Disciplining Children AKA Back in my day they behaved.

Billy86

facehugger99 wrote: »

The only people you see nowadays physically hitting their kids are the tracksuited scummer-knack brigade and in fairness their kids are models of good behaviour.

Definitely not true in the least.

neonsofa

eviltwin wrote: »

Ah no I think you are wrong there. I don't have a relationship with my parents either, now I'm no psychologist, but I hope, in fact I know, if one of my clients looked for advice on dealing with either their parents or their child I'd be able to set my own stuff aside and look at their issue on its own merits.

Would you see a divorced relationship counsellor?

Exactly. Professionals attend regular supervision to ensure it doesn't happen. A competent practitioner will not allow their own experience to infringe upon their practice and if they felt it was- through supervision or reflection etc.- they will refer the person elsewhere. A bad therapist obviously wouldn't know to do any of the above,but they're just a bad therapist in that case, it's not their experience (and resulting bias) that makes them such, it's their lack of professionalism and inability to engage in the necessary processes listed above.

El_Duderino 09

GreeBo wrote: »

If you are assuming all the other interactions are the same, then I cant understand how you say its lazy parenting.

How is a slap any lazier than changing wifi password?

As a means of communication, hitting is really lazy. It takes time and effort to make yourself understood to a child. Hitting is quick but it carries meanings. It means “do this and I’ll make you feel pain” and it means “hitting is an effective method of communication” which is a pretty bad lesson to teach a child.

It’s lazy because it might be effective in the moment but it teaches a terrible lesson alongside.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

Exactly. Professionals attend regular supervision to ensure it doesn't happen. A competent practitioner will not allow their own experience to infringe upon their practice and if they felt it was- through supervision or reflection etc.- they will refer the person elsewhere. A bad therapist obviously wouldn't know to do any of the above,but they're just a bad therapist in that case, it's not their experience (and resulting bias) that makes them such, it's their lack of professionalism and inability to engage in the necessary processes listed above.

If they're basing their opinion of a completely separate case upon their own personal experience, then of course that in itself is indicative of the fact that they are lacking in professionalism and incompetent in their job, and are therefore unable to provide an objective perspective.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If they're basing their opinion of a completely separate case upon their own personal experience, then of course that in itself is indicative of the fact that they are lacking in professionalism and incompetent in their job, and are therefore unable to provide an objective perspective.

But you're assuming all practitioners would do that by assuming that a divorced practitioner would always compare their professional cases to their own experience with separation. In that case grief counsellors should never have buried a relative, crisis pregnancy counsellors should never have experienced a pregnancy- crisis or otherwise, addiction counsellors should never have known an alcoholic etc.. every practitioner has their own experiences in all aspects of life, from the huge events like above examples, to the most mundane experiences and that's always going to be their frame of reference, but their own personal experience is not what determines their suitability, their ability to remain objective despite that is. And professionals go through years of training to develop that skill.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

But you're assuming all practitioners would do that by assuming that a divorced practitioner would always compare their professional cases to their own experience with separation.

No I'm not? I even clarified that with eviltwin that I would have no issue with seeing a relationship counsellor who was divorced themselves. It's not whether they're divorced or not would influence my judgement that they could or couldn't be objective, it's whether they could leave their experience outside the room.

In that case grief counsellors should never have buried a relative, crisis pregnancy counsellors should never have experienced a pregnancy- crisis or otherwise, addiction counsellors should never have known an alcoholic etc.. every practitioner has their own experiences in all aspects of life, from the huge events like above examples, to the most mundane experiences and that's always going to be their frame of reference, but their own personal experience is not what determines their suitability, their ability to remain objective despite that is. And professionals go through years of training to develop that skill.

Not if they're actually any good at their job it isn't, because providing someone else with advice and counselling services isn't about themselves, it's about their clients.

That's why their own personal experience is particularly relevant in judging their competency, because if they introduce it, they're incompetent, whereas if they keep their experience to themselves, and focus on their clients issues, that's a demonstration of their ability to remain objective, or not, as in the case of that poster who not only introduced plenty upon which to make a determination as to their competency and suitability, and exactly why I said that respectfully, I (personally, speaking only for myself), would never wish to avail of their services.

It really doesn't take years to develop what isn't actually a skill, and would be obvious to most people, particularly to people who are in the business of offering advice to other people. I don't form any opinion one way or the other of people based upon what they do for a living, but if they want to base their opinion on their training, qualifications and personal experience, then of course I'm going to form an opinion as to their competency in what they do for a living on that basis.

Realt Dearg Sec

Hitting your children is an admission that you don't have a clue how to communicate with your child. It provides a terrible model of behaviour (same as using your phone in the car or smoking around them).

I don't hit my daughter because there is absolutely no reason to do so. She can be taught proper behaviour through all sorts of methods that don't involve violence. And she's a great kid.

Now, there isn't a shred of evidence for this claim the pro-hitting posters keep making that kids these days have no respect and are more unruly than in the past. And even if there were, there's no evidence for the further claim that this is caused by the decline of parents willing to violently assault their children. But since we're in an evidence-free thread where personal experience is the same as data...

When I was a kid my parents never hit me. I would say it was true of most people I knew actually (and this was in the 80s, which seem to be a hallowed glory day of parental violence for some posters). And we grew up to get good jobs, to be respectful of others, and all of that lovely stuff. But I knew a lot of people in my school whose parents did hit them, as part of their regular disciplinary methods. So many of those people grew up to be trouble makers and thugs I couldn't even count.

Now you might point out this is at best anecdotal evidence. You might also note that there is no necessary causal link between those things (most people whose parents hit them were also from poorer backgrounds for instance, which may better explain their outcomes - but at the same time it probably explains the increased likelihood of them having parents who hit them in the first place). You'd be right, this is just personal experience, it has no basis in data, or evidence. But funnily enough it's the exact same basis as the OP uses for his point of view, and yet here we are.

What the anti-hitting side do have on their side is the overwhelming weight of scientific study into the question of child behaviour and longer term behavioural outcomes of people who do and don't experience violence as part of their discipline growing up, that people who do experience smacking etc experience increased levels of aggression and anti-social behaviour as they get older. But since when did that bother anyone wanting to blame lefty PC SJW snowflake millenials for something, especially something that is itself very vaguely defined and completely unsubstantiated.

Basically what I'm saying is the OP invented a problem, and invented the cause of that problem, in order to introduce his solution, "hidings". That's salesmanship 101: create a demand for your product.

Sell me this pen.

Tigger

wexford awake wrote: »

Nothing wrong with giving children four to six slaps across the arse or back of legs. Europe and their crap has made it illegal to physically discipline children. Kids were happier in the 70s 80s and 90s because we were simply tougher because we got tough love at home. Moddle coddling is more harmful than a slap.

Your mad for the baiting kids still https://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=475402&sort=newest&date_to=&date_from=&query=%2A%3A%2A&forum=251
It’s unnessicary to hit peolple as I’ve said before on here I rescued problem doggies and retrain them through communication and patience
The idea that I would hit a child to communicate an idea to it is beyond repulsive to me

One eyed Jack

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

What the anti-hitting side do have on their side is the overwhelming weight of scientific study into the question of child behaviour and longer term behavioural outcomes of people who do and don't experience violence as part of their discipline growing up, that people who do experience smacking etc experience increased levels of aggression and anti-social behaviour as they get older. But since when did that bother anyone wanting to blame lefty PC SJW snowflake millenials for something, especially something that is itself very vaguely defined and completely unsubstantiated.

They most certainly do not, because as you quite rightly point out for one thing the issue is so vaguely defined, and the thing you fail to point out is that the vast majority of studies into the issue of outcomes of smacking children are generally coming from one source in particular (even the meta-studies that were done included studies she had previously conducted herself!) -


What Science Says—and Doesn't—about Spanking

The vast majority of these studies that are done, are loaded with selection bias, they pick candidates which fit the model of their hypothesis, as opposed to any form of actual scientific methodology.

As for holding people responsible for something based upon their political and social views, I wouldn't, because it really doesn't matter one way or the other what their political or social views are in the context of offering an opinion on how parents who are not them, choose to discipline their own children, and the outcomes for those children, who, without meaning to state the obvious here, but who are also, not them.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No I'm not? I even clarified that with eviltwin that I would have no issue with seeing a relationship counsellor who was divorced themselves. It's not whether they're divorced or not would influence my judgement that they could or couldn't be objective, it's whether they could leave their experience outside the room.

.

I thought you said you wouldn't, apologies.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not if they're actually any good at their job it isn't, because providing someone else with advice and counselling services isn't about themselves, it's about their clients.

That's why their own personal experience is particularly relevant in judging their competency, because if they introduce it, they're incompetent, whereas if they keep their experience to themselves, and focus on their clients issues, that's a demonstration of their ability to remain objective, or not, as in the case of that poster who not only introduced plenty upon which to make a determination as to their competency and suitability, and exactly why I said that respectfully, I (personally, speaking only for myself), would never wish to avail of their services.

It really doesn't take years to develop what isn't actually a skill, and would be obvious to most people, particularly to people who are in the business of offering advice to other people. I don't form any opinion one way or the other of people based upon what they do for a living, but if they want to base their opinion on their training, qualifications and personal experience, then of course I'm going to form an opinion as to their competency in what they do for a living on that basis.

That's exactly my point. They don't "introduce" their experience into their practice at all. No human being can ignore their own thoughts, feelings, based on their own frame of reference, even the most professional therapist has to work at it- hence professional supervision and need to engage in their own therapy. They actively work at not allowing it interfere with their practice on an emotional/cognitive level. The fact you don't think that is a skill they develop in training is bizarre to me. There is a reason people learn about transference and countertransference and attend their own therapy and supervision. It's something that needs to be developed over time.

Or are you referring to someone actually discussing their own experience in a professional capacity? If so then it's no wonder you would deem them incompetent! I'm talking about their own internal processes, not their interaction with clients. If they are self disclosing and making reference to their own experience then they're absolutely incompetent but that's not what I was talking about.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

That's exactly my point. They don't "introduce" their experience into their practice at all. No human being can ignore their own thoughts, feelings, based on their own frame of reference, even the most professional therapist has to work at it- hence professional supervision and need to engage in their own therapy. They actively work at not allowing it interfere with their practice on an emotional/cognitive level. The fact you don't think that is a skill they develop in training is bizarre to me. There is a reason people learn about transference and countertransference and attend their own therapy and supervision. It's something that needs to be developed over time.

They can, if they want to. Plenty of people do it all the time and it's really not that unusual, and that's why I'm suggesting it's not a particular skill that can be learned, but rather it's a personal attribute that either a person is capable of doing, or they aren't. I'm aware of the training that is provided to professionals in overcoming their own biases, and in processing their own issues and endeavouring to help them to maintain their objectivity, but unfortunately, like any form of training, the person can simply ignore their training when they aren't being observed themselves.

Your use of terms like transference and counter-transference reminds me of the time I was having a conversation with a social worker and I used those terms. She had no idea what I was talking about, and she was only just out of college after having completed her degree in social care. Now that's not to say she wasn't brilliant at what she does, she was, really good. She was able to relate to her clients and was very helpful to a great many of them, so while I may have been sketchy about her qualifications, her personal attributes that she brought to the role as a person, meant she was exemplary at her job.

Or are you referring to someone actually discussing their own experience in a professional capacity? If so then it's no wonder you would deem them incompetent! I'm talking about their own internal processes, not their interaction with clients. If they are self disclosing and making reference to their own experience then they're absolutely incompetent but that's not what I was talking about.

Yes, that's exactly why I questioned why that posters objectivity, because in the same post as they claimed to be a trained child psychologist, they made reference to their own personal experience of their own childhood and their experience of their parents parenting, and the influence it had on them and still has on them as an adult.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They can, if they want to. Plenty of people do it all the time and it's really not that unusual, and that's why I'm suggesting it's not a particular skill that can be learned, but rather it's a personal attribute that either a person is capable of doing, or they aren't. I'm aware of the training that is provided to professionals in overcoming their own biases, and in processing their own issues and endeavouring to help them to maintain their objectivity, but unfortunately, like any form of training, the person can simply ignore their training when they aren't being observed themselves.

