Poll of the Day > There's nothing wrong with spanking your kids

(+) Yeah! (+)

Some kids and adults need more than spankings and their toys taken away since they just don't get it.

LinkPizza posted...

I mean, I understand what science says. Its just hard for me to believe it still when everything Ibe seen in my life suggest otherwise Thats all

So do some actual research. If the facts as presented by people that have actually studied them conflict with what you've seen in day-to-day life, don't just wring your hands and say "oh, it's hard for me to believe that" and dismiss the facts without thinking about it any further. Try to understand why you're seeing that inconsistency. Most of the time, I can tell you that the reason is going to be that you're wrong.

This is especially true where "everything you've seen in your life" is a handful of anecdotal evidence where you've done nothing to control for confounding variables or biases or even actually assess whether or not negative outcomes have arisen. You have zero credible basis for your opinion. To value your opinion higher than that of those that have a credible basis for theirs is just plain dumb.

Muscles posted...

the goal isn't to hurt them

There is no goal aside from hurting them. The fundamental concept is using pain as a punishment to influence their behaviour. If you aren't hurting them, you're not actually doing anything that's relevant to the discussion.

Can't believe oohjaa has me agreeing with him

Do you guys hit your romantic partners or social associates too? When they do things you don't like? Or is it only okay to hit children?

Jen0125 posted...

Do you guys hit your romantic partners or social associates too? When they do things you don't like? Or is it only okay to hit children?

Hey, I have an idea: To save our hands from painful slapping, we should just put shock collars on kids and give them a little zap whenever they step out of line. After all, it's not like it'll injure them, right? That means it's not abusive.

adjl posted...

Hey, I have an idea: To save our hands from painful slapping, we should just put shock collars on kids and give them a little zap whenever they step out of line. After all, it's not like it'll injure them, right? That means it's not abusive.

We do it to dogs, so why not???

Conner4REAL posted...

Or in real life provided its not excessive or unwarranted.

Agreed. I know well that some parents take it to far.

Conner4REAL posted...

but these days turning off their technology archives a greater result than spanking ever did.

cut off their cell phone you cut off their entire social life.

Despite my excessive beatings from my old man it never actually got the results he expected. Taking away my video game console would have been a bigger punishment. Phones work these days as everyone is glued to them.

Jen0125 posted...

We do it to dogs, so why not???

Why is it only okay for dogs?

Jen0125 posted...

Do you guys hit your romantic partners or social associates too? When they do things you don't like? Or is it only okay to hit children?

We discuss pinching each other. It's not about what the punisher likes or doesn't like, it's about the action that needs correcting.
No punishment holds much weight if the punisher is just going after things they don't like.

adjl posted...

So do some actual research. If the facts as presented by people that have actually studied them conflict with what you've seen in day-to-day life, don't just wring your hands and say "oh, it's hard for me to believe that" and dismiss the facts without thinking about it any further. Try to understand why you're seeing that inconsistency. Most of the time, I can tell you that the reason is going to be that you're wrong.

This is especially true where "everything you've seen in your life" is a handful of anecdotal evidence where you've done nothing to control for confounding variables or biases or even actually assess whether or not negative outcomes have arisen. You have zero credible basis for your opinion. To value your opinion higher than that of those that have a credible basis for theirs is just plain dumb.

Ive read the research before. This isnt the first spanking topic And it still doesnt change my mind Mainly because, like I mentioned earlier, its not what Ive seen in my experience So, even though science says one thing, its hard for me to believe when everything Ive seen IRL says differently So, even though I shouldnt say, Its hard to believe that, it still is And thats how its going to be, I guess

pedro45 posted...

Why is it only okay for dogs?

You're asking the wrong person. I don't use those collars on my dogs because I don't find it ethical.

pedro45 posted...

We discuss pinching each other. It's not about what the punisher likes or doesn't like, it's about the action that needs correcting.
No punishment holds much weight if the punisher is just going after things they don't like.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

LinkPizza posted...

