Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Spare the Rod.
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
If anyone else would like to put forward actual evidence that smacking isn't mimicked in the child and doesn't lead to the child seeing hitting as an acceptable response to something, I'm all ears.
I'm not sure that a child mimicking an adult is a major problem in and of itself. Children tend to grow up learning the reasons why behind particular behaviors and assuming there is an environment in which such education takes place there is no need to suppose childhood smacking will result in what you say it will result in.
I'm not sure children need to be taught how to smack other children anyway. It seems to come quite naturally to them.I was smacked as a child and I don't think it had any long lasting effect on my but of course that is impossible to know without rewinding my life and playing over again where I wasn't smacked.
Do you tend to use physical violence as a way of expressing your disapproval? If not then the mimicking you supposed would occur didn't in any significant way. I was smacked as a kid too and it hasn't resulted in my mimicking this behaviour over the course of my life.All the scientific evidence I've seen into this area seems to suggest that child who are exposed to physical violence (I don't know why people have trouble with this word, I can think of no other word to describe a "loving" smack to a child, it is a physical action intended to cause pain) learn to mimic this, and I don't have a whole lot of faith in the ability of a parent, any parent, to understand when and how exactly the child is absorbing what is happening to them.
See the above point.
If the scientific evidence doesn't deal with smacking then there's little profit in pointing to this 'evidence' as supporting your point.
You might agree that discipline can be a loving activity and if smacking forms part of that parcel of that activity then a loving smack it is I'm afraid.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
If you say so. So far you aren't really putting forward a distinction other than just that the toddler will some how know or learn when it is acceptable and when it isn't.
Which is a bit odd considering we are debating when it is acceptable and when it is (ie we can't even agree on that, how is a toddler supposed to know?)
Given that there is no agreed measure of acceptability (other than the law of the land), let's agree that if he comes to find it acceptable in the same way and degree that I do then I'll consider that acceptable upbringing. Given that he'd be under my influence during his life, it's reasonably to suppose, all things considered, that that's what will occur.Like I said I don't agree with that at all. I agree they will do it, but not that it is ok, nor that the parent should tell them it is ok.
Fair enough. You'd cap all such actions. I'd cap most.
If I saw a young kid on the street bullying mine and mine gave him a smack back I'd say to myself "good for you". In their simple world the ways of inter-communication are limited. So let them communicate.Pretty much. I'm not sure how that is simplistic reasoning, unless you are arguing that smacking isn't physical violence.
It's simplistic to render your argument down to semantics. There are all shades of physical violence and a raft of motivations and conditions under which such violence occurs. Unless all shades of physical violence are shown to result in what you say they all result in, then all don't necessarily result in what you're suggesting.
Your extrapolating most simplistically and this isn't in the least scientific.I've no problem with parents discipling or punishing their children, but I think they should do it in a way that doesn't imprint bad habits to the child. Of course you have to agree with me what is or isn't a bad habit, which seems to be where we are losing common ground.
Indeed. Although you again seem to draw extremes: that because I see a place for smacking means I'd also encourage my children to go around slapping others.
Again I think you appear to pick this up in isolation - that nothing else is going to be done to influence the direction of the child. On the "other side" an anti-smacker agreed that in the face of her child running out towards the road that "yes - I would wrench him violently from danger".
Which by your logic means that child will now go around wrenching other kids violently about the place.
It doesn't stack up, this singular view of yours.Taking another example, I don't think a parent should laugh at their child and call them names (something you sometimes see on those Nanny 911 programs) when the parent is punishing the child.
I don't think a parent should humiliate their child in front of other children in order to punish them.
You watch such programmes? I hope your kids are in bed when you do
Punishment wouldn't be the motive in smacking in the case we have been dealing with to date. We're supposing an age before the age of reasonable reason when ways of reasoned communication are limited, yet a message need be delivered. Once the age of reasonableness is reached, the language of reason will increase. Which is not to say a smack need be excluded at that older age (although I'd see it as less applicable, just as I see the belt at a yet older age as a battle already lost)I'm not saying you do, I'm simply pointing out that it is not punishment that I have a problem with but punishment that is likely to imprint on the child behavior I wouldn't want to the child to mimic.
An aside: didn't you have a problem with punishment for wrongdoing in a recent discussion to do with criminal justice: deterrance ok, security ok, rehab ok .. punishment not ok?
