Disciplining Children AKA Back in my day they behaved.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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:

...

YMMV.

But you are suggesting otherwise by trying to suggest that I am "deflecting" and that my criteria for how I evaluate the suitability of a child psychologist in relation to circumstances which they would deal with every day of the week, and if I found myself and my child in those circumstances, I would not avail of their services. At no point did I ever expect you or anyone else to understand that. I expect that the person I was speaking to would understand why I would not avail of their services.

You have an opinion to the contrary, but your opinion is simply irrelevant. That's not suggesting you can't have your opinion, or that you don't have a right to have an opinion. I'm simply explaining to you that your opinion is irrelevant. It doesn't matter to me how many times you repeat yourself, you're still going to get the same response.

GreeBo

Nozferratoo wrote:

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?

So you are not suggesting they are, you are just suggesting that they are not, not doing it?
Gotcha.

Comedy gold indeed.

Your arguments all seem to be based on people observing other children, typically parents are disciplining their own children, so I reckon they are aware of their child is on the autism spectrum or not.

neonsofa

GreeBo wrote: »

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.

My whole point was by disciplining in other ways I've never actually needed to slap. She had one moment where others may have felt a slap was required or deserved (it's my own opinion that a child never deserves a slap), I didn't need to use physical discipline and she never did it again so there was actually no need to see if it "works". The alternative worked perfectly fine. If it isn't broke don't fix it. I just personally imagine it wouldn't work, my point was I've never felt the need to test that theory because alternative methods of discipline work just fine.

GreeBo

neonsofa wrote: »

My whole point was by disciplining in other ways I've never actually needed to slap. She had one moment where others may have felt a slap was required or deserved (it's my own opinion that a child never deserves a slap), I didn't need to use physical discipline and she never did it again so there was actually no need to see if it "works". The alternative worked perfectly fine. If it isn't broke don't fix it. I just personally imagine it wouldn't work, my point was I've never felt the need to test that theory because alternative methods of discipline work just fine.

If your other methods work just fine, why was there that one moment?
One could argue the other methods weren't working of the child was still causing a problem?

neonsofa

GreeBo wrote: »

If your other methods work just fine, why was there that one moment?
One could argue the other methods weren't working of the child was still causing a problem?

Because kids are human and their emotions can get the better of them no matter how well behaved they are. One day out of an entire childhood. I know I should eat healthy but I don't always. I know I should be patient with the kids, I'm not always. We always have bad days where we don't do what we should. I don't get smacked when I have an off day thankfully.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

My whole point was by disciplining in other ways I've never actually needed to slap. She had one moment where others may have felt a slap was required or deserved (it's my own opinion that a child never deserves a slap), I didn't need to use physical discipline and she never did it again so there was actually no need to see if it "works". The alternative worked perfectly fine. If it isn't broke don't fix it. I just personally imagine it wouldn't work, my point was I've never felt the need to test that theory because alternative methods of discipline work just fine.

You make a fair point that's completely understandable, because you and I for example are different people, so naturally the kind of person we are, is going to influence how we relate to our own children, and how they relate to us, and why our children sometimes relate differently to other adults. I know for a fact that if you had raised my child from birth, they would be a different child, because they would be raised in completely different circumstances.

You have defaulted to a method of discipline which works for both you and your child, and I default to a method of discipline which works for me and my child. If we were to try each others methods on our own children, it simply wouldn't work, because it's not who we are. One of the things I have always said to parents is don't try to be someone you're not. No rational parent is going to take that as a licence to practice their windmill impressions on their children, nor are they going to take it as a license to emotionally and psychologically manipulate their children with malevolent intent.

You use a method of discipline which doesn't include smacking, because understandably you have a fundamental objection to physical punishment, it just doesn't work for you, and it doesn't work for your child. I use a method of discipline which did at the time at least include smacking, not because I wasn't aware of other options, or that I had exhausted all other options or I had any malevolent intent towards my own child. I used it because it was what I consider an appropriate form of discipline that is no different in terms of it's outcomes to other forms of discipline. I'm not interested in using coercive or psychological methods on my child because that's not who I am, and they wouldn't relate to me in that way, they'd likely have told me "don't have a cow, man" :pac:

In helping other families I would not have suggested that I know better for their children than their parents do, because that's undermining their parental relationship with their children, and how they and their children relate to each other. It's one of the things I hated dealing with in cases where the parents were separated, because all too often I was dealing with parents who went out of their way to undermine the others parenting. It was like dealing with children telling tales on each other to try and get the other one in trouble, or to make the children feel like they were being mistreated by the other parent.

It's the same principle applies in cases here where we're discussing whether smacking is an appropriate form of discipline or whether it isn't. For some people it isn't, for some people it is, but ultimately the decision comes down to the parents themselves, for their children, and it's just one of the many, many decisions parents will make for their children in terms of their own values and morals and the ideal outcomes that they have in mind for their children. What other people deem either appropriate or inappropriate in those circumstances isn't actually relevant, and when other people try to impose their standards on people who aren't them, depending upon the degree to which they try to enforce their ideals and their morals and their values on other people, the outcomes have never been good. It doesn't benefit the children in any way, shape or form for strangers to attempt to undermine their parents and come between the relationship between children and their parents.

The relationship between parents and their children is one of the most fundamental and defining relationships in any persons life, because it defines how they will interact with other people, and if that relationship is fractured or impeded then it will lead to negative outcomes for the person as they develop into adulthood. Their parents are still their parents, even when the people in question are adults.

s7ryf3925pivug

Violence by adults towards children is really ****ed up.

Just be assertive and consistent, and have age-appropriate expectations. If they overstep then withhold privileges.

Your authority will be respected if it is applied judiciously, calmly and unbendingly. You absolutely won't be respected if you use blunt force; it's just bullying them into submission.

GreeBo

Skye Mealy Color wrote: »

Violence by adults towards children is really ****ed up.

Just be assertive and consistent, and have age-appropriate expectations. If they overstep then withhold privileges.

Your authority will be respected if it is applied judiciously, calmly and unbendingly. You absolutely won't be respected if you use blunt force; it's just bullying them into submission.

I and the rest of my siblings absolutely respect my mother who slapped us when we needed it.
It's no more bullying them than you "withholding privileges".

Try withholding privileges from someone in your office and let me know how you get on, my money is on a trip to HR for a conversation on workplace bullying.

El_Duderino 09

Whispered wrote: »

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.

Yeah that’s spot on. It’s just the terms that are different. To complete your example above negative punishment would be removing WiFi or not sharing sweets like Noss’s example of trying to get children to brush their teeth.

Or if a puppy bites while playing then stop playing. The puppy associates biting with play stopping so they figure out not to bite because it means play stops. It takes longer to learn than slapping the dog/child and it takes ruthless consistency for the dog/child to figure out what they want and how to get it. But it’s ultimately the better way to teach even if it takes more effort. It builds trust and non verbal communication. It’s empowering for the child because it gives them some control of their environment based on their behaviour.

Slapping is just lazy by comparison.

El_Duderino 09

GreeBo wrote: »

Try withholding privileges from someone in your office and let me know how you get on, my money is on a trip to HR for a conversation on workplace bullying.