Ive read the research before.

And did you consider why your perception conflicts with the results of the research?

adjl posted...

And did you consider why your perception conflicts with the results of the research?

Sure... But like I said, even with knowing what the research said, it's not something I can actually see. And everything that I have seen IRL disagrees with it. That's why it's hard to believe...

Jen0125 posted...

What the fuck are you even talking about?

Someone asked if they hit or abuse their significant others, and my answer is that we pinch each other.
"If i open a bag of chips, pinch me"

pedro45 posted...

Someone asked if they hit or abuse their significant others, and my answer is that we pinch each other.
"If i open a bag of chips, pinch me"

So what???

So someone asked...probably facetiously, but i answered.

pedro45 posted...

So someone asked...probably facetiously, but i answered.

Sounds like there's consent in your case, though.
Do parents usually ask their kids for permission before spanking them?

LinkPizza posted...

Sure...

And what answer did that consideration yield?

OhhhJa posted...

I know people who were spanked as a kid and are good, successful people in adulthood. But numerous studies have shown the negative effects it can have on a child. It's literally physical abuse and that's not something you should ever inflict on anyone you love. Yes, even children deserve the respect of not being beaten.

Children can be disciplined in more productive ways that don't involve violence. Spanking is for the lazy and uneducated and is not an appropriate response to your child acting out

Spanking and beating are two completely different things. Beating is child abuse, spanking on the bottom is not.

adjl posted...

And what answer did that consideration yield?

I started asking more people who I saw on a daily basis about being spanked or not to see if it was the same as the research said... And I didn't see anything like what the research said... Which really just strengthened me not really believing in the research...

LinkPizza posted...

I started asking more people who I saw on a daily basis about being spanked or not to see if it was the same as the research said... And I didn't see anything like what the research said... Which really just strengthened me not really believing in the research...

The thing about research is that reality doesn't always match your worldview

MagicalPrincess posted...

Spanking and beating are two completely different things. Beating is child abuse, spanking on the bottom is not.

If you're hitting your child and making them cry, you are in fact beating them

LinkPizza posted...

I started asking more people who I saw on a daily basis about being spanked or not to see if it was the same as the research said... And I didn't see anything like what the research said... Which really just strengthened me not really believing in the research...

And you think self-reported anecdotal evidence from those who were spanked (or worse, were doing the spanking themselves) is more meaningful than collecting actual diagnoses on the scale of entire populations?

OhhhJa posted...

The thing about research is that reality doesn't always match your worldview

I know... But that's also why I'm having trouble believing it...

adjl posted...

And you think self-reported anecdotal evidence from those who were spanked (or worse, were doing the spanking themselves) is more meaningful than collecting actual diagnoses on the scale of entire populations?

To me, it is (at least in this case)... Especially when I don't even know how they came to believe which factors are causing what they see in their data...

Spanking is one of those things that's been done for so many generations, that it's really hard for a lot of people to understand that it's actually wrong. A lot of people even wear it like a badge of honor because it's so ingrained in society. Can't count how many times I've heard some dude proudly boast about how his parents beat the shit out of him

Jen0125 posted...

Can't believe oohjaa has me agreeing with him

Pretty sure he admitted all his right-wing nonsense was trolling

LinkPizza being in favor of child abuse is appalling, but not surprising.

GanonsSpirit posted...

LinkPizza being in favor of child abuse is appalling, but not surprising.

I'm in favor of spanking, which I don't consider child abuse...

LinkPizza posted...

To me, it is (at least in this case)...

That means you are grossly overestimating your own competence.

LinkPizza posted...

Especially when I don't even know how they came to believe which factors are causing what they see in their data...

If you actually read into and understand studies, competently-written ones for subjects like this usually outline different variables that they considered and break down their observations into various categories, such as race, sex, socioeconomic status, and region.