My response here is a repeat of things already stated: smacking occurs in isolation so I am not concerned that the child is going to progress on to be a prizefighter in the kindergaarten. Perhaps we should drop this element of discussion?Ok, but why are you pretending this is the default position? It isn't, it is a position you entered into.
It seems a bit odd to criticize my evidence as "unscientific" when yours is purely anecdotal.
If my evidence fails the standards to convince you why do you accept your evidence?
Because you offer no evidence - other than the inappropriately extrapolated ... and I have intimate access to some. It's a default position because it's the one I find I occupy from the get-go on considering the issue.
Remember that "my anecdotal" is what would go to form the substance of scientific evaluation: do the smacked turn into inappropriately physical people. Not in my realm they don't.You would appreciate that the direction of the lesson during the childs upbringing will tend towards severely curtailing what constitutes 'good reason'Not at all. I see no reason why that would be the case, nor have you presented any. You seem to just think the child will learn this by osmosis
By "during the childs upbringing" I don't mean the days in which he was smacked. I mean the ongoing upbringing being that which teaches him when and why physical violence (to use your language) might be appropriate.You appreciate that this is less scientific than the evidence I presented to you, I hope?[/qutoe]
I haven't seen any evidence to do with smacking. And I reject the crude extrapolation which is being applied to (unseen references to) evidence.Please. Smacking is a form of violent behavior and studies have shown that children mimic violent behavior.
Kids mimic - period. And they hit other kids. And they will be brought up to learn how to live life in a way considered appropriate by the parent. Generally that means they won't go around hitting other kids so it seems that both the natural tendency to hit others and the mimicry will be teased out in the wash
Blind guess: your scienctific won't be dealing with this. Your evidence will be dealing with ongoingly violent, abusive householdsYou are correct in calling for specific studies to deal with specifically smacking if we want to be sure this applies directly to smacking.
But the idea that it is some how utterly unscientific nonsense is a distortion, particular when you are happy to accept utterly unscientific anecdotal evidence.
You seem more interested in supporting your own preconceived position. I used to believe smacking was fine, since I was smacked and I consider myself fine, but studies such as these convinced me otherwise.
I suppose though I didn't have the Bible in the mix.
Which studies? Those dealing with violent, abusive households the results of which were then extrapolated to cover that which no scientist would dare to add his name to?Yes they can because the child doesn't have to understand what triggered the consequences in order for the punishment to be effective.
If I smack a child because he is standing on the road he doesn't have to understand why. The event imprints unconsciously that the environment (the road) is bad.
The child will learn to associate what they were doing with bad things, even though they won't understand it. That is basically what is child education. The next time he doesn't stand in the road, not because he understands about speeding cars, but because it is associated with bad things
Agreed. That is the goal behind the smack: negative association without any understanding the reason behind it.
The same point applies to wilfulness: where the child associates his wilfulness with something negative. A smack in the case we are looking at.What he doesn't know is I'm in danger of being hit by a car at this moment and this is life threatening so my mother was justified in smacking me and if I ever want to smack someone it is only in the case where they are doing something life threatening. Which seems to be what you think they get from the experience.
I can see no way, nor have you presented a way, that the child will learn a lesson on when to smack from this.
I in no way suggested all that.
What I suggest is that the sum total of ongoing upbringing is going to see the child move out of the stage where it hits other kids whether through natural tendency or through mimickry.
It is as you say just above: negative consequences teach "such and such really not liked by mammy and daddy."No we aren't.
If you have evidence to present to the contrary I'm happy to look at it but from what I understand about child behavior that seems an unfounded assumption.
If the child cannot connect his behaviour (running out onto the road / wilfulness) with the negative consequence delivered then no negative consequence should be delivered. We'd be taking crossed purposes.
Like, there's no point in smacking a baby (unless it's his arse at birth) And so we must assume our conversation deals with children who can connect behaviour to negative consequence.What I'm disagreeing with is that while you are smacking the child for reaching towards the hot plate they are learning a valuable lesson about when it is appropriate to smack someone.
The child doesn't understand what will happen to him if he touches the hot plate. He probably doesn't even understand that it is the hot plate he shouldn't touch.
The idea then that he will learn when it is acceptable to smack someone (ie if they are about to case serious harm to themselves) seems unsupported.
Again I'm not disagreeing with the idea that smacking works, I'm disagreeing with your idea that smacking itself teaches the child when it is or isn't acceptable to smack people.