Your use of terms like transference and counter-transference reminds me of the time I was having a conversation with a social worker and I used those terms. She had no idea what I was talking about, and she was only just out of college after having completed her degree in social care. Now that's not to say she wasn't brilliant at what she does, she was, really good. She was able to relate to her clients and was very helpful to a great many of them, so while I may have been sketchy about her qualifications, her personal attributes that she brought to the role as a person, meant she was exemplary at her job.





Yes, that's exactly why I questioned why that posters objectivity, because in the same post as they claimed to be a trained child psychologist, they made reference to their own personal experience of their own childhood and their experience of their parents parenting, and the influence it had on them and still has on them as an adult.

The fact you're saying someone can ignore their own thoughts just shows you're not getting what I'm saying. The very fact that someone chooses to be objective shows that they acknowledge their own thoughts and feelings and choose to discard them. Hence they haven't ignored them. It's basic human nature that if someone refers to let's use divorce as an example, you instantly think of your own meaning of divorce- not getting upset at your awful break up and telling your client how much of a sick your ex Is, but you think of your own frame of reference, no matter how briefly. You don't exist in a vacuum, It's how your brain works. It cannot be ignored. No matter how momentarily It passes in your mind. It can and is put aside, especially by competent professionals but trying to diminish them and pretend they aren't there is exactly what professionals are taught not to do. Again,hence supervision and personal therapy.
Knowing your bias so it can't influence practice. If you're not aware then you actually can't be objective because on an emotional level you may actually be guided by your own feelings on it.

Anyway it's dragging the thread off topic and verging into long posts and multi quote territory which is no fun for anybody to read so I'll leave it there.

John_Rambo

I rarely witness child slapping and hitting nowadays. But when I do, they're normally badly behaved children from lower socio-economic backgrounds in fast-food restaurants, playgrounds etc... These outbursts are often carried out with foul language or innapropiate threats of further violence.

I don't witness it happening with well behaved children in proper restaurants, playgrounds etc...

I also find it fascinating that it's usually childless people that have a child hitting/slapping fetish on online forums.
This lot also seem to think that unruly teenagers from low socio-economic backgrounds should have been slapped and hit when it's most likely that the very teenagers they're talking about were most likely hit and slapped very often.

I've never hit my kids personally. Maybe I'm lucky, but good socialisation along with strong rules and boundaries, good communication and dialogue works well. Modern parents are blessed with excellent back up from easily accessed advice from books and the web. Expert, on hand help from the likes of David Coleman and John Sharry are at our hands.

Hands used for education, good parenting instead of hitting slapping.

GreeBo

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

As a means of communication, hitting is really lazy. It takes time and effort to make yourself understood to a child. Hitting is quick but it carries meanings. It means “do this and I’ll make you feel pain” and it means “hitting is an effective method of communication” which is a pretty bad lesson to teach a child.

It’s lazy because it might be effective in the moment but it teaches a terrible lesson alongside.

Agreed, which is why I have said repeatedly in this very thread that a slap doesn't replace or remove the requirement to follow-up and punishment with an explanation of why it occurred and what behavior is expected.

But sure fire away and ignore that...again.

Peatys wrote: »

Takes effort to change a WiFi password.

Does it? I can do it from my phone without so much as standing up.
To give a slap I have to go find cut child and then exert myself.
Good effort though.

The One Doctor wrote: »

Oh dear, we've moved away from beating our children to make them fit into our world view. What a shame.

BTW, KTF, are you really an Indo or IT journalist as the rumour goes?

Beating our children huh? These strawman arguments are pointless. You aren't arguing against anyone when you use such hyperbole.

SEPT 23 1989

Was slapped as a child because it was all boys and we were little b@stards at times

I wouldn't blame my parents for losing it

Never slapped my daughter because you don't hit girls ever

John_Rambo

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Was slapped as a child because it was all boys and we were little b@stards at times

So was I

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I wouldn't blame my parents for losing it

Agreed 100% Neither do I. It was the done thing then. Things are different now.

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Never slapped my daughter because you don't hit girls ever

Never slapped my kids, gender aside. But, as I said in my previous post on this thread, we've a lot more knowledge and education at our fingertips now. There's no real need to slap our children.

One eyed Jack

John_Rambo wrote: »

I rarely witness child slapping and hitting nowadays. But when I do, they're normally badly behaved children from lower socio-economic backgrounds in fast-food restaurants, playgrounds etc... These outbursts are often carried out with foul language or innapropiate threats of further violence.

I don't witness it happening with well behaved children in proper restaurants, playgrounds etc...

I also find it fascinating that it's usually childless people that have a child hitting/slapping fetish on online forums.
This lot also seem to think that unruly teenagers from low socio-economic backgrounds should have been slapped and hit when it's most likely that the very teenagers they're talking about were most likely hit and slapped very often.

I've never hit my kids personally. Maybe I'm lucky, but good socialisation along with strong rules and boundaries, good communication and dialogue works well. Modern parents are blessed with excellent back up from easily accessed advice from books and the web. Expert, on hand help from the likes of David Coleman and John Sharry are at our hands.

Hands used for education, good parenting instead of hitting slapping.

I don't agree that the issue of the welfare of children and their outcomes as adults deliniates along such convenient lines. You have no idea what those families are like behind closed doors. You're literally only seeing what you want to see.

I'm not going to attempt to counter your personal experience, because it's rather obvious from your post that you're attuned to seeing what you want to see, and ignoring the vast majority of both social demographics in making your observations.

Personally, I wouldn't even rate David Coleman, and I can't comment on the other chap because I've never heard of him until you mentioned him just now, so to say "expert, on hand help" is at our hands is really exaggerating the influence of the two "experts" you mention.

EDIT: As for your assertion that it's usually childless people that have what you call "a fascination for a child hitting/slapping fetish" on online forums, I think you'd be well wide of the mark on that one too.

Paddy Cow

Would all the people who are happy for parents to smack their child, be happy for other adults to do so? If a child learns in the home that the consequence for bad behaviour is smacking, then how is that child supposed to behave for adults who aren't allowed smack them?

Someone said that corporal punishment has been used for 1000's of years so why write it off? Corporal punishment wasn't confined to children. Should we bring back the stocks so the community can throw rotten veg at "undesirables"? Should we bring back public flogging for misdemeanours?

Society has evolved and become more civilised to give body autonomy to everyone. No adult regardless of who they are, be they a partner, member of the gards, a priest, a nun, anoyone, has the right to put their hands on another adult under any circumstances other than self defence. It's considered assault.

It took a long time to filter down to children but I'm glad it has. Children are too little to stand up for themselves. They can't do that until they reach adulthood. The reason we don't use corporal punishment on them now is the culmination of adults who were mistreated as children saying enough is enough. There are better ways of disciplining children. It has taken Irish society a long time to move away from corporal punishment and apart from a few on this thread bemoaning it's loss, I'm thankful it is something future generations won't have to experience and will read back on and wonder how times like that could exist.

Someone made a facetious argument that psychological punishment ie taking away toys, grounding, changing the wifi password is basically the same thing as corporal punishment, as both are teaching the child consequences. That is complete whataboutery BS. Withholding privileges for bad behaviour is setting a child up for life as an adult. If you "misbehave" as an adult, no one is going to assault you. If you take the p!ss in your job, you face being fired. If you break the law, you face prison.

That is the message we are now sending our children - if you don't behave, you lose things you like. It's not perfect. There are people who overindulge their children and then don't know how to deal with their bad behaviour. This will sort itself out in time. It's only relatively recently that we've stopped hitting kids. As it becomes ingrained in society that you cannot hit your kids and there are other ways of disciplining them, these sorts of threads will die out.

I imagine if boards was around in the 40's and 50's there would be plenty of threads saying you should be allowed to hit your wife if she was out of line. If someone started a thread like that now it would be locked, with the poster banned. I hope that in the not too distant future our attitudes have changed enough that even debating hitting our kids won't be a thing.

SEPT 23 1989

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Would all the people who are happy for parents to smack their child, be happy for other adults to do so? If a child learns in the home that the consequence for bad behaviour is smacking, then how is that child supposed to behave for adults who aren't allowed smack them?

Someone said that corporal punishment has been used for 1000's of years so why write it off? Corporal punishment wasn't confined to children. Should we bring back the stocks so the community can throw rotten veg at "undesirables"? Should we bring back public flogging for misdemeanours?

Society has evolved and become more civilised to give body autonomy to everyone. No adult regardless of who they are, be they a partner, member of the gards, a priest, a nun, anoyone, has the right to put their hands on another adult under any circumstances other than self defence. It's considered assault.

It took a long time to filter down to children but I'm glad it has. Children are too little to stand up for themselves. They can't do that until they reach adulthood. The reason we don't use corporal punishment on them now is the culmination of adults who were mistreated as children saying enough is enough. There are better ways of disciplining children. It has taken Irish society a long time to move away from corporal punishment and apart from a few on this thread bemoaning it's loss, I'm thankful it is something future generations won't have to experience and will read back on and wonder how times like that could exist.

Someone made a facetious argument that psychological punishment ie taking away toys, grounding, changing the wifi password is basically the same thing as corporal punishment, as both are teaching the child consequences. That is complete whataboutery BS. Withholding privileges for bad behaviour is setting a child up for life as an adult. If you "misbehave" as an adult, no one is going to assault you. If you take the p!ss in your job, you face being fired. If you break the law, you face prison.

That is the message we are now sending our children - if you don't behave, you lose things you like. It's not perfect. There are people who overindulge their children and then don't know how to deal with their bad behaviour. This will sort itself out in time. It's only relatively recently that we've stopped hitting kids. As it becomes ingrained in society that you cannot hit your kids and there are other ways of disciplining them, these sorts of threads will die out.

I imagine if boards was around in the 40's and 50's there would be plenty of threads saying you should be allowed to hit your wife if she was out of line. If someone started a thread like that now it would be locked, with the poster banned. I hope that in the not too distant future our attitudes have changed enough that even debating hitting our kids won't be a thing.

No real men hit their wives

We love them and respect them

No matter what century

John_Rambo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't agree that the issue of the welfare of children and their outcomes as adults deliniates along such convenient lines. You have no idea what those families are like behind closed doors. You're literally only seeing what you want to see.

You've every right not to agree that the welfare of kids affects them or have any influence from childhood to adulthood. Naive to the extreme, but stick to it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not going to attempt to counter your personal experience, because it's rather obvious from your post that you're attuned to seeing what you want to see, and ignoring the vast majority of both social demographics in making your observations.

Fair enough, don't attempt to counter, you're unable. I see what I see, I've lived a long life in the East inner city of Dublin and in affluent suburbs. I don't have an agenda, I don't ignore anything and you can't deny it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Personally, I wouldn't even rate David Coleman, and I can't comment on the other chap because I've never heard of him until you mentioned him just now, so to say "expert, on hand help" is at our hands is really exaggerating the influence of the two "experts" you mention.

Well, they are experts in the field, you don't rate one, why? And you've never heard of the other, again, why?

Edit... I see where you're coming from regarding the welfare of the kids. Some of the least well off parents raised the best kids. I didn't mean to say poor = bad parenting. I take back that inference. But I do think a lack of education and a small social sphere can sometimes be detrimental to the upbringing of a child

One eyed Jack wrote: »

EDIT: As for your assertion that it's usually childless people that have what you call "a fascination for a child hitting/slapping fetish" on online forums, I think you'd be well wide of the mark on that one too.

Edit.. edit!! sorry, I take your valid points, but there's a few on here that don't have kids and always join in on these threads that assume bold kids are bold because they weren't hit or slapped.

One eyed Jack

John_Rambo wrote: »

You've every right not to agree that the welfare of kids affects them or have any influence from childhood to adulthood. Naive to the extreme, but stick to it.

That's nothing like what you originally said, and that's not what I was disagreeing with either.