Lol. You’re stretching it a bit now. Withholding positive feedback or withholding payment until the job is done correctly probably wont land you in trouble with HR. Hitting a colleague can get you the straight sack.

Your cognitive dissonance with justifying violence is really interesting. Equating withholding a privilege with hitting is a real low point for you in this discussion.

One eyed Jack

Skye Mealy Color wrote: »

Just be assertive and consistent, and have age-appropriate expectations.

I've always been assertive and consistent and I expected by the time my child was a teenager they'd hate me for it. Turns out we have a great relationship... I'm not sure what went wrong :pac:

El_Duderino 09

GreeBo wrote: »

If your other methods work just fine, why was there that one moment?
One could argue the other methods weren't working of the child was still causing a problem?

Ah that’s guff. If that was how it worked then you would only have need one slap as a child and you would have never needed to be corrected again.

Children need consistent correction whether you take the lazy slapping route or the more in-depth positive and negative reinforcement route.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lol. You’re stretching it a bit now. Withholding positive feedback or withholding payment until the job is done correctly probably wont land you in trouble with HR. Hitting a colleague can get you the straight sack.

Your cognitive dissonance with justifying violence is really interesting. Equating withholding a privilege with hitting is a real low point for you in this discussion.

As can workplace exclusion where people ignore a person -

Is exclusion the worst form of bullying?

It's not cognitive dissonance when the scenario you're presenting is an example of whataboutery. We're not talking about interactions between adults in the workplace here, we're talking about parenting and parental discipline and parents relationships with their own children. The relationships we're talking about and the relationships you want to compare it to aren't really comparable.

If I were to equate things as you're trying to, then physical violence is just as detrimental as emotional, mental and verbal forms of violence against a person. How you want to quantify what qualifies as violence is up to you, how I would quantify violence is likely to be an entirely different standard.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lol. You’re stretching it a bit now. Withholding positive feedback or withholding payment until the job is done correctly probably wont land you in trouble with HR. Hitting a colleague can get you the straight sack.

Your cognitive dissonance with justifying violence is really interesting. Equating withholding a privilege with hitting is a real low point for you in this discussion.

As can workplace exclusion where people ignore a person -

Is exclusion the worst form of bullying?

It's not cognitive dissonance when the scenario you're presenting is an example of whataboutery. We're not talking about interactions between adults in the workplace here, we're talking about parenting and parental discipline and parents relationships with their own children. The relationships we're talking about and the relationships you want to compare it to aren't really comparable.

If I were to equate things as you're trying to, then physical violence is just as detrimental as emotional, mental and verbal forms of violence against a person. How you want to quantify what qualifies as violence is up to you, how I would quantify violence is likely to be an entirely different standard.

Withholding payment or positive feedback until a job is done correctly is hardly the same as workplace exclusion. I did t say you should give someone the silent treatment until they complete the job. But hitting a colleague obviously going to get you in trouble. If you say you can’t see a difference then I don’t think you’re being honest.


The other poster brought up workplace examples to try to equate hitting a colleague with withholding a privilege like positive feedback. If you don’t think it’s appropriate, take it up with them.

But to take you’re example of verbal violence, then yes. Verbal violence, as you call it, would be similar to hitting. It’s positive reinforcement of a negative stimulus in response to bad behaviour . Calling a child stupid for example, in response to bad behaviour, would be similar to hitting in that regard. Wouldn’t you agree?

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Withholding payment or positive feedback until a job is done correctly is hardly the same as workplace exclusion. I did t say you should give someone the silent treatment until they complete the job. But hitting a colleague obviously going to get you in trouble. If you say you can’t see a difference then I don’t think you’re being honest.

The point I was making is that taken to the same negative extreme, any form of discipline is likely to be equally as detrimental to a person as another. I'm sure you're no doubt aware of the psychological effects on a person long after their physical wounds have healed. Psychological mistreatment doesn't have to involve physical punishment to have a lasting detrimental effect on a person, and physical mistreatment doesn't necessarily leave a lasting psychological effect on a person.

Longtitudinal and meta-studies have only ever been able to make correlations, and the correlations aren't strong enough to be definitive, and that's why there's so much debate on the issue as to whether physical discipline is actually harmful in and of itself. I know you're aware that correlation does not imply causation, yet that's exactly what is implied by correlating observed behaviours and attitudes in adults with smacking in childhood.

The other poster brought up workplace examples to try to equate hitting a colleague with withholding a privilege like positive feedback. If you don’t think it’s appropriate, take it up with them.

It was actually neonsofa who brought up the workplace example, GreeBo responded, and then you responded by changing the situation and gave your assessment on that basis. That kind of specific-set circumstances and what to do and what not to do in a specific set of circumstances, ignores context, and that's why parents generally don't "parent by numbers" as it were by trying to channel David Coleman when they actually relate better to Homer Simpson. It's kinda like neonsofa said earlier in excusing her childs poor behaviour - children are human. I didn't feel it was necessary to point out "aren't we all", because I understood her point to mean that people do make mistakes.

But to take you’re example of verbal violence, then yes. Verbal violence, as you call it, would be similar to hitting. It’s positive reinforcement of a negative stimulus in response to bad behaviour . Calling a child stupid for example, in response to bad behaviour, would be similar to hitting in that regard. Wouldn’t you agree?

I would, absolutely agree, and that's really the point I've been making all along - no form of discipline is any more inherently negative or positive than another, it's the degree to which it is used, how it is used, when it is used, and the context in which it is used, and whom it is used upon, will be determinant factors in whether the adults behaviour and attitudes are a consequence of how they were raised by their parents, or whether there are other factors influencing their behaviours and attitudes such as their peer groups or the peer groups they aspire to. It's entirely dependent upon the individual themselves how they process their experiences, and hard science doesn't like that sort of unquantifiable measurement, because it makes it impossible to determine an objective standard by which we don't have to rely on correlations, we can determine a definitive causation which would make it easier to then predict human behaviours and attitudes and come up with improvements in standards as to how we address maladjusted attitudes and behaviours in human beings.

wandatowell

If you have to resort to hitting a child to get them to understand that their behavior was wrong then I think you really need to think about how you raise your children.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It was actually neonsofa who brought up the workplace example, GreeBo responded, and then you responded by changing the situation and gave your assessment on that basis. That kind of specific-set circumstances and what to do and what not to do in a specific set of circumstances, ignores context, and that's why parents generally don't "parent by numbers" as it were by trying to channel David Coleman when they actually relate better to Homer Simpson. It's kinda like neonsofa said earlier in excusing her childs poor behaviour - children are human. I didn't feel it was necessary to point out "aren't we all", because I understood her point to mean that people do make mistakes.

No it wasn't.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

No it wasn't.

Sorry about that, you didn't bring up the work example.

Was I also wrong in my understanding of what you meant when you said your child is human, that their emotions can get the better of them? There's nothing inherently wrong with that like as far as I'm concerned, that's why I didn't make anything of it. Children make mistakes and adults make mistakes, it's how we grow and learn and mature. I made a mistake and I apologised for it. When people make mistakes the mature thing to do is to apologise for making the mistake, the immature thing to do is to ground their heels in and bear a grudge against a person. That's only likely to hurt themselves more in the long run.