Er.. I've not suggested my smacking a child teaches the child anything about the acceptability of smacking others (other than encouraging, you say, mimicry). I'm suggested general upbringing will teach a child about the acceptably and otherwise of smacking other people.
So, Wicknight. You've a child below the age of reasonable reasoning. And you've a string of dangers: the road, electricity, hotplates. You've a method open to you that will bring quick resolution to the issue and reduce the risk to your child from these dangers. Indeed, you can apply Pavlovian principles: combining a smart smack with a stern "No! Danger!" a few times - after which point the requirement for a danger-smack diminishes to nought.
Or you've the increased risk of danger to your child brought about by less effective methods of deflecting the child from danger.
Could you elaborate on how you resolve this dilemma?Of course. But the argument is being put forward that the bad aspects of smacking (mimicry) don't apply because the child will learn along with not doing the thing they are being smacked for, the set of justifications for smacking someone.
They will learn to only smack people in the same circumstances they were smacked, ie if the person is going to harm themselves, or doing something dangerous.
That seems to be an unsupported assertion and rather counter intuitive.
Well, I turned out okay. And you turned out okay (in that you wouldn't smack anyone for anything). In the light of no scientific evidence that's all we have. It's hardly counter intuitive when both smackees in this dicussion were raised to have the view we now have.Who says the child does learn this?
If the child is being constantly smacked for talking during the football they will learn that talking during the football is wrong. They don't learn that their dad is being rather unreasonable for smacking them during the football.
I'm assuming the annoyance-motivated disciplining involves a certain randomness or willy nillyedness. It's the randomness of annoyance motivated discipline that differentiates it from structural discipline.
If the annoyance is structural and patterned then the discipline is also structural: "don't talk during the match" becomes a structural disciplineSmacking does work, if by work you mean teach the child what is or isn't acceptable behavior according to the parents
Your child won't run out into the road, nor will he talk during the football, if you smack him when he does.
What it doesn't do is imprint the lessons you are claiming it does which nullify the bad effects of such behavior.
Smacking is but one of a suite of activities aimed at teaching the child what is or isn't acceptable behaviour according to the parents. I'd prefer he mimic me and hit another child than have no reason to mimic me and run out onto the road.
I'm not claiming smacking imprints any other lessons than those: this is what my parents want. This is what I'll do. Ongoing life - and the full gamut of upbringing will teach other lessons regarding the place smacking once held in his life.0 -
I know, but you seem to be doing that. You are saying that while a range of violence actions are mimicked in children because the studies did not assess the specific action of smacking we can drawn absolutely nothing from these.antiskeptic wrote: »It's simplistic to render your argument down to semantics.
That to me seems unnecessarily pedantic.antiskeptic wrote: »Indeed. Although you again seem to draw extremes: that because I see a place for smacking means I'd also encourage my children to go around slapping others.
That isn't an extreme, that is the reality. Children learn from their parents. If you smack your child you are demonstrating what is acceptable behavior to them.
You aren't demonstrate that it is acceptable behavior only in specific circumstances, which is what you seem to assume the child will pick up on.
You used bullying as an example. But what part of you smacking your child because they are about to touch the stove teaches your child to smack a bully but not smack his friend who just stole his ice cream.
Simply because you draw a distinction is it is some what naive to assume this distinction some how works its way to the child.antiskeptic wrote: »"yes - I would wrench him violently form danger".
Which by your logic means that child will now go around wrenching other kids violently about the place.
Yes. That isn't an ideological position, it is a biological reality.
That isn't an argument not to wrench a child out of danger (something that can be quite distressing for the child). But simply because you have to do this doesn't mean the child doesn't imprint anything from it happening.
For example if you are stuck in a sinking car you may need to drag your child under water and out onto the river bank. The child may very well have a subconscious fear of water because of this. That isn't a reason not to do it, but equally simply because you have to do it doesn't mean nothing happens to the child.
You seem to simply want children not to be imprinted by their parents behavior because it is inconvenient to how you wish to discipline them.
Of course it does, you see children mimicking their parents all the time. For example a child in a home with a smoker is much more likely to take up smoking.antiskeptic wrote: »It doesn't stack up, this singular view of yours.
As was discussed in the A&A thread on raising children in a religion, children as sponges. They soak up everything around them and they learn from example from their parents.