Fair enough, don't attempt to counter, you're unable. I see what I see, I've lived a long life in the East inner city of Dublin and in affluent suburbs. I don't have an agenda, I don't ignore anything and you can't deny it.

Of course I'm unable to counter your perspective from your own personal experience. I'd want to be fairly arrogant to even attempt to do so, I'd also be an idiot to assume I could attempt to tell you your own personal experience is wrong. I'd be implying you're lying, and I don't imagine for a minute that you are lying. You're simply relating your own personal experience. It's your perspective I'm arguing is limited, given your own account of your personal experience. You absolutely do have an agenda if you're attempting to imply that a lack of education is responsible for children's misbehaviour. There's a reason there are campaigns to introduce 'consent classes' in third-level education. Better educated children doesn't necessarily correlate with better behaved adults, clearly!

Well, they are experts in the field, you don't rate one, why? And you've never heard of the other, again, why?

I simply wouldn't rate him as having read some of his books, attended one or two of his public talks and having read and listened to some of his contributions in the media, he's about as much an expert as Super-nanny. That is to say, his audience is particularly small because parents simply can't relate to his ideas. He is the modern day equivalent of Benjamin Spock - he tells his audience what they want to hear, and it's because that small minority can relate to his opinions that they consider him an expert.

Edit... I see where you're coming from regarding the welfare of the kids. Some of the least well off parents raised the best kids. I didn't mean to say poor = bad parenting. I take back that inference. But I do think a lack of education and a small social sphere can sometimes be detrimental to the upbringing of a child

I don't disagree with you. Of course a lack of education and a small social sphere can sometimes be detrimental to the upbringing of some adults (I have to keep saying adults, because that is the eventual outcome of any childhood). However, there are an infinite number of factors influence the children's outcomes as adults. We know this, as adults ourselves, who were children once. We didn't all go on to third level education, we weren't all social butterflies, and yet the vast majority of us turned out to be contributing members of society with all our various perspectives, influenced by our own personal experiences.

I wouldn't immediately be given to assuming that a person who is poorly educated with a small social circle is the result of poor parenting. I don't make any judgements or assumptions about their parents parenting. I could cite an infinite number of high profile examples of well educated adults who were considered well connected and had large social circles who turned out to be vile human beings and leeches on society. I wouldn't automatically jump to holding their parents responsible for those outcomes though, any more than I would immediately assume that someone who was what I consider to be a mature, healthy adult, is a direct result of their parents influence.

Edit.. edit!! sorry, I take your valid points, but there's a few on here that don't have kids and always join in on these threads that assume bold kids are bold because they weren't hit or slapped.

I've already said I don't agree with the opening poster, as their assumptions are far too simplistic. However, equally simplistic are correlations that smacking children is generally advocated by less well-educated childless (child-free surely? :pac:) people, or that parents who smack their children are terrible parents whose children will develop the DSM of psychological issues as adults.

freedominacup

wexford awake wrote: »

See

See that's the problem, children have become like fragile ornaments. I mention a few smacks and you equate it to torture. No wonder kids Today are spoiled sh**ts.

I honestly doubt you'd match either of my boys, 14 and 16 yrs old, for a day at work. Neither of them ever had a hand laid on them. Both of them would think nothing of turning out before 6 in the morning and putting in a 12 HR shift if the need arose. In fact they'd relish the opportunity to work it up in the hole of a neanderthal like you. There's plenty like them.

GreeBo

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Would all the people who are happy for parents to smack their child, be happy for other adults to do so? If a child learns in the home that the consequence for bad behaviour is smacking, then how is that child supposed to behave for adults who aren't allowed smack them?

Someone said that corporal punishment has been used for 1000's of years so why write it off? Corporal punishment wasn't confined to children. Should we bring back the stocks so the community can throw rotten veg at "undesirables"? Should we bring back public flogging for misdemeanours?

Society has evolved and become more civilised to give body autonomy to everyone. No adult regardless of who they are, be they a partner, member of the gards, a priest, a nun, anoyone, has the right to put their hands on another adult under any circumstances other than self defence. It's considered assault.

It took a long time to filter down to children but I'm glad it has. Children are too little to stand up for themselves. They can't do that until they reach adulthood. The reason we don't use corporal punishment on them now is the culmination of adults who were mistreated as children saying enough is enough. There are better ways of disciplining children. It has taken Irish society a long time to move away from corporal punishment and apart from a few on this thread bemoaning it's loss, I'm thankful it is something future generations won't have to experience and will read back on and wonder how times like that could exist.

Someone made a facetious argument that psychological punishment ie taking away toys, grounding, changing the wifi password is basically the same thing as corporal punishment, as both are teaching the child consequences. That is complete whataboutery BS. Withholding privileges for bad behaviour is setting a child up for life as an adult. If you "misbehave" as an adult, no one is going to assault you. If you take the p!ss in your job, you face being fired. If you break the law, you face prison.

That is the message we are now sending our children - if you don't behave, you lose things you like. It's not perfect. There are people who overindulge their children and then don't know how to deal with their bad behaviour. This will sort itself out in time. It's only relatively recently that we've stopped hitting kids. As it becomes ingrained in society that you cannot hit your kids and there are other ways of disciplining them, these sorts of threads will die out.

I imagine if boards was around in the 40's and 50's there would be plenty of threads saying you should be allowed to hit your wife if she was out of line. If someone started a thread like that now it would be locked, with the poster banned. I hope that in the not too distant future our attitudes have changed enough that even debating hitting our kids won't be a thing.

What about people being locked up for life in prison then...should we just communicate with them more instead of physically restraining them?


Perhaps the naughty step could be rolled out for extreme cases...maybe some time outs?

facehugger99

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Never slapped my daughter because you don't hit girls ever

so if you'd had a son......

One eyed Jack

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Would all the people who are happy for parents to smack their child, be happy for other adults to do so? If a child learns in the home that the consequence for bad behaviour is smacking, then how is that child supposed to behave for adults who aren't allowed smack them?

The literal definition of whataboutery right there. Completely different circumstances. Other adults neither have the authority nor the responsibility for children that their parents do.

Someone said that corporal punishment has been used for 1000's of years so why write it off? Corporal punishment wasn't confined to children. Should we bring back the stocks so the community can throw rotten veg at "undesirables"? Should we bring back public flogging for misdemeanours?

That really isn't the foreign concept you're making it out to be. Quite often in these threads there are posters who advocate violence against parents who smack their children, while arguing that they would never lay a hand on their own children as children who are smacked grow up to be violent thugs. Clearly there's an obvious lack of self-awareness in the expression of their own violent fantasies.

Society has evolved and become more civilised to give body autonomy to everyone. No adult regardless of who they are, be they a partner, member of the gards, a priest, a nun, anoyone, has the right to put their hands on another adult under any circumstances other than self defence. It's considered assault.

You're categorically wrong there. Anyone, depending upon their occupation, have the authority to restrain people by whatever means are necessary, bodily autonomy be damned.

It took a long time to filter down to children but I'm glad it has. Children are too little to stand up for themselves. They can't do that until they reach adulthood. The reason we don't use corporal punishment on them now is the culmination of adults who were mistreated as children saying enough is enough. There are better ways of disciplining children. It has taken Irish society a long time to move away from corporal punishment and apart from a few on this thread bemoaning it's loss, I'm thankful it is something future generations won't have to experience and will read back on and wonder how times like that could exist.

That's wishful thinking, at best, considering that what we're talking about here is parents authority to physically discipline their own children, and the fact is that it's still a disciplinary method practiced by the overwhelming majority of parents, not just in Irish society, not just in Western society, but in every society across the world. It would be ridiculous to suggest that parents smacking their children would ever be completely eliminated in any given society because the fact of the matter is that it's only a tiny minority of adults are actually advocating for parents to be criminalised for disciplining their own children.

Someone made a facetious argument that psychological punishment ie taking away toys, grounding, changing the wifi password is basically the same thing as corporal punishment, as both are teaching the child consequences. That is complete whataboutery BS. Withholding privileges for bad behaviour is setting a child up for life as an adult. If you "misbehave" as an adult, no one is going to assault you. If you take the p!ss in your job, you face being fired. If you break the law, you face prison.

It's not whataboutery at all. The point being made is that such methods of discipline can have equivalent outcomes as physical discipline. In adults we call such behaviour gaslighting, and that's what posters here are suggesting is permissible to do to a child, as long as they're not laying a finger on them, as though gaslighting a child should somehow be an acceptable means of instilling discipline in a child that won't have any adverse outcomes for the child as an adult.

Also, I can cite plenty of examples of adults who were assaulted for their behaviour. I'm sure you can too, so to suggest that nobody is going to assault you if they think you've stepped out of line is just more wishful thinking.

That is the message we are now sending our children - if you don't behave, you lose things you like. It's not perfect. There are people who overindulge their children and then don't know how to deal with their bad behaviour. This will sort itself out in time. It's only relatively recently that we've stopped hitting kids. As it becomes ingrained in society that you cannot hit your kids and there are other ways of disciplining them, these sorts of threads will die out.

Eh? Clearly it's not, as physical discipline is still used by the vast majority of parents. I don't understand how you're actually not aware of this. Your imperfect solution might be the message you're sending to your own children, but I sincerely doubt it's rubbing off on anyone else but your own children. I certainly wouldn't be waiting around for your idea to sort itself out any more than I would wait for my child to sort themselves out without any intervention on my part. I don't expect children will be raising themselves any time soon, which is the logical conclusion of your "hands off" parenting strategy.

I imagine if boards was around in the 40's and 50's there would be plenty of threads saying you should be allowed to hit your wife if she was out of line. If someone started a thread like that now it would be locked, with the poster banned. I hope that in the not too distant future our attitudes have changed enough that even debating hitting our kids won't be a thing.

I wouldn't think Boards would be any more a reflection of Irish society in the 40's and 50's any more than it clearly isn't any sort of a reflection or representation of Irish society as it is today. Your idealism simply doesn't map to reality, it didn't in the 40's and 50's, it doesn't today, and it's incredibly unlikely it will in the future.

wexford awake

freedominacup wrote: »

I honestly doubt you'd match either of my boys, 14 and 16 yrs old, for a day at work. Neither of them ever had a hand laid on them. Both of them would think nothing of turning out before 6 in the morning and putting in a 12 HR shift if the need arose. In fact they'd relish the opportunity to work it up in the hole of a neanderthal like you. There's plenty like them.

So your kids work in HR at 14 and 16?.

Glass fused light

kildare lad wrote: »

The kid in your example will be corrected by the other children, he will soon learn that they don't care if he is off in a corner crying although if he has not figured this out by 10 he may be "special" (and not in a special needs way)

The other kids dont care thought, my son tells me they start laughing at him when he does it. He doesnt really have to many friends because of the way he acts, He wont go out an play because he wants to sit in an play xbox all day even though the estates full of kids. And his parents let him stay in. Hes not a bully or anything hes just super spoilt and always has been. hopefully he changes but i dont think it will, unless the parents start confronting him and start being a bit firmer with him.

That's not just being spoilt thats overall neglect, using the electronics as a babysitter. His parents could beat the head off him with much the same result. Because if they are not explaining the consequences of his actions to him and are letting him avoid it, he will never gain the skill to dealing with people. Worse still he will learn about dealing with people online in a way which will never be accepted in real life.

I've seen some parents who were so layed back as to be called horizontal when it came to discipline, who were firm but for the most part without confrontations or punishments. All just "johnny don't do that because people don't like it when you do that". But to be fair while the childern were little monsters at 5 and 6 (well more than average at that age) by 10 or so they had correctly translated that "because" into "people won't like them" and could self-correct to the relief of all.

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Society has evolved and become more civilised to give body autonomy to everyone. No adult regardless of who they are, be they a partner, member of the gards, a priest, a nun, anoyone, has the right to put their hands on another adult under any circumstances other than self defence. It's considered assault.

...
If you "misbehave" as an adult, no one is going to assault you. ...... If you break the law, you face prison.