EDIT: The above may be a bit vague, but just to clarify I was speaking in the context of a parent-child relationship, and undoubtedly parents will make mistakes, and if the child bears a grudge against their parents for those mistakes and carries that with them into adulthood, they're only continuing to hurt themselves instead of letting it go.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sorry about that, you didn't bring up the work example.

Was I also wrong in my understanding of what you meant when you said your child is human, that their emotions can get the better of them? There's nothing inherently wrong with that like as far as I'm concerned, that's why I didn't make anything of it. Children make mistakes and adults make mistakes, it's how we grow and learn and mature. I made a mistake and I apologised for it. When people make mistakes the mature thing to do is to apologise for making the mistake, the immature thing to do is to ground their heels in and bear a grudge against a person. That's only likely to hurt themselves more in the long run.


EDIT: The above may be a bit vague, but just to clarify I was speaking in the context of a parent-child relationship, and undoubtedly parents will make mistakes, and if the child bears a grudge against their parents for those mistakes and carries that with them into adulthood, they're only continuing to hurt themselves instead of letting it go.

Yeah you were spot on. I gave examples of my own misgivings (the more forgiving examples :pac: ) in that post too to illustrate that we all mess up, but we still know there are consequences for it. If i don't eat well I become unhealthy,if a child screams cause they don't like being told to stop messing then the consequence for not behaving themselves in that environment might be they are removed from it.

Sometimes knowing the consequences just isn't enough to prevent the behaviour when emotions kick in, like wanting to eat the cake when really hungry. No slap or reasoning or strict parenting will prevent a human from simply being human, but reminding them of the consequence (the number on the scale in my case!) makes them think twice next time.

Outlaw Pete

Skye Mealy Color wrote: »

Violence by adults towards children is really ****ed up.

Isn't it.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

Yeah you were spot on. I gave examples of my own misgivings (the more forgiving examples :pac: ) in that post too to illustrate that we all mess up, but we still know there are consequences for it. If i don't eat well I become unhealthy,if a child screams cause they don't like being told to stop messing then the consequence for not behaving themselves in that environment might be they are removed from it.

Sometimes knowing the consequences just isn't enough to prevent the behaviour when emotions kick in, like wanting to eat the cake when really hungry. No slap or reasoning or strict parenting will prevent a human from simply being human, but reminding them of the consequence (the number on the scale in my case!) makes them think twice next time.

I can certainly relate to that alright

I would have been considered a feral child by most peoples standards even today, and no amount of attempts made to reason or strict parenting or slaps would have me see the consequences of my behaviour back then. My parents used extreme physical abuse and psychological manipulation on me (I won't go into details),not because it was all they knew, or that there weren't other options, or because they came from a socioeconomically deprived background or anything else, we were wealthy even by todays standards.

So when people used point out in previous threads "It did do you harm, you think it's ok to commit violence against a child", I wasn't going to be rude and point out to them that not only do I know the difference, but it appeared to me at least that their agenda was more important to them than listening to someone who could actually speak of their own experiences. They didn't need to know that though, I can hold my own without needing to draw on my own experiences. My own experiences would be completely irrelevant in any case to someone else's processing of their own experiences, and that's why when child abuse threads come up, I don't tend to contribute because I respectfully don't share their perspective or the common understanding of how one is expected to feel about their experiences.

I see things from a different perspective of my own situation, I see things like how my father made mistakes, but I also see that he was a brilliant engineer, I see how my mother made mistakes, but she was a brilliant educator. Back then I hated them for who they were and what they did, but now I have an amazing relationship with my mam, and I regret that I never got to make things right with my old man before he died. I see them as human, I know full well they made mistakes, but I don't bear any ill will towards them now. Other people will of course have a different perspective and that's fine, that's their business, but to me, their perspective of my experience isn't particularly relevant. They aren't entitled IMO to pass judgement on my parents parenting, because they are focussing solely on one single issue, and ignoring all other context that doesn't suit their agenda.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The point I was making is that taken to the same negative extreme, any form of discipline is likely to be equally as detrimental to a person as another. I'm sure you're no doubt aware of the psychological effects on a person long after their physical wounds have healed. Psychological mistreatment doesn't have to involve physical punishment to have a lasting detrimental effect on a person, and physical mistreatment doesn't necessarily leave a lasting psychological effect on a person.

Surely it’s clear that slapping is inherently more extreme than other simply taking away a privilege like the WiFi password. Hitting is a form of physical violence. Can you equate that physical violence with taking away the WiFi password? Would you call taking away the WiFi a form of violence?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It was actually neonsofa who brought up the workplace example, GreeBo responded, and then you responded by changing the situation and gave your assessment on that basis.

Grand but you’re completely ignoring the salient point that hitting a colleague will get you in immediate and deep trouble. Not giving positive feedback until a job is done correctly, won’t. If you’re not willing to engage with that point then you need to ask yourself why.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would, absolutely agree, and that's really the point I've been making all along - no form of discipline is any more inherently negative or positive than another, it's the degree to which it is used, how it is used, when it is used...

Oh no you’re dead wrong on that point. The difference between positive and negative reinforcement is significant. The difference includes the fact that the child learns to earn positive reinforcement with positive behaviours as opposed to avoiding pain from bad behaviours. They’re not 2 sides of the same coin. They’re actually a world apart.

The motivation, focus and learning are all oriented differently for positive and negative reinforcement. If you don’t get the inherent difference then I can see why you might see hitting as equal to negative reinforcement. But they’re not.

Vladimir Poontang

Just watch parents when they go into a shop and ignore their little ****s running around the place, picking up stock, knocking things over and generally being a fcuking nuisance

Parents are oblivious. Say one word and you are the devil incarnate.

No discipline these days.

aaronjumper

What about psychological warfare is that allowed?

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Surely it’s clear that slapping is inherently more extreme than other simply taking away a privilege like the WiFi password. Hitting is a form of physical violence. Can you equate that physical violence with taking away the WiFi password? Would you call taking away the WiFi a form of violence?

Personally I'd see your example of the wi-fi withdrawal as psychological manipulation. If I were to consider applying it to my own child I'd see it as cruel and unusual punishment. It's psychological violence. It's on the low end of the scale the same as smacking the child would be on the low end of the scale of physical violence. I genuinely don't see one as being any more inherently extreme than the other. I could of course turn off the wi-fi for a set duration of time, increasing in length until eventually my child not being particularly stupid would find ways around it quite easily and then not only would he carry on with the misbehaviour, he wouldn't particularly care whether or not I turned off the wifi, he'd just read a book or something until I turned it back on. He still wouldn't have learned anything from the experience, because he won't care.

Grand but you’re completely ignoring the salient point that hitting a colleague will get you in immediate and deep trouble. Not giving positive feedback until a job is done correctly, won’t. If you’re not willing to engage with that point then you need to ask yourself why.

I'm engaging with the point. I just don't agree with you that outcomes can be guaranteed like you're suggesting. It would depend upon a number of factors. I've been involved in enough cases involving workplace relations where the outcomes went either way, depending upon the circumstances of each individual case. Each case was taken on it's own merits, but outcomes were determined by a combination of workplace politics, disciplinary processes and the culture in the workplace. I've known cases where the workplace bully got exactly what was coming to them, was paid compensation, and both employees involved kept their jobs (workplace bully was managed out of the organisation shortly after), and I have known cases where managers who gave their employees unsatisfactory reviews were pulled up on it (it could be argued that the managers in those cases weren't doing their jobs properly if you wanted to?). The point being - context. Context is critical.