We cannot simply ignore this because it is inconvenient.antiskeptic wrote: »An aside: didn't you have a problem with punishment for wrongdoing in a recent discussion to do with criminal justice: deterrance ok, security ok, rehab ok .. punishment not ok?
That is because it is flawed to take what we know about children and apply it to adults.
A child will actually learn from punishment. There is little evidence an adult will. We still have this natural tendency to think that if we hurt someone they will not repeat what they did. That instinct comes from raising children, but we inaccurately apply it to young adults and adults.
For example, when the man in North Wall was shot by the teenager a common response on Boards.ie was to kick the crap out of these teenagers until they "learn some respect for others"
Such a view is fatally flawed. It won't teach them respect for others because they are already passed the point of being, as I say, above "a sponge"antiskeptic wrote: »Kids mimic - period. And they hit other kids. And they will be brought up to learn how to live life in a way considered appropriate by the parent. Generally that means they won't go around hitting other kids so it seems that both the natural tendency to hit others and the mimicry will be teased out in the wash
Are you basing that on anything other than your own experience? If so, how can you say "generally"?antiskeptic wrote: »Your 'science' won't be dealing with this. Your 'science' will be dealing with violent, abusive households.
Not it isn't. It was clinical experiments with children.
I thought I posted this already but obviously not, I'll try and find the link again.antiskeptic wrote: »I in no way suggested all that. What I suggest is that the sum total of ongoing upbringing is going to see the child move out of the stage where it hits other kids.
How exactly? You keep saying this but you have yet to explain how it actually happens.antiskeptic wrote: »If the child cannot connect his behaviour (running out onto the road / wilfulness) with the negative consequence then no negative consequence should be delivered. In which case we're talking about the wrong age children.
That isn't how it works.
The child doesn't consciously connect his behavior with anything. It is imprinted on him. The child doesn't consciously understand what is happening.
If he did you wouldn't need to smack him in the first place. If the child understood that roads were dangerous you could simply say "Don't do that, it's dangerous"
Smacking a baby works exactly the same as smacking a child, it imprints negative re-enforcement.antiskeptic wrote: »Like, there's no point in smacking a baby (unless it's his arse at birth)
The whole point of smacking is that the child is too young to understand a rational discussion of what they are doing.antiskeptic wrote: »So, Wicknight. You've a child below the age of reasonable reasoning. And you've a string of dangers: the road, electricity, hotplates. You've a method open to you that will bring quick resolution to the issue and reduce the risk to your child from these dangers. Indeed, you can apply Pavlovian principles: combining a smart smack with a stern "No! Danger!" a few times - after which point the requirement for a danger-smack diminishes to nought.
Or you've the increased risk of danger to your child brought about by less effective methods of deflecting the child from danger.
Could you elaborate on how you resolve this dilemma?
Well it is sort of ridiculous to discuss such a general hypothetical. I would do everything I could to avoid physically hurting my child until it is absolutely necessary to physically hurt him at which point I would.
See my point about the sinking car. If it is absolutely necessary to hurt or injury my child in order to prevent greater injury I would.
But it would be foolish of me to think that simply because I have to do this the universe is going to morph into a version I like where there are no consequences of what is imprinted to the child because I did this.
This is the point you seem to be ignoring, simply because you think it is good to smack your child doesn't mean that there are no consequences of doing so.
What do you mean no scientific evidence. There is lots of scientific evidence you are just ignoring it.antiskeptic wrote: »In the light of no scientific evidence that's all we have.
There is evidence that children mimic their parents.
There is evidence that children mimic violent behavior
There is evidence that children don't understand the notions you are assigning to themantiskeptic wrote: »I'm assuming the annoyance-motivated disciplining involves a certain randomness or willy nillyedness. It's the randomness of annoyance motivated discipline that differentiates it from structural discipline.
It is only random to the parent. The child can't tell the difference. By its very nature smacking is supposed to limit how often a child does something. If the child is smacked once for going near the cooker he can't tell the difference between that and a random smack for going near the TV when daddy is watching football.antiskeptic wrote: »Smacking is but one of a suite of activities aimed at teaching the child what is or isn't acceptable behaviour according to the parents. I'd prefer he mimic me and hit another child than have no reason to mimic me and run out onto the road.
Fair enough. My issue is more your refusal to acknowledge that he will mimic you. If you are happy he does this as I said early this comes down to us having no common ground.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement