is beneficial to society for this kind of issue to be discussed actively by the general public, and they tend to believe that it promotes greater public awareness in general. After all, they are the people who are paid to do studies on this sort of topic, and those kinds of topics that people are craving valid, authoritative information on are the kinds of topics that result in them receiving large, fat grants. Their support for public discussion is motivated entirely by self-interest, but they support it nonetheless. Talk it up. They don't mind.

Oh, wait a minute, you have no children, so you really are arguing from a position of ignorance, at least as applies to personal experience.
Whereas I can tell you all that you need to know about dogs, and have you ever seen a dog fly? I take offenses like dashing out into the road extremely seriously. If that is not the place for showing your temper in full color, then nothing is. If you show your temper in the wrong contexts, though, the animal will eventually quit taking you seriously.

Of course, one mean thing that I do with a dog that keeps trying to steal food from my plate is to keep rapping him on the nose, not quite hard enough to scare him away for long, whenever he tries to sneak in under my arm. I can get into fits of mad hatter giggles over the fact that the dumb animal keeps coming back for more. I mean it's so funny! They're like Bobo dolls you give to little, future sociopaths to teach them how to beat their hos! I am not actually causing any HARM to the animal, but...it's funny!!! Eventually, the animal will realize he is being laughed at, and he will lay down somewhere to glare daggers at me. I mean, if looks could kill, I tell you. I think we mutually consider this to be one of our petty wars or something.

In any event, although the degree to which dispensing discipline to animals is anything like dealing with children could be subject to some debate, this is really all that I would have to go on if I were approaching the job of raising a child. That is the experience that I am speaking from, and that is the only experience that I pretend to have. Nevertheless, animal models have been used for centuries to learn things about human behavior, therefore I believe that I have some experiential grounding for what I say on the topic. I think I would also like to have some feedback on how well I am extrapolating lessons gained from working with one species to helping deal with another.

If canine behavior correlates with child behavior, then it should only be necessary to startle the child. A spanking is likely to be more, not less, effective if the punishment terminates before the effects of prolonged stress have time to set in. Under prolonged stress, a very young child is likely to forget that there was a point to the correction. I do not know that this applies to human children, but I do know that it applies to the animals that I am experienced with handling. If put into the position of caring for a child, I would use the same bag of tricks for dealing with it until I had time to figure out the fine distinctions.

For example, if an animal poops the floor, it is a myth that you can illustrate your point to the animal by rubbing his or her nose in it. This could succeed in making the animal angry, but this is the only effect it is likely to have. It is more effective, after the deed has been done, to make sure that the animal is politely paying attention while you clean up the mess, not scratching itself or goofing off. When the mess is no longer there, simply pretend that the event never occurred at all. Criticize it if you want to, but it is a technique that works for me very very effectively.

Well, extrapolating from my experience with animals, I would deal with a child who has made a mess in the kitchen with some flour in a very similar fashion. I would have the child sit quietly in a chair while I cleaned up as much of the mess as I could. Afterward, I would not make very much conversation with the child, but the event would be considered to be over. If the results correlated with my experiences with animals, then I would expect the child to understand that there is a certain way I like to keep the kitchen, and that is how I want it kept.

No, I do not know how to deal with a human child. I know how to deal with a brute animal. To whatever extent that you personally believe that these different animals are similar, though, I have at least some notion of how their clocks tick.

Psssssssst. One thing that I have learned from dealing with animals, by the way, is that they eventually lose respect for you if you look like a stupid, red-faced clown.

I think the best way to articulate my feelings about this is to say, "If you slap your children to keep their fingers away from a hot burner or electrical socket, that is one thing. If you slap your children in an effort to correct them, I disagree with you, but good luck with that. If you slap your children to vent out your frustrations with them, then I am on the phone with child services, and they can hear every word you are saying." There is a point where I disagree with you, but it is no business of mine. Then there is another point, where it is everyone's business.
 
Last edited:
I take offenses like dashing out into the road extremely seriously. If that is not the place for showing your temper in full color, then nothing is. If you show your temper in the wrong contexts, though, the animal will eventually quit taking you seriously.

Actually, A/C, IMHO you are right on track. I have raised both children and canines, specifically wolves and wolf hybrids.