Oh no you’re dead wrong on that point. The difference between positive and negative reinforcement is significant. The difference includes the fact that the child learns to earn positive reinforcement with positive behaviours as opposed to avoiding pain from bad behaviours. They’re not 2 sides of the same coin. They’re actually a world apart.

The motivation, focus and learning are all oriented differently for positive and negative reinforcement. If you don’t get the inherent difference then I can see why you might see hitting as equal to negative reinforcement. But they’re not.

I'm familiar with the concepts, but I'm more of an advocate of authentic parenting if I'm being honest. The whole idea of waiting to catch your feral child doing something that doesn't involve trying to kill themselves is likely to lead to you twiddling your thumbs. The theory is sound if people were blank slates and we were all motivated by the same things, but we aren't, obviously.

That's precisely why programmes like Supernanny should really only ever be categorised as entertainment, because they show a carefully edited version of reality, as opposed to the actual reality which is often entirely different. There's no consideration given to each and every child and parents individual temperaments, and that's why we now have the kind of specialist and specific services with regard to children's welfare that we do, because they take an individualised and holistic approach to each and every individual case, rather than offering generic advice that's meant to be applied in specific-set scenarios completely devoid of any context that only a minority of the audience will actually ever either find themselves experiencing, or they will experience scenarios where they're left twiddling their thumbs because they don't know what to do when they weren't given any guidance because it's not covered in any of the parenting books they spent a small fortune on when the child was born and they had intentions of being an ideal parent.

Fourier

I think it needs to be extended to all scenarios, in this PC gone mad world giving somebody in work a rap on the arse for missing a deadline will have me sent to HR.

My understanding of the current literature is that smacking in schools (see Elizabeth Gershoff's papers) is associated with negative psychological effects and little improvement in immediate or long-term compliance to expected behaviour. Most of the time when you see statements like "Smacking leads to psychological scars" these are sensationalist and sneaking in conclusions about scholastic corporal punishment as if they held for parental smacking.

However parental smacking, in most studies, doesn't really seem to be effective to a statistically significant degree. Moderate slapping (assuming you're not beating the child) seems to be harmless, but pointless.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But you are suggesting otherwise by trying to suggest that I am "deflecting"

Nice post dodge, but the difference you are missing is between saying you have no right to an opinion, and discussing what that opinion actually is, and what it's failings are. I am doing the latter while you pretend it to be the former.

The old adage goes something like "You are welcome to your opinion but you are not welcome to your own facts". And while you have your weird and limited and limiting criteria to evaluate the professionalism and competancy of a psychologist..... they differ wildly from the measures actually used in the industry and by people evaluating that industry.

Again..... having relevant personal experience to bring to the table is A) not a bad thing does not show their objectivity is compromised and C) Does not mean they are making it "all about them". You made all that up.

Similarly..... saving a relationship rather than ending it is not the goal of the industry. It is one valid outcome from several. It might be YOUR goal, but that is a different thing entirely. You are making up that measure too.

So the core issue is nothing to do with you having your own opinions and goals. No one has an issue with that. Rather the issue is with the complete string of total nonsense you invent to validate those opinions. From inventing measures and goals that are nothing to do with the industry, to pretending the "majority" of papers come from a single source or share a single attribute but being unable to verify that when called on it.......... to completely unfounded assumptions that if "X causes Y" then we must see "Y" manifested in the majority when this is simply and entirely not true at all, even a little bit........ to simply inventing biases and agendas for academics who happen not to agree with you.

All of this stuff you have simply invented and dug down on and merely re-asserted when questioned. And THAT is the focus of my rebuttals, not that you merely HAVE a different opinion/agenda.... which is the narrative you usually switch to when a conversation does not go your way.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

we're talking about parenting and parental discipline and parents relationships with their own children. The relationships we're talking about and the relationships you want to compare it to aren't really comparable.

Aren't they? For any particular reason or just because you declare it to be so? I am not seeing all that large a distinction at all. Neither in general, or in any of the definitions or dynamics.

At the end of the day we are talking about human interactions and human relationships. And while there ARE differences between different types..... parent/child..... romantic couples...... coworkers.... friends......... they are not as large or diverse as you seem to want them to be.

Not only that but as parents we model the behaviors in our human relationships with our children for the future human relationships of those children. And if we model the idea that violence is a valid method of conflict resolution, or that compliance with doing the right thing is based on a power play of who is in power in a given moment......... then there is little reason to be surprised if their future relationships follow that dynamic.

As I said to another user, we seem to live in a society where things like violence are generally frowned upon or even illegal. And we tend also to find violence where there is a skew of power even more abhorrent. Such as men beating on women. So it seems to be the burden of proof lies solely on the assailant of children in explaining why violence is a valid approach at all, and especially where the power differential is even greater (an adult on a child).

nozzferrahhtoo

GreeBo wrote: »

So you are not suggesting they are, you are just suggesting that they are not, not doing it?
Gotcha.

Nice that you are getting it. And that you agree with me about your posts being comedy. It is not common that one reaches parity this quickly. We should continue.

But yes, the issues I am dealing with are GENERAL concepts, so I am indeed not focusing on saying they do, or do not, happen in one specific scenario. Glad you got it.

GreeBo wrote: »

Your arguments all seem to be based on people observing other children, typically parents are disciplining their own children, so I reckon they are aware of their child is on the autism spectrum or not.

No my arguments are based on general studies of populations as a whole. My specific examples that I use to illustrate those arguments to, and discuss them with, you are more based on lower level observations. One should use both, without ignoring the other.

The unruly child in a supermarket example you reached for is useful in this regard. It highlights an issue I see though my education, work, experience and received anecdote that is common in parenting as a whole.

Which is that quite often peoples approach to parenting is situational. They want to know "If X happens what do I do in that moment". Such as "If my child is suddenly uncontrollable and unruly in the supermarket, what is the response in that moment".

This is not limited to discipline either. Consider a different scenario entirely. That of teaching our children about sex. In conversation after conversation, in forum after forum, in experience after experience.... I hear people discuss "the talk".

Either how to give their child "the talk".... or their discomfort before during and after "the talk"..... or discussing how they themselves got "The talk" or some equivalent of it (parents buying a book and then running away seems not uncommon). And so on.

The issue I see there is there is no good reason I have seen that suggests there even should be a "the talk". Rather education on sexual matters, just like discipline, could be an ongoing process, an ongoing discourse. iterative in it's design and execution. Something we engage in at every sensible moment, building on what came before.

Discipline is not something that has to occur in the moment the child is being unruly or immoral or wrong. It is something we can do positively in moments where the child is being good or even neutral. While I did not understand much of his wording of it above, El_Duderino 09 seems to have a good handle on this when he talks about a combination of positive and negative inputs to that process coupled with an ongoing "ruthless consistency".

The question on THIS thread is whether a violence based approach is useful, not useful at all, or positively harmful to that process. And thus far I am seeing arguments presented for option 3, few for option 2, and none at all for option 1.

Especially in a society where it is generally illegal for one person to use violence on another, so it takes work to justify allowing it in a situation where the recipient is unable to defend themselves and there is a large power imbalance between the two.

GreeBo wrote: »

Try withholding privileges from someone in your office and let me know how you get on, my money is on a trip to HR for a conversation on workplace bullying.

You would lose that money because that is essentially what some people do do all the time. What do you think, for example, people are doing when they go on strike? Or when they "work to rule"?

It really comes down to what "privileges" you are talking about and how they are offered, and withdrawn.

For example I had an ongoing issue with a guy in my work place. Up to, and for a time during, that issue I would help him a lot with issues he required help with. I went out of my way to do this. Sometimes even needing to stay late to make up the time lost.

I discussed the issue when it happened with him maturely and he refused to modify his ways to account for that issue. So I simply withheld the privilege I had previously given him of open and instant access to my assistance when he wanted it.

I told him in fact that while I was MORE than happy to assist him with his issues, he would have to go to my superior and request access to that resource (me) in a fashion that could be scheduled and accounted for.

Essentially I went "work to rule" on his ass, and he suffered for it. And it made him re-evaluate his priorities quite quickly.

nozzferrahhtoo

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah that’s spot on. It’s just the terms that are different. To complete your example above negative punishment would be removing WiFi or not sharing sweets like Noss’s example of trying to get children to brush their teeth.

Good posts and little to disagree with in many/any of them. I fear however that some nuance can be lost by merely fitting every approach into one of two boxes "positive or negative". Not saying you are merely doing that. But just seems worth putting a flag in all the same.

The purpose of the example I drew on for example was to explore exactly that nuance. The difference between forcing compliance in the moment by saying "Do this, or that will happen".... so as to basically make children do what you want them to do or suffer............. and basically giving them free choice in the moment by saying "Ok, I am more than happy to allow you to make the choice in your life not to brush your teeth........... however you need to recognize that I too have obligations and responsibilities to other people and I will not be part of them harming themselves. So if you do not wish to brush your teeth.... then I can not in good conscience supply you with materials to harm them"........ and allowing the consequences to manifest themselves in their minds naturally rather than outright telling them "If X then Y".

Quite often the root cause of children's bad behavior is not malice, or ignorance, or immaturity. Rather it is a desire to exercise control over their life/world/environment. And children will engage in quite negative behavior that seems inexplicable to us unless parsed through that narrative. Even when paradoxically they appear to be trying to exercise a feeling of control by acting like, what seems to us, they are completely out of control.

So there is some benefit of an approach that puts more control in their hands over time. And rather than make them feel they have no control in a "Comply now or suffer the following consequences" way...... you make them feel "You have the choice, the control is yours.... so explore that and see what happens as a result of each choice".

It is interesting stuff (to some) but suffice to say that nuance is lost if we do little more than categorize each approach into two camps. And if we have a discussion about the efficacy of any one approach........ such as a violence based approach which the thread is about.......... it really does not matter whether you categorize it in one camp or another..... the question of it's efficacy is still open.

The absolute key word for me however is one you usefully use often. So that is good. And it is "consistency". While my education/work/experience is by no means representative of the world in total...... I have to say that pretty much every major relationship and discipline issue I have seen or dealt with in a parent-child dynamic has it's roots in the lack of consistency from the parents. And it is interesting how many people I have met or read in parenting.... but also in dog ownership..... and also in management training............ where the person who calls in the help thinks the help is coming in to deal with the child/dog/workers.... but they are actually coming in to train the parent/owner/managers.

Jocko Willink speaks well on that. He talks of how often he walks in and the manager noting his Alpha Male physique and presence usually comes out with something like "Finally, someone is here to whip my employees into line and sort them out"........ and he quickly cuts them down to inform them that no, he is in fact there to sort THEM out.


ruthless consistency for the dog/child to figure out what they want and how to get it. But it’s ultimately the better way to teach even if it takes more effort. It builds trust and non verbal communication. It’s empowering for the child because it gives them some control of their environment based on their behaviour.

Slapping is just lazy by comparison.[/QUOTE]

Peatys

It's a great thing the dumb fúcks don't have the choice anymore.
Government stepped in and now it's illegal to hit a kid of you want to, so no need to justify it.

GreeBo

neonsofa wrote: »

No it wasn't.

Numerous posters have used "well you wouldn't slap an adult" as somehow proof that slapping is wrong. I merely posed the question of withholding privileges from an adult.

But for some reason the anti slap posters can't handle that example.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Surely it’s clear that slapping is inherently more extreme than other simply taking away a privilege like the WiFi password. Hitting is a form of physical violence. Can you equate that physical violence with taking away the WiFi password? Would you call taking away the WiFi a form of violence?

Personally I'd see your example of the wi-fi withdrawal as psychological manipulation. If I were to consider applying it to my own child I'd see it as cruel and unusual punishment. It's psychological violence. It's on the low end of the scale the same as smacking the child would be on the low end of the scale of physical violence. I genuinely don't see one as being any more inherently extreme than the other.

Lol. You've gone too far now. Taking away WiFi privilege is psychological violence? Would you even agree that hitting a child is physical violence?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I could of course turn off the wi-fi for a set duration of time, increasing in length until eventually my child not being particularly stupid would find ways around it quite easily and then not only would he carry on with the misbehaviour, he wouldn't particularly care whether or not I turned off the wifi, he'd just read a book or something until I turned it back on. He still wouldn't have learned anything from the experience, because he won't care.

So after calling it psychological violence, you immediately switch tac and say it would be meaningless anyway. Apart from that, youre describing using negative reinforcement as positive reinforcement with a negative stimulus ( which kinda shows that you don't get the difference between positive and negative reinforcement)

Is that how you would recommend hitting (the way you describe turning off WiFi above)? Increasing in severity if the behaviour continues?

Grand but you’re completely ignoring the salient point that hitting a colleague will get you in immediate and deep trouble. Not giving positive feedback until a job is done correctly, won’t. If you’re not willing to engage with that point then you need to ask yourself why.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm engaging with the point. I just don't agree with you that outcomes can be guaranteed like you're suggesting.

You don't agree that hitting a colleague will land you in trouble?

So here's a context, your colleague is back from lunch late and smells of booze. You're their line manager, you hold them while you slap them on the back of the legs. Then you explain that you hit them because they were late back from lunch

Or you ask for a few minutes to talk and explain that their behaviour is unacceptable and if it continues it will be factored into their next performance review which will affect their next pay increase.

If you say both of those scenarios will land you in equal trouble. Then I don't think you're being honest. I know you've backed yourself into a corner here but you've run out of road.

Oh no you’re dead wrong on that point. The difference between positive and negative reinforcement is significant. The difference includes the fact that the child learns to earn positive reinforcement with positive behaviours as opposed to avoiding pain from bad behaviours. They’re not 2 sides of the same coin. They’re actually a world apart.

The motivation, focus and learning are all oriented differently for positive and negative reinforcement. If you don’t get the inherent difference then I can see why you might see hitting as equal to negative reinforcement. But they’re not.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm familiar with the concepts, but I'm more of an advocate of authentic parenting if I'm being honest. The whole idea of waiting to catch your feral child doing something that doesn't involve trying to kill themselves is likely to lead to you twiddling your thumbs. The theory is sound if people were blank slates and we were all motivated by the same things, but we aren't, obviously.