Were you aware that 'We the State' could legally kill people up until the 90's. 'We the State' have agreed that not all rights are equal so you can be assaulted and imprisoned by another if they have reason to believe that in doing so they are saving the life of someone other than themselves so it's not just self-defence.

qwerty ui op

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it can be seen in shopping centers, or other public places where in some cases kids are running all over the parents. You can see that combination of helplessness and embarrassment in the faces of the parents, as their kids shout, cry, pull things down, throw tantrums, etc. In an open space, it's fine, and somewhat amusing. In an enclosed space, like a bus/plane, then it's incredibly annoying. (12 hours long flight with children that won't settle down is a nightmare for the whole plane of passengers)

I don't think kids are much worse than before, and honestly, when it comes to kids, it's not really much of an issue. If teens are acting up in a similar manner then that's a different story, but I imagine this thread isn't about teens.

I won't say it doesn't happen but what you're talking is extremely unusual.

I do our household shopping and often take our kids. If we were all to spend an hour shopping you'd have your worst 3/4 mins period within that hour and if you looked back over a year you'd have your worst shopping trip but almost all of the time their fine. This is true for most parents, when you have kids at supermarkets or shopping centers you notice the other families much more.

Can you tell me an actual place or time where i'll see this helplessness/embarrassment in the faces of parents? I've never seen it

Leaving problems associated with disadvantaged areas aside, you do get some couples who are just hopeless and have no natural ability around the area of discipline, I'm talking about people who have done fine in other areas in life, school/work /relationships etc all of a sudden they have kids and they haven't a clue how the do the normal bread and butter stuff. They'll usually end up avoiding public places.

I've seen teenage single moms or au-pairs 1000 times better than a middle aged couple with successful careers, because the couple have no natural ability to parent.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're a child psychologist who has no relationship with your own parents?

Respectfully, I hope you understand why I would never feel the need to avail of your services.

While I personally see no reason why not based on the tiny amount of information the user has actually offered about their situation past and present. Rather than come to a conclusion more due to a rush to deride someones opinion through ad hominem, I would realise we would need a lot more information to understand whether their own situation has ANY bearing on their ability as a psychologist.

Especially, but not solely, given they are a CHILD psychologist and they themselves are no longer a child. As such their own skill set is not even relevant to the reparation of an adult relationship. Their issue with reconciling an adult relationship between adults is not exactly relevant to their career of reparation of relationships involving a child.

It also seems to be fueled by the mere assumption that resolution of a relationship is the only "success" criteria of a psychologist. Which is also an entirely invalid assumption to make. Quite often reaching a successful, amicable and maybe even permanent cessation of a relationship is the correct and "successful" move to make.

No, I fear you put no thought into this at all. Rather you saw someone you disagree with and you saw a method by which to demean them, their opinion and their abilities as an opening ad hominem volley. So you jumped at the chance.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Clearly it doesn't, or we would see evidence the vast majority of Irish adults would be pucking the heads off each other as we speak.

That is not a valid assumption at all. The claim that physical violence as a disciplinary method CAN teach violence is a valid conflict resolution methodology in no way requires that the "majority"..... let alone the "vast" majority...... should display that. You have merely invented "majority" as a requirement for evaluation here. It is not, and you yourself explain why this is in your next paragraph when you write "there are many influences in childhood that lead to various outcomes as adults"

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't imagine any one method of discipline can be empirically or scientifically proven to be any less, or more effective than another.

Well this is not a surprise given you generally dismiss any science that shows anything to be more or less efficacious than anything else. Such as your dismissal of evidence showing that not only do same sex parenting configurations fare just as well as heterosexual ones..... they sometimes even fare better. You merely dismissed it at the time as being liberal academia with the agenda of validating liberal lifestyles.

But I see absolutely no reason why we can not evaluating exactly this. Nor have you offered any. You merely say you do not imagine it can be so, without suggesting ANY reasons or blocks that you (also likely due to imagination) envision as being in the way of that goal. There are several measures by which we can evaluate the outcomes of differing parenting configurations and approaches. You have merely rubbished them in the past too, such as suggesting that your child not ending up in prison or dependant on drugs is not a valid measure of success of a parenting modality. By your lights it seems no evaluation is even possible. Thankfully pretty much no one in the world of actual research on this topic thinks like you do.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would say the same of anyone who expects their claims that they are a child psychologist who expects their opinion on parenting to be taken seriously, would at the very least have a healthy relationship with their own parents if they're putting the theory into practice.

And as explained that expectation is unwarranted and baseless. Putting the theory into practice in NO WAY demands the outcome you describe. Nor does the resolution point met in one case indicate that the same resolution will be the correct one in another. So extrapolating as you did their ability to mediate YOUR situation based on how they resolved their own.... is an error. So when you write " that would imply that I should be seen as the toxic parent" you have merely invented that implication out of nowhere, because it certainly is not implied at all.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

it's whether they could leave their experience outside the room.

Then you likely understand why your first post has drawn the replies that is has I assume? Because this is EXACTLY what you were not doing in that post. You made no move at all in that post to indicate this is how you would evaluate the situation or the professionalism of the psychologist. You merely declared that their lack of relationship with their parents was enough of a reason not to seek their professional counsel.

Adding caveats here now does come across as back peddling whether you realise it, or care, or not.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's why their own personal experience is particularly relevant in judging their competency, because if they introduce it, they're incompetent

This is also not outright true. The mere introduction of ones own personal experience into a scenario is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. It can in fact be the opposite and be a wonderful thing and entirely the right thing to do. It depends on HOW they introduce it, and what implications they derive from it. There are many layers of nuance there that are being lost on your black/white right/wrong thinking on the matter.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

the vast majority of studies into the issue of outcomes of smacking children are generally coming from one source in particular

Firstly I am not sure why that is a problem unless you can show the source in particular is flawed. Data is data, regardless of whether it comes from 1 source or 1000. Unless you can show a single source to be flawed, then the fact it came from a single source is a red herring.

Secondly however when using phrases like "most studies" or "majority of studies" this is a claim very easily validated. It is a simple X/Y statement where Y is the number of studies that were ever carried out and X is the variable you are making assertions about.

Perhaps start by giving us the value Y?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The vast majority of these studies that are done, are loaded with selection bias, they pick candidates which fit the model of their hypothesis, as opposed to any form of actual scientific methodology.

Again what is your value of Y here? And show your workings on how you arrived at the figure X which is, I assume, at least 0.75 * Y?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not going to attempt to counter your personal experience, because it's rather obvious from your post that you're attuned to seeing what you want to see, and ignoring the vast majority of both social demographics in making your observations.

Says the user who rubbished even the idea that your child ending up in prison, or dependent on drugs, can be used as a valid measure in outcomes. You have openly ignored and rubbished social demographics in this way, so I do not think you are in a position to deride it in others.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

TThere's a reason there are campaigns to introduce 'consent classes' in third-level education. Better educated children doesn't necessarily correlate with better behaved adults, clearly!

Hang on. Your evaluation of the effect of education on the behaviour of adults is based on the fact we are in the process of educating them? How does that even remotely make sense? If you want to evaluate the effects of education on behaviour you can not base it on data DURING That education. But after it.

That would be like trying to evaluate the effects of alcohol on peoples behaviours by only looking at them WHILE they are sitting in the pub drinking alcohol and ignoring everything they do when they get up and leave.

I think the most we can imply for the existence of consent classes is that our education is failing at some earlier stage. Though not, thankfully, as early as one single nut job recently suggested when he told us that we should be asking babies permission to change their nappies.

nozzferrahhtoo

qwerty ui op wrote: »

How come some people are always looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses.

That was probably a rhetorical question but there is actually an answer for it. It is called Juvenoia. "An exagerated fear of social change in young people".

There is a kind of lay man crash course in it here.

Deleted User wrote: »

I was hit, smacked, belted, and I haven't turned into a violent person.

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder will they decide that any form of punishment, even "a firm talking to" should be banned simply because it might have lasting negative effects?

This is why anecdote is not evidence. If you put 1000 people in a room and have them all drink poison, at least one of them might end up on a forum somewhere saying "Well I drank poison and it did nothing to me".

We do not examine individuals, we examine trends in larger groupings. And the question should be not whether violence as a disciplinary method turned YOU violent or not.... but whether violence as a disciplinary method shows trends of turning people in general more violent.

So no I would hope no one would be working off "might" here. That level of paranoia, as I assume you are noting yourself, would be ludicrous nonsense. But if one particular methodology shows general negative trends over a population THEN we have warrant to suggest withholding it's use over others that do not.

GreeBo wrote: »

Not physically correcting children is arguably leading to more aggressive and misbehaved young adults...

Great, if it is arguable then argue it. What would be the evidence for this claim?

GreeBo wrote: »

A slap is lazy but changing the Wi-Fi password isn't?
You'll have to run that by me again...

Allow me. I think what such users are getting at is that merely lashing out violently is just a lazy thoughtless act. Whereas if you sit down and think about what you know about the child...... you can invest some time and energy into coming up with strategies that are actually based on something.

Further merely lashing out with violence misses what discipline is actually about. Which is an opportunity to actually teach a child right from wrong. By lashing out with violence in the moment you are more treating the situation as a situation to be resolved and moved past. Rather than a chance to actually teach the child what they did wrong, why it is considered wrong, and what the consequences of being wrong in this way are.

And those consequences should not be "You will get hurt" they should be more along the lines of "You need to respect others, especially those who are every day working to make your life easier and happier by providing you things LIKE wifi..... and if you can not show respect to others for what they do for you..... they will stop doing those things for you. And to example that, I am now withdrawing some of those privileges and freedoms".

So yes I would prefer to see kids taught about mutual respect and actual right and wrong.... rather than the concept that conflict resolution should be done by violence.... or one only has to show respect and morality towards those who are in a position to hurt them rather than those who are not. YMMV.

GreeBo wrote: »

You often cannot reason with a 2 year old, what then?

You seem to be taking your failure to reason with them as an indication they can not be reasoned with. That is an error and alas a common one. I do not believe, or see any reason why I should believe, that anything but a real statistical minority of our species are truly beyond reason. The average 2 year old certainly is not.

GreeBo wrote: »

I can't see how psychological punishment is soo much better, because that's what depriving them of toys, WiFi etc amounts to.

There is some level of physical or psychological in play in any discipline method. The question is not whether we should be using any method at all therefore, but whether some methods are superior to others or show less signs of detriment.

I would not therefore class all "psychological" approaches under the one word "psychological" and then act like they are all on a par of equivalence. There are better and worse approaches to it.

The last time this thread topic came up another user gave an example which stuck with me so I will borrow it here. He spoke of how his kids refused to brush their teeth. Now he had the physical option of hitting them, or grabbing them and forcefully brushing their teeth for them in a way that would make them not want him to do it again.

Might have worked.

He also had the "psychological" approach of in that moment screaming consequences at them about removal of privileges and benefits.

Also might have worked.

What he DID do however was explain to them why they brush their teeth and what happens if they do not. He then told them it was up to them if they wanted to or not. Hardly beleiving their luck they ran off to bed without brushing their teeth.

The next day he sat eating a large bag of sweets. Nice ones. They ran over seeking some of these. And he said "Wow I would love to give you some, because I love making you happy and giving you treats like this. But I can not in good moral conscience do that because I know the harm it causes your teeth. And since you have chosen not to look after them, I can not give you sweets knowing they are hurting you".

They brushed their teeth that night and every night since. Without even being asked to any more.

Put another way the narrative should not be "You do wrong, and you have privileges removed" so much as "When you do right, you earn these privileges". Pedantically you are saying the same thing if you measure only the end effect........... which is that they lose their privileges when they behave badly....... but in terms of the actual message being conveyed it is a much more positive one.

This is a valid approach to discipline. It is not about using your power over them to make them suffer so much as it is demonstrating to them that people in the world respond to you differently depending on how you respond to them and yourself and your own responsibilities. There are rights and privileges and people only feel compelled to grant you your privileges when you show yourself worthy of them. And that is a much better message to teach a child than "The one with the strongest slap is the one who is right". Especially given, for many parents, the child will eventually reach an age where the physical advantages swing the other way. And what do they do then? What does a parent do when a child gets to the point they can slap back?

GreeBo wrote: »

Agreed, which is why I have said repeatedly in this very thread that a slap doesn't replace or remove the requirement to follow-up and punishment with an explanation of why it occurred and what behavior is expected.

But sure fire away and ignore that...again.

I am not sure anyone is ignoring it so much as questioning the utility of it. If you achieve X by doing Y, then why achieve X by doing Y and Z? Why not occams razor it and realise that perhaps Z is superfluous to requirements and therefore not worth ANY of the potential detriment and cost it brings?

And what of the many situations where we try to teach our children not to use violence, while we are happily practising it on them ourselves. Why add complication through hypocrisy to the already complex situation of parenting and guidance?

So yea, so far in your posts I am seeing only negatives and no positives to the violence based approach to parenting. Your posts appear to be failing to down playing the negatives, while not at all demonstrating a single positive to the approach overall.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I think we need to bring back parental physical discipline of children. I don't mean beatings but "hidings" could be in. This is as nature intended to keep the sprogs in check.

Firstly nature does not "intend" anything. What it does do is hit on something that works and runs with it, without checking or being able to check if there are any number of better ways to do it. Thankfully one of the things it HAS hit on is giving our species the intelligence to do that instead. So we are able to rise above petty and empty ideas like "what nature intended".

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

We have moved away from that and the result is not good. Children with zero discipline, respect and no direction.

I see no reason at all to think that correlation is validated into a causal link at all. I see any number of reasons why there could be (if in fact there even is, you appear to be merely assuming there based off.... what exactly?) a drop in discipline, respect and direction. For example the quantity of quality time our modern world allows us to spend with our children to guide them. The problem for me therefore seems often to be a lack of ANY discipline being taught and enforced. Not just specifically the use of violence to achieve it.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

People want common sense. This is part of restoring the balance.

Then try some. Start by not making correlation-causation leaps that are designed only to validate your own narratives.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

While I personally see no reason why not based on the tiny amount of information the user has actually offered about their situation past and present. Rather than come to a conclusion more due to a rush to deride someones opinion through ad hominem, I would realise we would need a lot more information to understand whether their own situation has ANY bearing on their ability as a psychologist.

Especially, but not solely, given they are a CHILD psychologist and they themselves are no longer a child. As such their own skill set is not even relevant to the reparation of an adult relationship. Their issue with reconciling an adult relationship between adults is not exactly relevant to their career of reparation of relationships involving a child.

It also seems to be fueled by the mere assumption that resolution of a relationship is the only "success" criteria of a psychologist. Which is also an entirely invalid assumption to make. Quite often reaching a successful, amicable and maybe even permanent cessation of a relationship is the correct and "successful" move to make.

No, I fear you put no thought into this at all. Rather you saw someone you disagree with and you saw a method by which to demean them, their opinion and their abilities as an opening ad hominem volley. So you jumped at the chance.

How you choose to evaluate the services offered by the person offering those services is entirely up to you. Your conclusions would have absolutely no bearing upon how I choose to evaluate the service offered by someone inferring that they are qualified to mediate a conflict resolution I would have with my own child if I expect that the outcome is that we would eventually have a healthy and prosperous parent-child relationship, and if they admit that they are incapable of resolving conflict within their own parent-child relationship, then on that basis I would choose not to avail of their services, and I would choose to avail of the services of a person who I felt was more likely to be objective. I don't think that's particularly unreasonable, and I'm not interested in your reasons as to why you think it is unreasonable.

That is not a valid assumption at all. The claim that physical violence as a disciplinary method CAN teach violence is a valid conflict resolution methodology in no way requires that the "majority"..... let alone the "vast" majority...... should display that. You have merely invented "majority" as a requirement for evaluation here. It is not, and you yourself explain why this is in your next paragraph when you write "there are many influences in childhood that lead to various outcomes as adults"

It absolutely is a valid assumption if the argument is that slapping children teaches them that violence is the way to resolve conflict. We would expect to see the vast majority of adults using violence to resolve conflict, as it is argued that's the way they would have learned to resolve conflict in childhood. It's the original assertion doesn't stand up to any scrutiny, not the evidence to the contrary that challenges it. That is indeed as you point out, explained in my next paragraph. The claim is that violence experienced in childhood invariably leads to adults using violence in adulthood as a means of conflict resolution.

We don't see that, so the claim can easily be dismissed as inaccurate, if not downright misleading, in order to promote a particular agenda, one which tries to regulate how parents choose to raise their own children according to how those people putting forward the claim would want parents to raise their children, according to those peoples standards.

Well this is not a surprise given you generally dismiss any science that shows anything to be more or less efficacious than anything else. Such as your dismissal of evidence showing that not only do same sex parenting configurations fare just as well as heterosexual ones..... they sometimes even fare better. You merely dismissed it at the time as being liberal academia with the agenda of validating liberal lifestyles.

I don't dismiss the validity of the scientific method, there just isn't a whole lot of evidence that it is used in the social sciences. I also didn't dismiss the claims of that particularly small sample size study, and if you go back to the thread in question you're referring to, you'll see that I was the first person to bring it up, completely contradicting your claims that I dismissed it. Scientists disagree on ideas all the time, and you purporting to have some unspecified qualification in the social sciences would be aware of that, or are you unaware of your own unconscious bias? You might want to evaluate that using objective rather than subjective criteria which would lead you to conclude that there's nothing egregiously flawed in your methodology.

But I see absolutely no reason why we can not evaluating exactly this. Nor have you offered any. You merely say you do not imagine it can be so, without suggesting ANY reasons or blocks that you (also likely due to imagination) envision as being in the way of that goal. There are several measures by which we can evaluate the outcomes of differing parenting configurations and approaches. You have merely rubbished them in the past too, such as suggesting that your child not ending up in prison or dependant on drugs is not a valid measure of success of a parenting modality. By your lights it seems no evaluation is even possible. Thankfully pretty much no one in the world of actual research on this topic thinks like you do.

That flawed assumption would appear to be fuelled by your own eagerness to jump in when you see someone you disagree with and attempt to undermine their opinion using any number of fallacious, ill-thought out, irrational, illogical, immature nonsense you can muster. If that's the methods you use to evaluate ideas, then it doesn't come as a surprise that you're more likely to be perceived as incapable of conducting an objective evaluation due to your own biases. I have never once suggested any evaluation is impossible. What matters is actually the criteria used in performing any evaluation and the goal of carrying out any evaluation.

That's exactly why if I'm evaluating a persons suitability to resolve conflict between myself and my child, I am likely to look unfavourably on a person who is unable to resolve conflict in their own parent-child relationship. It's not as though there are a shortage of far more qualified people I can choose from who have the ability to remain objective without introducing their own biases in support of their arguments.

And as explained that expectation is unwarranted and baseless. Putting the theory into practice in NO WAY demands the outcome you describe. Nor does the resolution point met in one case indicate that the same resolution will be the correct one in another. So extrapolating as you did their ability to mediate YOUR situation based on how they resolved their own.... is an error. So when you write " that would imply that I should be seen as the toxic parent" you have merely invented that implication out of nowhere, because it certainly is not implied at all.

It absolutely does. Otherwise why bother learning the theory? Simply to gain the qualifications and then disregard the theory and just wing it on their own subjective biases and personal experiences of their own childhood? There's plenty of those types of people about, far too many in fact, but thankfully not enough that it's impossible to find a person who is actually competent in their role and actually understands their role and the objectives of medication in family conflict.

I didn't invent the implication out of nowhere either, and if you go back and read the posts again, maybe you might see where that implication came from. It was the assertion that conflict resolution in families is often better served by a person cutting ties with a toxic parent. In that context, I would be seen as the toxic parent if the child is being encouraged to cut all ties with me by a child psychologist who is basing their opinion on their lack of a relationship with their own parents. How you imagine that would be a satisfactory outcome for me would need some explaining.

Then you likely understand why your first post has drawn the replies that is has I assume? Because this is EXACTLY what you were not doing in that post. You made no move at all in that post to indicate this is how you would evaluate the situation or the professionalism of the psychologist. You merely declared that their lack of relationship with their parents was enough of a reason not to seek their professional counsel.

Adding caveats here now does come across as back peddling whether you realise it, or care, or not.

No I did no such thing. I respectfully suggested to the poster that I was replying to that I hope they would understand why I would never feel a need to avail of their services given that they have a poor relationship with their own parents. I expect that being a child psychologist, they would understand why I would feel that way. Other people who aren't child psychologists would of course query why I would feel that way, and I explained to them exactly why. There was no adding caveats or back pedalling when I was explaining why I held to the position I did. Back pedalling is implying that I sought to change my position. I didn't.

That explanation is unlikely to have you change your position though.

This is also not outright true. The mere introduction of ones own personal experience into a scenario is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. It can in fact be the opposite and be a wonderful thing and entirely the right thing to do. It depends on HOW they introduce it, and what implications they derive from it. There are many layers of nuance there that are being lost on your black/white right/wrong thinking on the matter.

As I've explained already, introducing ones personal bias when trying to mediate between two parties in conflict is never a good strategy, because it's making the situation all about them, and taking the focus off their clients, whom are there because they want to avail of their services the services of a child psychologist in resolving their parent-child relationship.

Firstly I am not sure why that is a problem unless you can show the source in particular is flawed. Data is data, regardless of whether it comes from 1 source or 1000. Unless you can show a single source to be flawed, then the fact it came from a single source is a red herring.

Using a single source as the basis for determining anything is flawed? I have to wonder do you just come out with the first thing that comes to mind which is the direct opposite of anything anyone says, and expect that you should be taken seriously. If the argument being put forward is that smacking children leads to negative outcomes as adults, then why would you imagine it is ever a valid method to use one single data point in making that determination? How is that a red herring? Or did you just like how that sounded?

Secondly however when using phrases like "most studies" or "majority of studies" this is a claim very easily validated. It is a simple X/Y statement where Y is the number of studies that were ever carried out and X is the variable you are making assertions about.

Perhaps start by giving us the value Y?

You're really stooping to new levels of attempting to be as obtuse and pedantic as possible with that one.

You're quite well aware that I won't have kept count of the number of studies I have read over the last 20 years, but I can form an opinion on the basis of having read those studies. I linked to an article earlier in the thread from 2016 which shows that scientists, psychologists and many stakeholders still disagree on whether or not smacking children invariably leads to negative outcomes, and I don't expect that Elizabeth Gershaw should have to be able to count the number of studies she has read over the course of her career which inform her opinion that it is safer to refrain from smacking children.

Says the user who rubbished even the idea that your child ending up in prison, or dependent on drugs, can be used as a valid measure in outcomes. You have openly ignored and rubbished social demographics in this way, so I do not think you are in a position to deride it in others.

I don't even remember what you're talking about there, so I'm just going to assume that you're doing as you always do and twisting my opinion beyond all recognition and taking it out of context to the point where I don't even recognise what you claim I could have said myself. You've actually surpassed yourself on this occasion. Don't expect any congratulations for it though. It's an entirely dishonest tactic.

Hang on. Your evaluation of the effect of education on the behaviour of adults is based on the fact we are in the process of educating them? How does that even remotely make sense? If you want to evaluate the effects of education on behaviour you can not base it on data DURING That education. But after it.

That would be like trying to evaluate the effects of alcohol on peoples behaviours by only looking at them WHILE they are sitting in the pub drinking alcohol and ignoring everything they do when they get up and leave.

I think the most we can imply for the existence of consent classes is that our education is failing at some earlier stage. Though not, thankfully, as early as one single nut job recently suggested when he told us that we should be asking babies permission to change their nappies.

And you've done it again. The above is simply nothing like what I either said or suggested, so how you've formed the conclusions you have can only be based entirely upon your own biases. On that basis I see no need to justify something I didn't say, but if it pleases you to carry on twisting my opinion and misrepresenting what I actually have said, you carry on.