There are many similarities in obtaining the desired behavior from both a child and a dog. Naturally, these similarities diverge more and more as the child gets older. However, the basic premise remains the same.

If you give a creature something they like, they are more likely to repeat the behavior. If you punish them, in any way, including pain, they are less likely to repeat the behavior. Pretty simple to you and me, eh?

Problem is, some wingnuts want to equate thoughtful use of corporal punishment to abuse. This is not necessarily the case, whether we're talking canines or homo-sapiens.

I especially agree with the sentiment invoked by your closing statement:
"If you slap your children to keep their fingers away from a hot burner or electrical socket, that is one thing. If you slap your children in an effort to correct them, I disagree with you, but good luck with that. If you slap your children to vent out your frustrations with them, then I am on the phone with child services, and they can hear every word you are saying."
 
Originally Posted by Alien Cockroach:
I think the best way to articulate my feelings about this is to say, "If you slap your children to keep their fingers away from a hot burner or electrical socket, that is one thing. If you slap your children in an effort to correct them, I disagree with you, but good luck with that. If you slap your children to vent out your frustrations with them, then I am on the phone with child services, and they can hear every word you are saying." There is a point where I disagree with you, but it is no business of mine. Then there is another point, where it is everyone's business.

mmmmm.....i am not really cool with slapping the face, maybe you mean slapping their hand. other than that i agree with you.
 
Randolf.... Very good posts! :thumbsup:

I am happy to see that someone else finds it ridiculous that so many childless people seem to think they are experts in raising children.

Along with clueless I think Orleander is right up there with him. She is hung up with the word ASSAULT and can't see the difference between a few smacks on the butt in a kid's lifetime
with real child abuse.
 
Last edited:
Thats somptin we can agree on... the fewer spankins the beter... i jus thank none is best... an i thank you'r issue is not wit me...
No, darlin' my issue is with you...

you'r issue is tryin to justify the times you hit you'r kids... but i thank i can help you wit that also (farther down in my post).!!!
I have no desire to justify my behavior to anyone, and any attempt to rationally share viewpoints with you is obviously foolhardy.


Hittin ant violence???... but however you wish to define hittin... why risk the mental heath of a child by unnecessarly hittin 'em.???
Meh...


Thank about it... after you'r "non-violent" act of whippin you'r child... you had to wate until thangs clamed down.???
You "thank" about it. A near collision with an automobile constitutes a situation that legitimately requires a cool-down period. Are you getting the picture now, ummm, "clueluss"?


An i have som "prime" swamp-land id like to un-load to anyone ignerent efuff to be certan the above is true... lol.!!!
Well, if ignorance is the requirement, you would seem to be a prime prospect. In fact, I have many years of direct marketing experience, if you give me your phone number, I'm quite sure I could sell you some snow, especially if you live in Alaska. Oh, and my prime swamp-land includes a snow skiing resort, so you better take advantage of it now....


Look... i understan you'r anger...
No anger here, once again you are presupposing things you have no clue to...


all parents woud like to thank they did the bes thangs posible raizin ther kids...
Most do - that's very insightful of you!


but dont take it personal...
I do. However, I understand site policy prohibits death threats... ;)


they all fall short in 1 way or another...
But, surely, not yours?


yep... even parents who hit ther kids are human...
Mighty nice of you to acknowledge that...


lol... but whats done is done... an like you said... you'r kids seemed to turn out oK in spite of you hittin 'em... but 1 thang we can all agree on... lets hope todays kids do a beter job of raizin ther kids than ther parents did.!!!
Let's hope so...

Plus you are expanding my horizons, I am now going to explore the utility of the "Ignore" button for the first time...
 
If you give a creature something they like, they are more likely to repeat the behavior. If you punish them, in any way, including pain, they are less likely to repeat the behavior. Pretty simple to you and me, eh?
Well, the technique that I described for dealing with a floor-pooper serves partly as a negative reinforcer. I want the animal to understand that I want the kitchen floor to be clean. That way, it will be unnecessary to punish the animal, in the future, when he poops the floor. Because I put a strong reinforcer on the state, "clean kitchen," the animal will feel unhappy enough at the instant he realizes that it is no longer in this state. He will feel very uncomfortable and awkward when he poops the floor, and he will not feel comfortable again until the problem has been taken care of.