Well, you say you're familiar with the concepts but you've demonstrated that you don't really know about the differences between positive and negative reinforcement. Your description of using the WiFi above is myopic and naive. Not at all a realistic representation of negative reinforcement. It's a straw man because if you know something won't be effective, then you wouldn't use it. You would use something else that would be effective.

Negative reinforcement needs to be dynamic and consistent. Hitting is just lazy. But that shouldn't be surprising, lots of people are lazy in all walks of life. Each to their own I guess.

GreeBo

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nice that you are getting it. And that you agree with me about your posts being comedy. It is not common that one reaches parity this quickly. We should continue.

But yes, the issues I am dealing with are GENERAL concepts, so I am indeed not focusing on saying they do, or do not, happen in one specific scenario. Glad you got it.



No my arguments are based on general studies of populations as a whole. My specific examples that I use to illustrate those arguments to, and discuss them with, you are more based on lower level observations. One should use both, without ignoring the other.

The unruly child in a supermarket example you reached for is useful in this regard. It highlights an issue I see though my education, work, experience and received anecdote that is common in parenting as a whole.

Which is that quite often peoples approach to parenting is situational. They want to know "If X happens what do I do in that moment". Such as "If my child is suddenly uncontrollable and unruly in the supermarket, what is the response in that moment".

This is not limited to discipline either. Consider a different scenario entirely. That of teaching our children about sex. In conversation after conversation, in forum after forum, in experience after experience.... I hear people discuss "the talk".

Either how to give their child "the talk".... or their discomfort before during and after "the talk"..... or discussing how they themselves got "The talk" or some equivalent of it (parents buying a book and then running away seems not uncommon). And so on.

The issue I see there is there is no good reason I have seen that suggests there even should be a "the talk". Rather education on sexual matters, just like discipline, could be an ongoing process, an ongoing discourse. iterative in it's design and execution. Something we engage in at every sensible moment, building on what came before.

Discipline is not something that has to occur in the moment the child is being unruly or immoral or wrong. It is something we can do positively in moments where the child is being good or even neutral. While I did not understand much of his wording of it above, El_Duderino 09 seems to have a good handle on this when he talks about a combination of positive and negative inputs to that process coupled with an ongoing "ruthless consistency".

The question on THIS thread is whether a violence based approach is useful, not useful at all, or positively harmful to that process. And thus far I am seeing arguments presented for option 3, few for option 2, and none at all for option 1.

Especially in a society where it is generally illegal for one person to use violence on another, so it takes work to justify allowing it in a situation where the recipient is unable to defend themselves and there is a large power imbalance between the two.



You would lose that money because that is essentially what some people do do all the time. What do you think, for example, people are doing when they go on strike? Or when they "work to rule"?

It really comes down to what "privileges" you are talking about and how they are offered, and withdrawn.

For example I had an ongoing issue with a guy in my work place. Up to, and for a time during, that issue I would help him a lot with issues he required help with. I went out of my way to do this. Sometimes even needing to stay late to make up the time lost.

I discussed the issue when it happened with him maturely and he refused to modify his ways to account for that issue. So I simply withheld the privilege I had previously given him of open and instant access to my assistance when he wanted it.

I told him in fact that while I was MORE than happy to assist him with his issues, he would have to go to my superior and request access to that resource (me) in a fashion that could be scheduled and accounted for.

Essentially I went "work to rule" on his ass, and he suffered for it. And it made him re-evaluate his priorities quite quickly.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Good posts and little to disagree with in many/any of them. I fear however that some nuance can be lost by merely fitting every approach into one of two boxes "positive or negative". Not saying you are merely doing that. But just seems worth putting a flag in all the same.

The purpose of the example I drew on for example was to explore exactly that nuance. The difference between forcing compliance in the moment by saying "Do this, or that will happen".... so as to basically make children do what you want them to do or suffer............. and basically giving them free choice in the moment by saying "Ok, I am more than happy to allow you to make the choice in your life not to brush your teeth........... however you need to recognize that I too have obligations and responsibilities to other people and I will not be part of them harming themselves. So if you do not wish to brush your teeth.... then I can not in good conscience supply you with materials to harm them"........ and allowing the consequences to manifest themselves in their minds naturally rather than outright telling them "If X then Y".

Quite often the root cause of children's bad behavior is not malice, or ignorance, or immaturity. Rather it is a desire to exercise control over their life/world/environment. And children will engage in quite negative behavior that seems inexplicable to us unless parsed through that narrative. Even when paradoxically they appear to be trying to exercise a feeling of control by acting like, what seems to us, they are completely out of control.

So there is some benefit of an approach that puts more control in their hands over time. And rather than make them feel they have no control in a "Comply now or suffer the following consequences" way...... you make them feel "You have the choice, the control is yours.... so explore that and see what happens as a result of each choice".

Which is somehow different from them having the choice, or control over them earning themselves a slap.

Your "ability" to twist things to suit yourself and thus somehow prove some point is frankly outstanding.

As for your privilege at work example, please...that's just pathetic. Come back to me when you are singling out one employee because you don't like how they behave.

Btw, your condescending tone when speaking to others leads me to believe that you are probably well versed in dealing with HR for your unacceptable work place behavior.

Fourier

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Aren't they? For any particular reason or just because you declare it to be so? I am not seeing all that large a distinction at all. Neither in general, or in any of the definitions or dynamics.

At the end of the day we are talking about human interactions and human relationships. And while there ARE differences between different types..... parent/child..... romantic couples...... coworkers.... friends......... they are not as large or diverse as you seem to want them to be.

I'm not really disputing your points in the rest of this thread, just wondering about this one. My understanding of childhood mental development is that the relationship between parent and child is quite different from other human relationships in the first seven years due to the differences in how children learn in the first few years.

Unless you mean certain standards shouldn't be different.

nozzferrahhtoo

GreeBo wrote: »

Numerous posters have used "well you wouldn't slap an adult" as somehow proof that slapping is wrong.

I think that is an over simplification of what they are doing though. I think what they are doing is highlighting how there is a general move away from violence in our society. We generally acknowledge that the use of violence from one on another is wrong.

And we seem to intuit that it is more wrong depending on the power differential between the assailant and the target. So for example me giving a slap to a male co-worker would likely not be viewed quite as badly as me going home and slapping my female partner.

So I think what they are getting as is:

1) If violence is generally frowned upon, what justifies it's use in a given situation and

2) If violence with a power differential is even more abhorrent then why is it less so in one of the greatest power differentials of all..... that between adults and children.

GreeBo wrote: »

Which is somehow different from them having the choice, or control over them earning themselves a slap.

Yes very different indeed, for the reasons I just explained in the post you quoted but seemingly did not actually read.

And that difference is, as I said, between enforcing conformity in the moment, and giving someone free choice. The goal of the former is to achieve conformity.... perhaps even through escalation if conformity is not achieved through the first effort. While the goal of the second is to give free choice, where sensible to do so, and allow consequences of each choice to manifest naturally over time.

GreeBo wrote: »

Your "ability" to twist things to suit yourself and thus somehow prove some point is frankly outstanding.

As for your privilege at work example, please...that's just pathetic. Come back to me when you are singling out one employee because you don't like how they behave.

