LogFAQs > #970075828

LinkPizza posted...

But like I said, it doesn't matter as much to me since in the end, it still feels like assumptions.

It "feels like assumptions" to find a consistent, strong correlation between spanking and negative mental health outcomes across numerous studies covering tens - if not hundreds - of thousands of people and conclude that there is probably a causal link from those results, but it doesn't "feel like assumptions" to not notice a correlation in self-reported anecdotes you've casually collected from a few friends and conclude that there is no causal link from those results?

Most of science consists of that sort of "assumption": Scientists form hypotheses, conduct experiments to test them, and with each successive experiment that fails to reject a hypothesis that hypothesis becomes more and more credible, ultimately being accepted among the broader scientific community as probably being correct. It's fairly rare - especially in Psychology - that a study will look at something and be able to definitively identify a causal link. Instead, it's a matter of identifying correlations where a causal relationship is likely, and that's exactly what's happened with spanking and various adverse mental health and behavioural outcomes.

Is it possible that the observed correlation is actually due to other factors that, through sheer random chance, have affected the spanked subjects at a considerably greater rate than the control group? Sure. It's also possible that every coin flip you perform for the rest of your life will come up tails. Neither are particularly likely, though, so basing your opinion on the matter on the belief that that remote possibility is true simply because it better lines up with your uselessly narrow experience is, to be frank, pretty stupid.