Mrcaramelchoc

i would love to know what people would do with these three.


https://www.limerickleader.ie/video/home/312694/watch-knife-wielding-teens-cause-2k-damage-to-limerick-nightclub.html


personally i wouldnt start with the kids.id start with the parents ,firstly i would take something out of their parents dole money every week until every red cent is paid off to those buisness owners.it wouldnt bother me if they starved.
then warn the parents to keep their kids under control or else there will be no dole.
then send the kids to some sort of boot camp for 6 months.there are plenty of things that could be done im sure.


the behaviour in that video is just shocking and shouldnt tolerated.


to quote the op


Time to take control. The politically correct world is on it's last legs. People want common sense. This is part of restoring the balance.

GreeBo

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That was probably a rhetorical question but there is actually an answer for it. It is called Juvenoia. "An exagerated fear of social change in young people".

There is a kind of lay man crash course in it here.




This is why anecdote is not evidence. If you put 1000 people in a room and have them all drink poison, at least one of them might end up on a forum somewhere saying "Well I drank poison and it did nothing to me".

We do not examine individuals, we examine trends in larger groupings. And the question should be not whether violence as a disciplinary method turned YOU violent or not.... but whether violence as a disciplinary method shows trends of turning people in general more violent.

So no I would hope no one would be working off "might" here. That level of paranoia, as I assume you are noting yourself, would be ludicrous nonsense. But if one particular methodology shows general negative trends over a population THEN we have warrant to suggest withholding it's use over others that do not.



Great, if it is arguable then argue it. What would be the evidence for this claim?



Allow me. I think what such users are getting at is that merely lashing out violently is just a lazy thoughtless act. Whereas if you sit down and think about what you know about the child...... you can invest some time and energy into coming up with strategies that are actually based on something.

Further merely lashing out with violence misses what discipline is actually about. Which is an opportunity to actually teach a child right from wrong. By lashing out with violence in the moment you are more treating the situation as a situation to be resolved and moved past. Rather than a chance to actually teach the child what they did wrong, why it is considered wrong, and what the consequences of being wrong in this way are.

And those consequences should not be "You will get hurt" they should be more along the lines of "You need to respect others, especially those who are every day working to make your life easier and happier by providing you things LIKE wifi..... and if you can not show respect to others for what they do for you..... they will stop doing those things for you. And to example that, I am now withdrawing some of those privileges and freedoms".

So yes I would prefer to see kids taught about mutual respect and actual right and wrong.... rather than the concept that conflict resolution should be done by violence.... or one only has to show respect and morality towards those who are in a position to hurt them rather than those who are not. YMMV.



You seem to be taking your failure to reason with them as an indication they can not be reasoned with. That is an error and alas a common one. I do not believe, or see any reason why I should believe, that anything but a real statistical minority of our species are truly beyond reason. The average 2 year old certainly is not.



There is some level of physical or psychological in play in any discipline method. The question is not whether we should be using any method at all therefore, but whether some methods are superior to others or show less signs of detriment.

I would not therefore class all "psychological" approaches under the one word "psychological" and then act like they are all on a par of equivalence. There are better and worse approaches to it.

The last time this thread topic came up another user gave an example which stuck with me so I will borrow it here. He spoke of how his kids refused to brush their teeth. Now he had the physical option of hitting them, or grabbing them and forcefully brushing their teeth for them in a way that would make them not want him to do it again.

Might have worked.

He also had the "psychological" approach of in that moment screaming consequences at them about removal of privileges and benefits.

Also might have worked.

What he DID do however was explain to them why they brush their teeth and what happens if they do not. He then told them it was up to them if they wanted to or not. Hardly beleiving their luck they ran off to bed without brushing their teeth.

The next day he sat eating a large bag of sweets. Nice ones. They ran over seeking some of these. And he said "Wow I would love to give you some, because I love making you happy and giving you treats like this. But I can not in good moral conscience do that because I know the harm it causes your teeth. And since you have chosen not to look after them, I can not give you sweets knowing they are hurting you".

They brushed their teeth that night and every night since. Without even being asked to any more.

Put another way the narrative should not be "You do wrong, and you have privileges removed" so much as "When you do right, you earn these privileges". Pedantically you are saying the same thing if you measure only the end effect........... which is that they lose their privileges when they behave badly....... but in terms of the actual message being conveyed it is a much more positive one.

This is a valid approach to discipline. It is not about using your power over them to make them suffer so much as it is demonstrating to them that people in the world respond to you differently depending on how you respond to them and yourself and your own responsibilities. There are rights and privileges and people only feel compelled to grant you your privileges when you show yourself worthy of them. And that is a much better message to teach a child than "The one with the strongest slap is the one who is right". Especially given, for many parents, the child will eventually reach an age where the physical advantages swing the other way. And what do they do then? What does a parent do when a child gets to the point they can slap back?



I am not sure anyone is ignoring it so much as questioning the utility of it. If you achieve X by doing Y, then why achieve X by doing Y and Z? Why not occams razor it and realise that perhaps Z is superfluous to requirements and therefore not worth ANY of the potential detriment and cost it brings?

And what of the many situations where we try to teach our children not to use violence, while we are happily practising it on them ourselves. Why add complication through hypocrisy to the already complex situation of parenting and guidance?

So yea, so far in your posts I am seeing only negatives and no positives to the violence based approach to parenting. Your posts appear to be failing to down playing the negatives, while not at all demonstrating a single positive to the approach overall.

When you can show me the softly, softly approach working for a screaming kid in a shopping centre I'll start listening.

I don't think anyone is recommending slapping a child for not brushing their teeth.

What are the negatives I'm ignoring? I don't see negatives to a slap. What I will ignore are people using examples of abuse to price that a slap is wrong. The same way I'm sure you world ignore me using sleep deprivation as a non violent approach to discipline.

hatrickpatrick

Corporal punishment is too open to abuse, because there are just too many assholes out there with anger management issues and who fly off the handle at their kids for the most minor, petty bullsh!t imaginable - or even sometimes just come home from work shouting and roaring at their family because they had a bad day and are literally looking for an excuse to get mad at someone.

Essentially, abusive family situations are far too widespread and this is why physical punishment needs to stay illegal. More likely than not, it won't be used to discipline kids, but as a mechanism for adults to vent their "my boss is a jerk, I mean YOU DIDN'T PICK UP YOUR DAMN TOYS" when they get home from a sh!t day.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Corporal punishment is too open to abuse, because there are just too many assholes out there with anger management issues and who fly off the handle at their kids for the most minor, petty bullsh!t imaginable - or even sometimes just come home from work shouting and roaring at their family because they had a bad day and are literally looking for an excuse to get mad at someone.

Essentially, abusive family situations are far too widespread and this is why physical punishment needs to stay illegal. More likely than not, it won't be used to discipline kids, but as a mechanism for adults to vent their "my boss is a jerk, I mean YOU DIDN'T PICK UP YOUR DAMN TOYS" when they get home from a sh!t day.

Wasn't there an incredibly popular show pretty much based on the premise of a dysfunctional family where the father was regularly seen to get stressed out and angry at his son, and this was seen as a comedy?

The Simpsons, that was it!

Of course HP you're absolutely right about the fact that there are some parents who do shout and roar at their children after a shìt day in work, but that doesn't have anything to do with the issue of whether or not to use physical discipline to discipline a child. That kind of psychological, emotional, mental and verbal abuse can be equally, just as detrimental, if not I would argue more so to a child's development and their emotional and mental health, which many adults absolutely do carry with them into adulthood unresolved.

I would It's the degree to which any form of discipline is used, and the broader context in which it is used and indeed viewed by a society, which will be greater determinant factors in predicting outcomes for individual children as they mature into adulthood.

You'll also get plenty of people who would argue that the parent in those circumstances should receive assistance and empathy in dealing with their own ill mental health, and there are no shortage of charities and organisations which receive funding from the HSE for referrals from other organisations to intervene, before a case like that would ever come near the point where the parents may be charged with something like child abuse or neglect, let alone that a parent would ever end up in court for subjecting their child or children to that kind of an example.

Fortunately for them, children are generally resilient, and their experiences as children can just as likely motivate them in positive ways as negative. There really isn't any objective way to make that determination on an individual basis, but what we do know is that contrary to the beliefs advocated by some, the idea that the outcomes for children who have experienced abuse in childhood more often has the opposite effects that advocates claim - that children actually do not go on to perpetuate the mythical "cycle of violence", that in fact as adults they empathise more with victims of abuse than perpetuate abuse themselves as adults.

neonsofa

GreeBo wrote: »

When you can show me the softly, softly approach working for a screaming kid in a shopping centre I'll start listening.

I don't think anyone is recommending slapping a child for not brushing their teeth.

What are the negatives I'm ignoring? I don't see negatives to a slap. What I will ignore are people using examples of abuse to price that a slap is wrong. The same way I'm sure you world ignore me using sleep deprivation as a non violent approach to discipline.

My eldest only ever had one screaming fit as a child (apart from when sick but thats a whole different type) and we swiftly removed her from the restaurant and went home. She never acted up again in the same way. She was never slapped. I've been complimented by teachers, strangers, family on her behaviour through the years. Now in fairness she was just a great kid generally. But she was also disciplined appropriately and consistently, so knew not to behave in a way where screaming to get her way was an option, it didn't involve raising my hand to her. Consistent discipline (without slapping) creates an environment where the child knows damn well screaming like that isn't on. So they won't do it, let alone need a slap for it.

GreeBo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Corporal punishment is too open to abuse, because there are just too many assholes out there with anger management issues and who fly off the handle at their kids for the most minor, petty bullsh!t imaginable - or even sometimes just come home from work shouting and roaring at their family because they had a bad day and are literally looking for an excuse to get mad at someone.

Essentially, abusive family situations are far too widespread and this is why physical punishment needs to stay illegal. More likely than not, it won't be used to discipline kids, but as a mechanism for adults to vent their "my boss is a jerk, I mean YOU DIDN'T PICK UP YOUR DAMN TOYS" when they get home from a sh!t day.

Anyone who is prone to abusing their child, or anyone for that matter, didn't suddenly stop because slapping became illegal.

I'm pretty sure they aren't abusing their children in public to begin with.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

My eldest only ever had one screaming fit as a child (apart from when sick but thats a whole different type) and we swiftly removed her from the restaurant and went home. She never acted up again in the same way. She was never slapped. I've been complimented by teachers, strangers, family on her behaviour through the years. Now in fairness she was just a great kid generally. But she was also disciplined appropriately and consistently, so knew not to behave in a way where screaming to get her way was an option, it didn't involve raising my hand to her. Consistent discipline (without slapping) creates an environment where the child knows damn well screaming like that isn't on. So they won't do it, let alone need a slap for it.

But that's your experience of your own child? I wouldn't be of the same opinion as you with regards to my own child, and I get the same reports from every adult who's ever had any contact with him that he is a model child, mannerly, respectful, etc. I would say the same as you that he was disciplined appropriately, his mother is a very permissive parent whereas I would be of the more authoritarian style of parenting, and together we use a balanced and complementary approach, rather than a conflicting approach based upon our chalk and cheese styles of parenting and discipline.

I can think of two occasions where our different parenting styles influenced the outcome of an event in different ways. The first was a time when my child threw his first tantrum in the middle of a busy shopping centre. I picked him up off the floor, put him over my shoulder and walked out. The stares and tutting of complete strangers didn't bother me, and what was more unusual I thought anyway was that not one of them actually intervened to try and stop me making off with a screaming child.

When he threw a tantrum for my wife, she took him outside, was in the middle of reasoning with him attempting to calm him down, when an old lady walked came out of nowhere and berated her by telling her "would you ever leave him alone, he could be autistic!" My wife took the comments of a complete stranger pretty damn hard. I just thought it was a completely ignorant thing to say myself to a complete stranger, and clearly that woman had her own issues that she was attempting to project onto my wife in an attempt to portray her as a terrible mother, when absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. I had to restrain my wife from letting rip into the old lady.