Nice of you to accuse me of something I did not do....... twisting things to suit myself...... before actively doing that very thing..... by twisting things to suit yourself. Further calling something "pathetic" without explain why it is, is just flinging labels that will not stick. Things do not become pathetic just because you shout that label at them and run away.

But in effect I did single out that employee because of his behavior. And by shifting his access to benefits he desired I was able to highlight to him the consequences of that behavior and allow him to reach a point himself where he realized the error of his ways, rather than me merely using power to enforce conformity in the moment.

And none of it, at all, required I use violence against him.

GreeBo wrote: »

Btw, your condescending tone when speaking to others leads me to believe that you are probably well versed in dealing with HR for your unacceptable work place behavior.

Now you are just being petty, crude, and personal. You let only yourself down in this and it is only your tone that is failing here, not my own.

nozzferrahhtoo

Fourier wrote: »

I'm not really disputing your points in the rest of this thread, just wondering about this one. My understanding of childhood mental development is that the relationship between parent and child is quite different from other human relationships in the first seven years due to the differences in how children learn in the first few years.

All relationship types have major differences from other ones. Your relationship to co-workers likely has major differences to your relationships with your spouse for example. And not solely, I would hope , because you do not have sex with your co-workers.

But many general dynamics are constant across differing relationships and relationship types. Or at least quite often should be constant. How you resolve a conflict with a co-worker, a friend, a family member, or a spouse should be fairly constant. As should basic human respect. And so on.

So what I was referring to here was the constants that we model in our behavior with our children. And if we want to raise them to realize that violence is a not a valid means of conflict resolution with.... say.... coworkers, friends, family members, spouses and so forth.............. then an onus to justify why we should model conflict resolution through violence with THEM develops. And I am not seeing that onus met on this thread yet.

Unless you mean certain standards shouldn't be different.[/QUOTE]

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lol. You've gone too far now. Taking away WiFi privilege is psychological violence? Would you even agree that hitting a child is physical violence?

Why does that surprise you? I said that both were on the lower scales of their particular method of discipline. You appear to have missed that part. I did already agree that hitting a child is physical violence, hitting anyone is physical violence. Horseplay between myself and my child is a lot more physically violent than smacking them. To an outside observer who objects to physical violence it looks like we're killing each other, but we're not, we're messing with each other.

So after calling it psychological violence, you immediately switch tac and say it would be meaningless anyway. Apart from that, youre describing using negative reinforcement as positive reinforcement with a negative stimulus ( which kinda shows that you don't get the difference between positive and negative reinforcement)

Is that how you would recommend hitting (the way you describe turning off WiFi above)? Increasing in severity if the behaviour continues?

I didn't switch tac? Just because a method is ineffective doesn't mean it isn't still violence? If your argument is that physical violence is ineffective, does that mean it isn't still violence? Of course it doesn't.

It's exactly how I would describe any form of discipline that escalates to the point where it is no longer about discipline, but an attempt to control the child, to undermine them, to instill fear in them. To take away their ability to form judgements of their own, to assess for themselves the consequences of their behaviour.

What we want to quantify as either positive or negative reinforcement or positive and negative stimulus will be entirely based upon our own individual perspectives based upon what we know of the individual child in question, and that's why I said that the theory is sound if it didn't ignore the temperament of the parents and children involved in each and every case.

You don't agree that hitting a colleague will land you in trouble?

So here's a context, your colleague is back from lunch late and smells of booze. You're their line manager, you hold them while you slap them on the back of the legs. Then you explain that you hit them because they were late back from lunch

Or you ask for a few minutes to talk and explain that their behaviour is unacceptable and if it continues it will be factored into their next performance review which will affect their next pay increase.

If you say both of those scenarios will land you in equal trouble. Then I don't think you're being honest. I know you've backed yourself into a corner here but you've run out of road.

I didn't say that. I said I don't agree with your hypothetical guaranteed outcomes. This is why set scenarios often simply don't map to reality, because they are generic, they ignore context. Why not just stick with the scenarios we had and accept the answer I gave you the first time rather than dismissing my first answer and telling me I've run out of road? I have no doubt you could come up with an infinite number of scenarios, and the one thing I will still tell you is that it would depend upon the context of each and every case.

Just for shìts and giggles though, in your above scenario, did they drive to work? I wouldn't be long ejecting them from the premises myself by whatever means were necessary, including physical force, and tell them expect their P45 in the post if they did. You see? Context.

Well, you say you're familiar with the concepts but you've demonstrated that you don't really know about the differences between positive and negative reinforcement. Your description of using the WiFi above is myopic and naive. Not at all a realistic representation of negative reinforcement. It's a straw man because if you know something won't be effective, then you wouldn't use it. You would use something else that would be effective.

Of course it's going to be myopic when I said I was applying the example you gave to myself and my child. How would it be anything else? That's the point, again - context! It would be naive if I thought every parent or every child would react the same way leading to the same outcomes. I do know it would be ineffective, but that's not the reason why I wouldn't use it. I also said it would be a cruel and unusual punishment and a form of psychological violence.

You laughed off the idea of it being what I consider to be psychological violence, yet you think I should use that instead of a method which I use which I consider effective, which by your standards is physical violence. It's because my actions are more visible and obvious is why you even see it to object to it, but psychological violence is less visible and less obvious, and that's why you laugh it off, because you aren't even considering the potential consequences of your actions, or the potential consequences of actions you would encourage other parents to engage in as a means of teaching their children discipline.

That's myopic, and incredibly naive, and it's methods like that are favoured by those who encourage narcissistic parenting.

Negative reinforcement needs to be dynamic and consistent. Hitting is just lazy. But that shouldn't be surprising, lots of people are lazy in all walks of life. Each to their own I guess.

Exactly, that's what I've been trying to explain to you all along. That's exactly what I will always tell parents myself, or similar at least - don't try to be someone you're not, because that's the worst example you can set for your children, and it's also incredibly stressful on you as a person, and children pick up on that because they aren't stupid. That's what I mean by authentic parenting. It's the complete opposite of Benjamin Spocks telling parents that they know more than they think they do. It's saying to parents that they don't have to know everything, they don't have to be perfect parents, they don't have to be someone they're not, trying to be a parent to someone who doesn't understand the idea of behaving like someone they're not.

Hector Bellend

Like I always say, there's nothing like a good crack on the arse to keep little Johnny on the straight and narrow.

Faugheen

I was smacked as a child.

I detested both my parents in my later teenage years for it, including an altercation with my dad when I was 17.

And none of what they did was any more than a slap on the arse from time to time. They weren't abusive or whatever.

I turned out fine, but it put a huge strain on my relationship with my parents for the most part. Thankfully we're ok now because they realised they could have done better but they didn't know any better.

People saying that smacking works, it doesn't.

GreeBo

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think that is an over simplification of what they are doing though. I think what they are doing is highlighting how there is a general move away from violence in our society. We generally acknowledge that the use of violence from one on another is wrong.

We generally acknowledge that manipulating people, especially children, with psychological and social pressures is wrong.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And we seem to intuit that it is more wrong depending on the power differential between the assailant and the target. So for example me giving a slap to a male co-worker would likely not be viewed quite as badly as me going home and slapping my female partner.