The biggest and easiest one to look for, though, is sample size: If you sample 10 people, 5 of whom were spanked and 5 of whom were not, finding that 3 of the spanked people developed problems and only 1 of the control group did not isn't an overly meaningful correlation, since on that scale random variation in other factors can indeed create correlations without there being any sort of causal relationship. If you sample 1,000,000 people, though, and 300,000/500,000 of the spanked group displayed problems and 100,000/500,000 of the control group did not, that's a very solid basis for saying that being spanked triples one's risk of developing those negative effects unless you can find another factor that's similarly correlated.

Meanwhile, self-reported anecdotal evidence from those who were spanked or have spanked their own children is largely useless. Those making the assessments are doing so from a layperson's perspective (meaning they can't necessarily recognize the potential negative effects), and the assessments carry an extreme risk of bias given that most people don't want to think that they or their parents might be child abusers.

The information you are observing is objectively without merit. Basing opinions on it is a terrible idea by every possible metric. So stop it.

OhhhJa posted...

Spanking is one of those things that's been done for so many generations, that it's really hard for a lot of people to understand that it's actually wrong. A lot of people even wear it like a badge of honor because it's so ingrained in society. Can't count how many times I've heard some dude proudly boast about how his parents beat the shit out of him

See also: Circumcision.

adjl posted...

That means you are grossly overestimating your own competence.

Probably... But that's what I see... And I can believe it since I can see it...

adjl posted...

If you actually read into and understand studies, competently-written ones for subjects like this usually outline different variables that they considered and break down their observations into various categories, such as race, sex, socioeconomic status, and region.

The biggest and easiest one to look for, though, is sample size: If you sample 10 people, 5 of whom were spanked and 5 of whom were not, finding that 3 of the spanked people developed problems and only 1 of the control group did not isn't an overly meaningful correlation, since on that scale random variation in other factors can indeed create correlations without there being any sort of causal relationship. If you sample 1,000,000 people, though, and 300,000/500,000 of the spanked group displayed problems and 100,000/500,000 of the control group did not, that's a very solid basis for saying that being spanked triples one's risk of developing those negative effects unless you can find another factor that's similarly correlated.

Meanwhile, self-reported anecdotal evidence from those who were spanked or have spanked their own children is largely useless. Those making the assessments are doing so from a layperson's perspective (meaning they can't necessarily recognize the potential negative effects), and the assessments carry an extreme risk of bias given that most people don't want to think that they or their parents might be child abusers.

The information you are observing is objectively without merit. Basing opinions on it is a terrible idea by every possible metric. So stop it.

I understand that have looked at the variables. But like I said, it doesn't matter as much to me since in the end, it still feels like assumptions. They don't know the spanking is what caused those things. It's just their best guess on the info they have. But even then, there could be other factors that actually caused those things. Maybe most of them would have still had the same issues without spanking, for example... The reason these studies don't really help me to see things differently is because I can't see that it's causing negative effects... Because even if I see negative effects, I can't say for sure that caused it...

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.

adjl posted...

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.

The reason it "Feels like assumptions" to me is because there's no proof I can really see... Also, I never said my stuff wasn't assumptions. Mine are also assumptions. I never said mine were the absolute truth. But between the two assumptions, I personally can trust mine better... But that's because I trust what I can see. But I never said mine wasn't an assumption, as well...

And I believe that most of them are doing exactly what you said with the casual links and all. But at the same time, the reason it's still hard for me to trust is because of how many things can cause those other things to occur in people when they get older. Obviously, I know that they know they spanking isn't the only cause. The problem is with so many different things that can causes people to had the negative consequences, it's hard for me to just believe that most had to have been caused by spanking...

That's why it's hard. If it were that not many things could cause the negative consequences, then there's less chance that it's something else, and more chance that's it's spanking. But with some many things that can cause those negative effects, it's makes it's much harder for me to just agree with them...