I would also disagree with the idea of consistency, as just as the child develops and grows, so too should a parents approach to discipline. I'm guessing you wouldn't use the same reasoning with a 13 year old as you did when they were a 2 year old? I wouldn't either, and adjust accordingly as the child matures and develops, quite the opposite then of consistency. If one were to employ any given method consistently, then the methods they're using eventually become ineffective in instilling discipline in a child, regardless of the age of the child in question.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would also disagree with the idea of consistency, as just as the child develops and grows, so too should a parents approach to discipline. I'm guessing you wouldn't use the same reasoning with a 13 year old as you did when they were a 2 year old? I wouldn't either, and adjust accordingly as the child matures and develops, quite the opposite then of consistency. If one were to employ any given method consistently, then the methods they're using eventually become ineffective in instilling discipline in a child, regardless of the age of the child in question.

Consistent discipline doesn't mean consistency in the method used. It is about not letting certain behaviour slide when it's handy to just ignore it cause you're too tired, or saying "stop that or we'll go home" but not following through. The amount of times I hear parents say stop it about 10 times in a row.

Also my comment was in response to a poster saying come back to me when a child is screaming in a shop re not slapping, implying a "softly" approach doesn't help. My point was that contrary to what they believe, slapping is not the only option there. And disciplining appropriately prevents it happening in the first place.

GreeBo

neonsofa wrote: »

Consistent discipline doesn't mean consistency in the method used. It is about not letting certain behaviour slide when it's handy to just ignore it cause you're too tired, or saying "stop that or we'll go home" but not following through. The amount of times I hear parents say stop it about 10 times in a row.

Also my comment was in response to a poster saying come back to me when a child is screaming in a shop re not slapping, implying a "softly" approach doesn't help. My point was that contrary to what they believe, slapping is not the only option there. And disciplining appropriately prevents it happening in the first place.

I didn't say slapping was the only option, it is however a perfectly valid one in my opinion.
What option would you choose, ruin everyone's day by going home?
All that does is empower the child, they likely couldn't give a fiddlers about going home or not.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

And disciplining appropriately prevents it happening in the first place.

I'm only seeing your edit now, and I have two issues with it - appropriate discipline for starters is entirely subjective. What you may consider appropriate discipline, someone else may consider inappropriate discipline, and that's kinda what has us here - you don't consider smacking a child is an appropriate form of discipline, I'm of the opinion that it's an entirely appropriate form of discipline.

Our differences in our chosen disciplinary methods and parenting styles are dependent on quite a number of factors, but here's a fairly recent paper which examines current research on parenting styles, dimensions and beliefs (it's a fairly short read) -

Current research on parenting styles, dimensions and beliefs

TL:DR version? Outcomes for children vary depending not just upon parenting styles, but the influence of cultural, social and economic factors too and no particular parenting style is any more appropriate or inappropriate than another. It depends upon a number of contextual factors as we move away from the three types of parenting styles developed in the 1960's off the back of one researchers observations of 100 pre-school children.

Secondly, chicken and egg situation there really, and obviously far too simplistic to be applied outside of your own circumstances with your own child. It clearly didn't prevent it from happening in the first place if you're able to give an example of how you disciplined your child after it happened.

neonsofa

GreeBo wrote: »

I didn't say slapping was the only option, it is however a perfectly valid one in my opinion.
What option would you choose, ruin everyone's day by going home?
All that does is empower the child, they likely couldn't give a fiddlers about going home or not.

I'd rather "ruin everyone's day" than lift my hand to a child. My day would be well and truly ruined by somebody hitting me, so I'm not going to do that to my child. That's just me, we'll agree to disagree.
The going home isn't necessarily to punish the child btw, although demonstrating that unacceptable behaviour isn't pandered to is important imo- a child screaming is not nice for others enjoying their dinner, imo I'd be an asshole to subject other paying customers to my child having a tantrum, but I'm not going to hit my child in what I would imagine would be a futile effort to make her stop.

GreeBo

neonsofa wrote: »

I'm not going to hit my child in what I would imagine would be a futile effort to make her stop.

A lesser person would tell you to come back to the argument when you have tried slapping rather than just relying on your imagination to tell you it can't work.

But I certainly won't do that.

nozzferrahhtoo

GreeBo wrote: »

When you can show me the softly, softly approach working for a screaming kid in a shopping centre I'll start listening.

The first question for me would not be what to do with such a child, but what brought them to that point in the first place. You are just seeing the poor discipline in the moment..... I am seeing the history of poor discipline that led up to that point. If any.

Why if any? Well I would not assume anything from one encounter. There are children who look to the untrained eye like children with poor discipline but there are factors in play you simply do not know about. For example children with many forms of autism can, to someone who does not know any better, seem like unruly children in some environments.

Further though I think you are too focused on the moment. You see that conflict in that moment as requiring resolution. Then and there. I see quite the opposite. I think most of the work to resolve that situation, comes after it later.

GreeBo wrote: »

I don't think anyone is recommending slapping a child for not brushing their teeth.

Great, then you must be overjoyed to notice I did not suggest they were. But I would not be so quick to suggest they are NOT either. Violence in the moment when a child refuses to do something the parent wants them to do is far from unheard of. Why do you feel they would be any less likely to do it in THIS scenario than any other?

What I was suggesting with that anecdote however was an example of other approached IN GENERAL and was merely using a brushing teeth example as a way to describe it.

GreeBo wrote: »

What are the negatives I'm ignoring?

Funny you should ask that given I mentioned a number of them in the post you are replying to. Which kinda makes my point quite perfectly about you ignoring them. Thanks for that. Asking me what you are ignoring it while actually being in the process of ignoring it is super comedy stuff.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would have with my own child if I expect that the outcome is that we would eventually have a healthy and prosperous parent-child relationship

Ah the old "It is just my opinion and you have yours" response when no one actually suggested otherwise. Thank you for describing to me the rights I already know I have, but this is just deflection from you really. You have not at all responded to the points I have made so I will repeat them:

1) Firstly the poster in question works with children. So their ability to work with children can not be measured by their ability to resolve a conflict between adults.

2) Second while YOU might have the expectation to be a prosperous relationship that also has no bearing on their ability as a psychologist. Because resolution of a relationship is not the criteria to measure success by in that field. You sound like those people who go to doctors demanding an antibiotic when they in fact have a virus. In other words you measure their ability by the VERY poor criteria of them giving you what you think you want. The measure of a good psychologist is them leading you to what they believe to be the correct solution. Not pandering to what YOU think is the solution you want. Even if that solution is a relationship that comes to an end.

3) You mention objectivity again which is just pure assumption. That their own relationship broke down in no way suggests that will compromise the objectivity of their work. In fact the complete opposite assumption is equally valid in equal measure.

So yes you are more than free, as you pointlessly pointed out when it had nothing to do with what I wrote, to evaluate a psychologist as you see fit. That does not mean your criteria can not similarly be evaluated as extremely poor, based on a desire to demean the user because you disagree with their position, entirely based on assumptions you are in no place to actually make, and entirely irrelevant given they are a CHILD psychologist and there are no children in play in the relationship you are using to evaluate their abilities by.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It absolutely is a valid assumption if the argument is that slapping children teaches them that violence is the way to resolve conflict.

Except it really is not valid at all. You are declaring it to be a criteria.... based on nothing. You are declaring that it teaching this means we would see the majority doing it..... bad on nothing. Basically you are choosing what you WANT to be true first, and then inventing the criteria that validate it in retrospect. And when challenged on the assertions about these criteria all you are capable of doing it seems is to repeat the assertions without actually defending them. Which is telling.

What the reality is however is that the behaviour of a population has a large number of factors and saying that X teaches people behaviour Y does not in ANY way require that majority actually do Y in order to validate that claim. In fact the claim can be still valid even if 0% of the people actually do Y. Why? Because the end effect is not measured in isolation but by all the other factors which mediate or even prevent Y. And X can still teach Y, even if Z1..Z1000 prevent Y.

But the fact is Y does happen. A lot. Violence punctuates our society from our streets at night to, seemingly, our parenting where many people like yourself see violence as a valid and defensible parenting methodology.

So again, you are merely inventing your own criteria, measures and realities that in no way track with the actual. An actual that very much does exist.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We don't see that, so the claim can easily be dismissed as inaccurate, if not downright misleading, in order to promote a particular agenda, one which tries to regulate how parents choose to raise their own children according to how those people putting forward the claim would want parents to raise their children, according to those peoples standards.

Which is absolutely what we SHOULD be doing as a society. So not only is it not misleading like you claimed, for the reasons I just schooled you on..... but it is not a bad thing either. And in fact we do it all the time. We have laws and expectations which already influence and control how parents "raise their own children". This is far from unique or unusual or unheard of....... so I am not buying you deriding it as if it is somehow a bad thing all of a sudden here. It is not. It is a great thing that we do it, and we do not simply leave parents 100% alone to raise children as they personally see fit.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't dismiss the validity of the scientific method

Except you demonstrably do, and demonstrably have in the past. You are very much as anti science speaker. Accepting science when it happens to suit your agenda but dismissing it with entirely invented narratives (like it is just liberal academics attempting to validate liberal lifestyles) when it happens not to is not the work of a pro science person at all. It is a 100% anti science AND anti scientific approach. That you are a lay person to science is abundantly clear over many occasions. And that is fine, most people are. But most people do not have the anti science agenda and narrative you do.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

there just isn't a whole lot of evidence that it is used in the social sciences.

And yet when these subjects come up you do not appear to ever critique a methodology used. You just demean it with the most sweeping of invented generalisations imaginable (again, like it is just liberal academics attempting to validate liberal lifestyles when the conclusions happen to irk you, but not when they do not). I have yet to even once see you construct a valid rebuttal of a methodology or criteria used in any science paper(s) cited to you however. And that should, even if it demonstrably does not, concern you. Especially if all you can do is invent biases for me you can not demonstrate me actually holding.

Thankfully however science already has built in measures against the biases and narratives of individual scientists. They are the process of peer review and repeatability and meta analysis. All of which you also dismiss out of hand from your own bias and agenda when the conclusions they reach do not suit you personally.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That flawed assumption would appear to be fuelled by your own eagerness to jump in when you see someone you disagree with and attempt to undermine their opinion using any number of fallacious, ill-thought out, irrational, illogical, immature nonsense you can muster. If that's the methods you use to evaluate ideas, then it doesn't come as a surprise that you're more likely to be perceived as incapable of conducting an objective evaluation due to your own biases.

How can it be fueled by something that did not actually happen? I have done none of what you have listed here. The difference is when I see something I think is nonsense I do not simply shout "nonsense" at it and run away hoping it sticks. I explain exactly how and why it is nonsense, flawed and fallacious. Would that you would (could) return that in kind. Alas you never do. But it is nice of you to use the measure of my being perceived as capable or incapable. Because thus far the number of people who seem to think me incapable is ONE. You. And you can not even demonstrate it to be true. You just declare it to be so in your usual dismissals of anyone or anything that does not happen to agree with you.

I however do not need to get personal OR desperate when rebutting nonsense that actually is nonsense. And I have explained why you claims, such as the claim about the "majority" above, is fallacious. I do not just CALL it fallacious and run for the hills. I stop to explain exactly why too. Try it sometime.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have never once suggested any evaluation is impossible. What matters is actually the criteria used in performing any evaluation and the goal of carrying out any evaluation.

Except that is pretty much what you did suggest by rubbishing our ability to choose any measures of evaluation validly. And by dismissing (again without any explanation as I just described in the paragraph above) even the most coherent measures of evaluation. Such as declaring, as you did at the time, that your child ending up drug dependent or in the criminal justice system could not even be used as a valid measure of the success or failure of a modality.

Also then, as now, when decrying the selection of evaluation criteria you refuse to suggest your own and explain their validity either. I suggest now you do this, but I suspect now, as then, you will not.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's exactly why if I'm evaluating a persons suitability to resolve conflict between myself and my child, I am likely to look unfavourably on a person who is unable to resolve conflict in their own parent-child relationship.

Yet as explained already your evaluation is poor.

1) They are NOT a child, yet they work with children. As such their ability to resolve an adult-adult relationship has zero bearing, outside your own imagination, on their ability to resolve a child-parent one.