I would use a positive punisher for the purpose of making sure he sits still and quiet while the job is being taken care of. I will tell him to sit quietly, and I will yell at him or rap his nose with my knuckles if that doesn't work, open-handed to prevent injury, if he moves before he is told it is okay. The presence of the positive punisher simply tells him that he can stay out of real trouble if he quietly waits for his mess to be cleaned up.

I would only use a positive punisher to tell him not to poop the floor in cases where I caught him in the act. The only use of a positive punisher, after the fact, is to make sure he "sits still and not move" when he is told to "sit still and not move."

Problem is, some wingnuts want to equate thoughtful use of corporal punishment to abuse.
It's really sad, actually. The real problem is not that parents use or do not use corporal punishment. The real problem is that they sleep through their basic psychology classes.
 
mmmmm.....i am not really cool with slapping the face, maybe you mean slapping their hand. other than that i agree with you.

Yeah, John, in following this thread I think A/C's comments are about slapping a hand or a behind. Slapping the face is pretty much not cool. So you're on track here.

Unless it's a chickie slapping her boyfriend of course... :D
 
why is face slapping not ok?
Risk of head trauma, neck injury, or injury to the eyes. A canine's head is attached more firmly to his body, so you can basically slap them five yards without much risk of snapping their neck; I don't know about their brains here, but dogs don't need them as much as we do. Also, our eyes are a lot more delicate and, for that matter, important for day-to-day functioning than a dog's. Although it's really not all that nice to abuse an animal at all, the truth is that some kinds of abuse can cause so much more injury to the welfare of a human child than to an animal given the same treatment.
 
Oh come on. Its just a tap on the cheek, the fleshy part of the face. How else are you going to deal with a child that swears at you? Or a toddler that bites?
 
Oh come on. Its just a tap on the cheek, the fleshy part of the face. How else are you going to deal with a child that swears at you? Or a toddler that bites?
Don't ask me. I wasn't claiming that slapping a child in the face is wrong. I was explaining why these fellows might believe it is wrong. I have never been there, so I am not going to judge. All I know is dogs. If you want to raise a puppy, come ask me. If you think my experiences are relevant to dealing with children, I will leave that hanging over your head, not mine.
 
I must admit though, I resent someone who has never even raised a child trying to tell actual parents what is best. They have been there, through the diapers, the tears, the laughter, the anger and happiness, the ups and downs... What gives someone with no children the right to even comment?

Best for clueluss and his childless friends to sit by and listen (or read, as the case may be), hoping for some enlightenment. Then pick the bits that make sense to them, use them when they are rearing their own children and hope for the best.
Parents might have experience, but they're also not going to be at all objective. The fact that they have been through the "tears, the laughter, the anger and happiness, the ups and downs" is a strike against their opinion in a scientific discussion about child raising, not a bonus.

If you want to have an argument about the subjective emotional experience of raising a child, then sure, the perspective of someone who has actually done it and gone through all those emotions etc. trumps the perspective of someone who hasn't and is merely speculating. But I didn't think that was the discussion anyone here was having.

Also, actually having raised kids only gets you a small number of what are essentially anecdotal data points, which are more or less useless for scientifically determining the average effectiveness of different child-raising strategies. Unless you have raised an unusually large number of kids AND you've systematically used different strategies when raising them so that you could compare the results, your personal experience raising two or three kids doesn't really mean jack shit in a discussion about what parenting strategies are better on average. It's like trying to claim that the fact that you smoke a pack a day and have never had lung cancer is somehow relevant to a discussion on the health effects of smoking on populations. (But of course, people do try to interject those sorts of claims in smoking discussions all the time...)
 
Well, the technique that I described for dealing with a floor-pooper serves partly as a negative reinforcer. I want the animal to understand that I want the kitchen floor to be clean. That way, it will be unnecessary to punish the animal, in the future, when he poops the floor. Because I put a strong reinforcer on the state, "clean kitchen," the animal will feel unhappy enough at the instant he realizes that it is no longer in this state. He will feel very uncomfortable and awkward when he poops the floor, and he will not feel comfortable again until the problem has been taken care of.