So you are a sexist now are you Father?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So I think what they are getting as is:

1) If violence is generally frowned upon, what justifies it's use in a given situation and

2) If violence with a power differential is even more abhorrent then why is it less so in one of the greatest power differentials of all..... that between adults and children.

See my first post. Manipulating a child to do what you want by using psychological and social pressures is pretty abhorrent to me. You see ok with it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes very different indeed, for the reasons I just explained in the post you quoted but seemingly did not actually read.

And that difference is, as I said, between enforcing conformity in the moment, and giving someone free choice. The goal of the former is to achieve conformity.... perhaps even through escalation if conformity is not achieved through the first effort. While the goal of the second is to give free choice, where sensible to do so, and allow consequences of each choice to manifest naturally over time.

You are still failing to convince me how denying a child Wifi or sweets is NOT enforcing conformity but a simple slap is.
I'd argue that what you are trying to instill over time actually diminishes over that same time to the point where the child is flat out confused as to why they are being punished.

Btw, I love the way you sneak in "perhaps even through escalation" into your post. Is there any chance you can accept that NO ONE on here is advocating abusing or beating a child (or anyone for that matter)
A slap is just that, a slap, its an instant association for the child that X leads to Y. Its not a convoluted (for a young child) mind game of delayed association.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nice of you to accuse me of something I did not do....... twisting things to suit myself...... before actively doing that very thing..... by twisting things to suit yourself. Further calling something "pathetic" without explain why it is, is just flinging labels that will not stick. Things do not become pathetic just because you shout that label at them and run away.

Flinging labels huh? Such as "lazy parenting"?
Slapping does not become lazy parenting just because you think it is.

I'm not twisting anything, the employee at work was my own example.
The argument has been made that since you wouldnt control a co-worker through a slap, then slapping a child is somehow logically wrong.

If that is true, then it must be equally true, even if you dont like it because it disproves your argument, that treating one co-worker differently (withholding privileges for example) simply due to how they behave would also not be tolerated and thus is equally wrong.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But in effect I did single out that employee because of his behavior. And by shifting his access to benefits he desired I was able to highlight to him the consequences of that behavior and allow him to reach a point himself where he realized the error of his ways, rather than me merely using power to enforce conformity in the moment.

And none of it, at all, required I use violence against him.

Ah, so you admit that you bullied him into doing what you wanted him to do. Bullying takes many forms, violence being just one.
Forget about the error of his ways, that implies that he is not doing something that he is obligated to do, lets take a more meaningful and relevant example, he just behaves in a way that you dont like.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Now you are just being petty, crude, and personal. You let only yourself down in this and it is only your tone that is failing here, not my own.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The old adage goes something like "You are welcome to your opinion but you are not welcome to your own facts". And while you have your weird and limited and limiting criteria to evaluate the professionalism and competancy of a psychologist..... they differ wildly from the measures actually used in the industry and by people evaluating that industry

Apparently you are though -

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Did a Sexuality Educator Say Parents Should Ask Babies’ Permission for Diaper Changes?


WHAT'S TRUE

Sexuality educator Deanne Carson said parents could ask children if it is okay to change their diapers to teach them "their response matters," noting that it is not actually possible for babies to consent to a diaper change.

WHAT'S FALSE

Carson did not say infants were able to or parents were required to receive consent for diaper changes; Carson did not say infants who refused consent should remain in dirty diapers.



And then there's this:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have to say that pretty much every major relationship and discipline issue I have seen or dealt with in a parent-child dynamic has it's roots in the lack of consistency from the parents. And it is interesting how many people I have met or read in parenting.... but also in dog ownership..... and also in management training............ where the person who calls in the help thinks the help is coming in to deal with the child/dog/workers.... but they are actually coming in to train the parent/owner/managers.

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.

So you are actually aware that qualified child psychologists aren't just limited to working with children, and yet you still chose to try and tell me that my criteria for why I would choose not to avail of the services of that particular child psychologist were somehow limited because I said they do not just work with children. I know they don't just work with children, they actually do work with adults too, but that poster wasn't very specific about what they have done with their qualifications.

What you were doing is trying to pass off your opinion as fact, You claim that I tried to deride someone's opinion through an ad hominem when I made it clear that I was saying that I would not avail of their services. There was no ad hominem there, I was stating a fact. I wouldn't avail of their services, and if you imagine that their relationship with their parents wouldn't be a consideration in their suitability as a child psychologist, it's implicit in one of the first questions any interviewer would ask when they ask the candidate to tell them a bit about themselves. It's expected that their relationship with their parents and their own family would be a relevant consideration in determining their suitability for employment.

Irish Guitarist

I was born in 1976 and I'm the youngest of six siblings. My parents never raised a hand to any of us.

My father still managed to frighten the shite out of me though.

JupiterKid

Every generation gives out about the behaviour of the next. It's been this way for millenia and will continue to be so.

Resorting to hitting a small child IMO is not productive. Yes, disclipline and boundaries of course but there are better ways to discipline children than hitting them.

I'm 43 and got the occasional slap here and there but it was rare. My parents preferred to use positive encouragement or negative consequences (bed with no supper, grounding and no pocket money for the week) as forms of punishment.

A mild slap is ok if used sparingly. Thumping a child or using an object like a leather belt or a rod is abuse.

Creative83

Not sure how I feel about this...

You have plenty of parents bringing their kids to doctors these days to get a diagnosis for "ADHD".... It's all bull**** of course, just parents who can't control their kids... being unable to give them a smack every now and again if they do wrong may be a very big part of this phenomenon.

tonycascarino

JupiterKid wrote: »

A mild slap is ok if used sparingly. Thumping a child or using an object like a leather belt or a rod is abuse.

This is exactly it. Nothing wrong with giving a child a clip when deserved to keep them in check.

eviltwin

I'm feeling like super mum, got one child to 21 without ever having to slap them and she hasn't turned into a a-hole.

Pawwed Rig

Creative83 wrote: »

Not sure how I feel about this...

You have plenty of parents bringing their kids to doctors these days to get a diagnosis for "ADHD".... It's all bull**** of course, just parents who can't control their kids... being unable to give them a smack every now and again if they do wrong may be a very big part of this phenomenon.

Is there? I know that is the case in the US but I have not seen stats for over here.

eviltwin

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Is there? I know that is the case in the US but I have not seen stats for over here.

It's actually incredibly difficult, and expensive, to get any kind of diagnosis. A GP can't give one.

MonkieSocks

Creative83 wrote: »

It has been the band wagon here for years...

From 2010... http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=17899. I read this as well over 60,000 undisciplined kids, a lot of whom are adults now. A diagnosis of "ADHD" exonerates the parents from bad parenting... that is why they go for it.

From a "comment in that link

Comments

Anonymous - 24/09/2010 15:01
I wonder how many of these children who are diagnosed, have the required tests to for thieir noradrenalin and dopamine levels, function and response?


I don't mean to imply that a diagnosis and treatment is not helpful but at the same time, labelling children as having a condition when they do not is not helpful either.


Very few children were diagnosed as ADHD 20 years ago but there were plently of children who ran around, had great energy levels, jumped, laughed, played, screamed with laughter and were generally letting off steam - but this was considered being a normal child.

Spot on

GreeBo

MonkieSocks wrote: »

From a "comment in that link




Spot on

Equally, the occasional, mild slap to correct certain behavior was considered normal parenting.