2) You have no idea they did not resolve that conflict. You just know they do not have a relationship with that parent any more. That is a valid resolution too. You are therefore evaluating their ability to resolve a conflict based on your narrow, contrived, and fallacious definition of what resolution of a conflict even means.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not as though there are a shortage of far more qualified people I can choose from who have the ability to remain objective without introducing their own biases in support of their arguments.

An ability you have ZERO evidence at this time to suggest the user does not have. You just want them not to have it because you have already decided they are incapable and need ways to validate that move.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It absolutely does. Otherwise why bother learning the theory?

No, it absolutely does not. For exactly the same reason I explained in that last post and twice so far in this post. Which is that YOUR criteria that a success outcome means an ongoing happy relationship is fallacious and invented in your own mind. It is not the criteria used in reality. The reason they learn all the theory is to find the valid, correct, and most useful resolution of a conflict in each individual situation. And sometimes that resolution is the very one you are wholesale pretending is a failure.

You simply have a completely narrow, completely contrived, and completely false idea of what it means for those theories to be put into practice. And you are evaluating their abilities based on that nonsense, rather than based on the real standards of that industry. Which is, as you keep irrelevantly pointing out for no reason at all, your right of course. But it remains nonsense none the less. Not nonsense because I simply screech "nonsense" at you when I disagree like you do. But nonsnese because that actually is not the criteria of success actually used in that industry. The criteria for success actually used is the outcomes that works best for 1) At the very least the patient we are working with and where possible 2) the best for all concerned.

And sometimes, like it or not, a cessation and termination of a relationship IS the best outcome in a given situation. That does not mean they failed. That does not mean they did not put the theory into practice. And that certainly does not mean as you whole sale invented that the "just wing it on their own subjective biases and personal experiences of their own childhood".

Thankfully these people generally do, to use your words, actually "understand their role and the objectives of medication in family conflict". Alas many of the lay public, yourself VERY much included.... don't.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No I did no such thing. I respectfully suggested to the poster that I was replying to that I hope they would understand why I would never feel a need to avail of their services given that they have a poor relationship with their own parents.

Brilliant. So you start by denying you did what I just said you did. And then in the next sentence you word for word do EXACTLY that again. I love it. And no "back pedalling" does not mean changing your position either. Diluting a position to a more innocuous version of the same position is also back peddling.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As I've explained already, introducing ones personal bias when trying to mediate between two parties in conflict is never a good strategy, because it's making the situation all about them

But you did not "explain" any such thing. You asserted it. And you assert it again here. Explaining it and in any way validating it you have not yet done. And again the exact opposite CAN be true so your "never" is an absolute with no basis. As are the last 8 words I wrote here. You are moving to speak solely in absolutes with no valid reasoning offered as to why.

Firstly introducing ones own experience can be very much a good thing in many situations and scenarios. It can aid empathy for one. I know you have an issue with empathy in general, thinking that unless you directly experience X you can not understand anyone who experiences X (such as the time you seriously went off on one when I suggested we can empathise with homeless people and put ourselves emotionally in their situations. Which we can. Absolutely can.) so you should understand this. While personal experience is not required, as you seem to think it is sometimes, to empathise.... it very much can help to do so.

Secondly you declare "it makes the situation all about them". This is another absolute that is far from necessarily true. One can introduce personal experience, externally or internally, when mediating these conflict resolutions without making it ALL about them. They INCLUDE that personal experience in all the resources they draw from. The idea it becomes all encompassing is..... well just another invention of yours you appear to be pulling from nowhere like the rest of your assertions. There is no reason to think "it takes the focus off their clients" at all outside your imagination. It can in fact very much be a lens used to focus MORE on the client.

Thankfully actual psychologists understand this so your lay man errors might be numerous but they are not actually affecting anything much except possibly the success possibilities of your own conflict resolution should you seek the aid of such a psychologist. But thankfully in the industry we do not expect, or even desire, our psychologists to be emotion and experience devoid automatons with nothing from their own history they can draw on. In fact quite the opposite. And this is true of many other industries too. Quite often, to name 1 of any number of examples I could offer, people working in law enforcement benefit from themselves having a background in crime. In fact I was only last week watching a nice Ted Talk by Frank Abagnale. PRobably why that particular example was the first one to jump to mind.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Using a single source as the basis for determining anything is flawed? I have to wonder do you just come out with the first thing that comes to mind which is the direct opposite of anything anyone says, and expect that you should be taken seriously.

And I wonder if you just come out with the first thing you WANT people to have said, which is the direct opposite of what they actually said, and expect that you should be taken seriously!

Because I did not say using a single source as the basis for determining anything is flawed. At all. Anywhere. Ever. You just made that up. Again. (That old MO).

What I DID say is that data itself does not become flawed solely because it came from a single source.

This, quite literally, could not be more different from what you just lied and pretended I said. I might as well have linked pumpkins to Halloween only to have you claim I said Santa's beard is red..... for all the similarity YOUR evaluation of my words has to what I actually said.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're really stooping to new levels of attempting to be as obtuse and pedantic as possible with that one.

They say you should not argue with a fool because they only bring you down to their level. But it does not actually make you a fool. Similarly to that, my attempt to rebut YOUR attempt to be obtuse does not make me the one being obtuse. Or pedantic. The fact is YOU made a claim that "most studies" fit a certain criteria that YOU have simply invented, made up out of nowhere. And I am calling you on that.

If you want to assert that most studies on the topic fit a certain criteria then show your workings. Validate the claim. Because right now it is unsubstantiated nonsense you have merely invented out of nowhere. What were your words a moment ago? "Or did you just like how that sounded?". That indeed does seem to be how this claim was reached. You merely liked how it sounded.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't even remember what you're talking about there, so I'm just going to assume that you're doing as you always do and twisting my opinion beyond all recognition

Or more accurately you are just going to do what YOU always do. Assume. You've actually surpassed yourself on this occasion. Don't expect any congratulations for it though. It's an entirely dishonest tactic.

To remind you however we were discussing studies on the result of various parenting modalities and structures. Like same sex parenting and other things. You rubbished the idea at the time that such studies could validly measure such things and you claimed the criteria were cherry picked to give the results people wanted. So I queried you at the time in three ways 1) To offer your own criteria that you think are valid and why 2) To explain, rather than just inventing biases as you do, what is actually wrong with the criteria used and 3) I suggested criteria such as measuring drug dependence or crime rates and so forth.

You dodged and ignored 1 and 2, and simply declared without reasoning that nothing in 3 could work. I am happy to dig up the posts in question on request if you need me to.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And you've done it again. The above is simply nothing like what I either said or suggested, so how you've formed the conclusions you have can only be based entirely upon your own biases. On that basis I see no need to justify something I didn't say, but if it pleases you to carry on twisting my opinion and misrepresenting what I actually have said, you carry on.

Yet I did no such thing. At all. YOU derided the idea that better education leads to better behaved adults. And somehow you suggested that this derision is validated by the fact we teach consent classes in college. You have not explained that link at all. And when I call you on that link you merely pretend, fallaciously, that I am misrepresenting you when I am not.

The success of education on the behaviour of adults can not solely be measured WHILE the education is taking place. So what you think the link actually is is unclear. And if you explain it rather than feign persecution it might get clear.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm only seeing your edit now, and I have two issues with it - appropriate discipline for starters is entirely subjective. What you may consider appropriate discipline, someone else may consider inappropriate discipline, and that's kinda what has us here - you don't consider smacking a child is an appropriate form of discipline, I'm of the opinion that it's an entirely appropriate form of discipline.

Which is why we use the studies you so readily deride in order to mediate for subjectivity. Because we can, and should, measure outcomes over a population and compare the effects of different methodologies.

Further we should operate on ourselves through introspection too. It is lazy and intellectually bankrupt to simply scream "Subjectivity" at the issue. This is just more "My opinion is my opinion" non-thinking on the matter.

Rather can one honestly sit down and EXPLAIN, rather than just declare, why a particular approach is a good one. Why is a violence based approach appropriate or beneficial or useful? Why is it not? I have seen (and offered myself) many reasons why it is not. Few, if any, of them have been rebutted. I am yet to see ANY, much less from you, as to why it is. Just more of this "It is my opinion that it is, and I have a right to my opinion" approaches to the issue. I guess I personally prefer discourse than soap boxing myself. YMMV.

El_Duderino 09

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

GreeBo wrote: »

A slap is lazy but changing the Wi-Fi password isn't?
You'll have to run that by me again...

Allow me. I think what such users are getting at is that merely lashing out violently is just a lazy thoughtless act. Whereas if you sit down and think about what you know about the child...... you can invest some time and energy into coming up with strategies that are actually based on something.

Further merely lashing out with violence misses what discipline is actually about. Which is an opportunity to actually teach a child right from wrong. By lashing out with violence in the moment you are more treating the situation as a situation to be resolved and moved past. Rather than a chance to actually teach the child what they did wrong, why it is considered wrong, and what the consequences of being wrong in this way are.

And those consequences should not be "You will get hurt" they should be more along the lines of "You need to respect others, especially those who are every day working to make your life easier and happier by providing you things LIKE wifi..... and if you can not show respect to others for what they do for you..... they will stop doing those things for you. And to example that, I am now withdrawing some of those privileges and freedoms".

So yes I would prefer to see kids taught about mutual respect and actual right and wrong.... rather than the concept that conflict resolution should be done by violence.... or one only has to show respect and morality towards those who are in a position to hurt them rather than those who are not. YMMV.



What he DID do however was explain to them why they brush their teeth and what happens if they do not. He then told them it was up to them if they wanted to or not. Hardly beleiving their luck they ran off to bed without brushing their teeth.

The next day he sat eating a large bag of sweets. Nice ones. They ran over seeking some of these. And he said "Wow I would love to give you some, because I love making you happy and giving you treats like this. But I can not in good moral conscience do that because I know the harm it causes your teeth. And since you have chosen not to look after them, I can not give you sweets knowing they are hurting you".

They brushed their teeth that night and every night since. Without even being asked to any more.

Put another way the narrative should not be "You do wrong, and you have privileges removed" so much as "When you do right, you earn these privileges". Pedantically you are saying the same thing if you measure only the end effect........... which is that they lose their privileges when they behave badly....... but in terms of the actual message being conveyed it is a much more positive one.

It's the difference between positive and negative reinforcement. Positively reinforce good behaviour with positive stimulus to encourage more of the behaviour (e .g. praise), negatively reinforce bad behaviour by withdrawing a positive stimulus to extinguish the behaviour (eg withdraw WiFi or not sharing sweets in the tooth brushing example above)

Most people think hitting is negative reinforcement but it is actually positive reinforcement with a negative stimulus. Bad behaviour is positively associated with being hit.

Negative reinforcement takes longer to achieve and takes ruthless consistency which some people struggle with. Properly used a combination of positive and negative reinforcement causes the child to make the right choice for a good reason,not simply avoid being hit.

Whispered

Is it not positive punishment? Addition of a stimulus to reduce behaviour?

El_Duderino 09

Whispered wrote: »

Is it not positive punishment? Addition of a stimulus to reduce behaviour?

Yes. That's another way to phrase it. Positive punishment, positive reinforcement. The punishment is linked to the bad behaviour.

Negative reinforcement links absence of a desired thing, with the bad behaviour.

Whispered

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yes. That's another way to phrase it. Positive punishment, positive reinforcement. The punishment is linked to the bad behaviour.

Negative reinforcement links absence of a desired thing, with the bad behaviour.

Ah ok. My very basic learning on learning theory was;

Positive reinforcement - addition of stimulus to increase desired behaviour (praise or reward)

Positive punishment - addition of stimulus to decrease an undesired behaviour (shout, slap)

Negative reinforcement - removal of a stimulus to increase a desired behaviour (time out? Silent treatment?)

Negative punishment - removal of a stimulus to decrease an undesired behaviour. (I can't think of an example)

Funnily I learned about it when learning about dog behaviour but it seems to apply across the board.