Funny you should mention this. I am sure you have had similar experiences, I was delayed through no fault of my own in getting home on time. Just to find my poor wolf in extreme discomfort (In human terms, it appeared to be shame). I felt so bad for him...

His doggie door, which allowed him access to the outside at his own convenience had become inadvertently locked, and he was unable to go out to relieve himself. Eventually, of course, nature took its course, and he went on the floor. In this case, naturally, no punishment was called for, rather consolation that he was still "a good boy" and the best wolf anyone could ever have. He soon came about and believed me, and things were fine from there.

Point is, he knew it was wrong to go on the floor. There are ways to teach creatures what is expected of them, with little to no need for resorting to violence. This is what people whom have never had the experience need to understand. You have to do what is right, based on the individual circumstances.

What I wonder about, is how do people deal with the extremes? Let's say that you were unfortunate enough to parent a psycho / socio pathic child, what in the world would you do? Conventional training doesn't work, you're at your wits end... What to do? I guess consult experts in the area, right? Thank [insert deity] that I have not encountered that situation.

(Although I have dated a few clinically psychotic chickies. Which is neither here nor there... :eek:)
 
yeah i agree that it is not all that relevant. i love animals, expecially dogs but they are still beasts.
 
It remains the case that animal models are very effective tools in illustrating how the theories of Pavlov and Skinner work when you apply them in real life situations.

However, they gradually lose their original relevance when you begin dealing with human beings who are old enough to have developed some of the higher thought processes associated with human cognition. Once you have gotten well into the concrete operational stage, the rules have changed significantly. At this point, the child is capable of fully comprehending the idea that "Mommy and Daddy can be WRONG," and this is where dealing with children can become quite a bit more challenging than raising an animal.

Besides my experience with animals, I have also been educated in psychology. Many of these ideas were taught to you a long time ago, when you were going through your secondary education. You may have forgotten taking it, but it should be right there on your transcript.
 
Parents might have experience, but they're also not going to be at all objective. The fact that they have been through the "tears, the laughter, the anger and happiness, the ups and downs" is a strike against their opinion in a scientific discussion about child raising, not a bonus.

If you want to have an argument about the subjective emotional experience of raising a child, then sure, the perspective of someone who has actually done it and gone through all those emotions etc. trumps the perspective of someone who hasn't and is merely speculating. But I didn't think that was the discussion anyone here was having.

Also, actually having raised kids only gets you a small number of what are essentially anecdotal data points, which are more or less useless for scientifically determining the average effectiveness of different child-raising strategies. Unless you have raised an unusually large number of kids AND you've systematically used different strategies when raising them so that you could compare the results, your personal experience raising two or three kids doesn't really mean jack shit in a discussion about what parenting strategies are better on average. It's like trying to claim that the fact that you smoke a pack a day and have never had lung cancer is somehow relevant to a discussion on the health effects of smoking on populations. (But of course, people do try to interject those sorts of claims in smoking discussions all the time...)

You may be right. I mean, if I were to go on an air-boat expedition in the Florida swamps (teeming with alligators) or the Australian outback (teeming with God only knows what) I certainly wouldn't want a guide who had experience. They might be "biased"...

What do they have to offer after all, other than anecdotal tales? I think a well read scientist that has never left the bowels of his museum office would be a much better choice. After all, he can graph data points and show precisely why that alligator should not have been there when he was, and therefore could not possibly have removed your leg at the knee...

Yeah, sounds good to me....

:crazy: :roflmao:
 
You may be right. I mean, if I were to go on an air-boat expedition in the Florida swamps (teeming with alligators) or the Australian outback (teeming with God only knows what) I certainly wouldn't want a guide who had experience. They might be "biased"...

What do they have to offer after all, other than anecdotal tales? I think a well read scientist that has never left the bowels of his museum office would be a much better choice. After all, he can graph data points and show precisely why that alligator should not have been there when he was, and therefore could not possibly have removed your leg at the knee...

Yeah, sounds good to me....

:crazy: :roflmao:
He would nonetheless be correct if we needed to know what to teach children in school about using coporal punishment on their own kids. Although a scientist might not be skilled on dealing with particular children and their particular needs, he or she could tell us which regime of indoctrination is more associated with positive outcomes.
 
Back
Top