Would you spank your child?

[Narz]

Timeouts meant go to your room and play Game Boy for me. Obviously, they didn't work.

My kid's not going to get "timeouts", if she does something to harm the family/household she'll do something productive to serve the household. Ideally without being forced to.

I believe in restitution, not punishment.

 

[Rik Meleet]

My kid's not going to get "timeouts", if she does something to harm the family/household she'll do something productive to serve the household. Ideally without being forced to.

I believe in restitution, not punishment.

Construction, not destruction makes a better human being,

 

[Jeff1787]

I'll see you guys in class Monday morning....and I hope you don't get spanked between now and then, you might have to have your momma call in sick for you!!!

 

[Gustave5436]

My kid's not going to get "timeouts", if she does something to harm the family/household she'll do something productive to serve the household. Ideally without being forced to.

I believe in restitution, not punishment.

Restitution is probably best, as it clearly demonstrates to the child why whatever he/she did was wrong, thus making it easier for the child to internalize the involved moral(s). Punishment, whether physical or psychological, just gets blind obedience based on fear; this is not psychologically healthy or intellectually helpful.

Worked for me. /shrug.

Maybe you didnt do it right?

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. The statistics say that people who smoke have a far greater risk of certain types of cancers than people who do not smoke. Some people smoke and live to 100 without ever getting cancer; these people are not evidence against the overwhelming body of evidence, they are just statistical outliers. The evidence also says that people who were beaten as children tend to be less well-adjusted than people who were not. It is the nature of statistics that there will be outliers and so forth.

 

[Jeff1787]

Restitution is probably best, as it clearly demonstrates to the child why whatever he/she did was wrong, thus making it easier for the child to internalize the involved moral(s). Punishment just gets blind obedience based on fear; this is not psychologically healthy or intellectually helpful.

You are correct, and they shouldn't have winners or losers in sports....could you just imagine the trauma our youth suffer from when they lose a game....

 

[JollyRoger]

Restitution is probably best, as it clearly demonstrates to the child why whatever he/she did was wrong, thus making it easier for the child to internalize the involved moral(s). Punishment just gets blind obedience based on fear; this is not psychologically healthy or intellectually helpful.

Plus, it wears out one's arm and may cause tourettional shrugging bouts later in life.

You are correct, and they shouldn't have winners or losers in sports....could you just imagine the trauma our youth suffer from when they lose a game....

It's probably the coach's fault for calling a timeout instead of spanking the team.

 

[Gustave5436]

You are correct, and they shouldn't have winners or losers in sports....could you just imagine the trauma our youth suffer from when they lose a game....

I'm sorry but I don't see the connection, though I can see that you're trying to discredit me somehow. I will simply try to repeat myself more clearly, so that you may see the reason in it and not need to resort to non sequitur strawmen (that said, if you are interested in discussing the merits of team sports, you are welcome to create a separate discussion for it).

Psychologically speaking, the goal in any sort of behavior change in adults should be to instill intrinsic motivation, rather than relying on extrinsic motivation; intrinsic motivation is lasting, extrinsic can cease whenever the reward/punishment/whatever ceases and the behavior will lapse. I imagine with children this is even more important as they are even more of an easily manipulated (and I mean this in a generic sense, not the sense with a negative connotation) blank slate. Thus, the goal with parenting should be to provide the child with intrinsic motivation to behave in a pro-social manner; this means there should be a clear, direct connection between the undesired behavior and some consequence that demonstrates the negative aspects of the behavior, so as to help the child to justify the need for behavioral change.

Possible objection: the child is too young to internalize the value. In this case, no method, no matter how scientific or how brutal, can succeed, as the child's brain simply has not developed sufficiently to allow the necessary understanding and capacity for memory (hence attitude) formation. I lack expertise in developmental psychology, so I do not know the specific time-frame for childhood psychological development, but the cause-effect, behavior-consequence relationship can be simplified at younger age and made more complex over time to ensure understanding. Assaulting the child (word choice validated if the child's point of view is considered) teaches her/him nothing but the usefulness of violence in disputes, and this lesson endures to adulthood, continuing the vicious cycle of violence. Impractical from a scientific perspective, absolutely unethical from a human perspective.

 

[Jeff1787]

I'm sorry but I don't see the connection, though I can see that you're trying to discredit me somehow. I will simply try to repeat myself more clearly, so that you may see the reason in it and not need to resort to non sequitur strawmen.

Psychologically speaking, the goal in any sort of behavior change in adults should be to instill intrinsic motivation, rather than relying on extrinsic motivation; intrinsic motivation is lasting, extrinsic can cease whenever the reward/punishment/whatever ceases and the behavior will lapse. I imagine with children this is even more important as they are even more of an easily manipulated (and I mean this in a generic sense, not the sense with a negative connotation) blank slate. Thus, the goal with parenting should be to provide the child with intrinsic motivation to behave in a pro-social manner; this means there should be a clear, direct connection between the undesired behavior and some consequence that demonstrates the negative aspects of the behavior, so as to help the child to justify the need for behavioral change.

Possible objection: the child is too young to internalize the value. In this case, no method, no matter how scientific or how brutal, can succeed, as the child's brain simply has not developed sufficiently to allow the necessary understanding and capacity for memory (hence attitude) formation. I lack expertise in developmental psychology, so I do not know the specific time-frame for childhood psychological development, but the cause-effect, behavior-consequence relationship can be simplified at younger age and made more complex over time to ensure understanding. Assaulting the child (word choice validated if the child's point of view is considered) teaches her/him nothing but the usefulness of violence in disputes, and this lesson endures to adulthood, continuing the vicious cycle of violence. Impractical from a scientific perspective, absolutely unethical from a human perspective.

Your answer says it all...I don't need to discredit you, you have achieved that all by yourself.

 

[JollyRoger]

I'm sorry but I don't see the connection, though I can see that you're trying to discredit me somehow. I will simply try to repeat myself more clearly, so that you may see the reason in it and not need to resort to non sequitur strawmen (that said, if you are interested in discussing the merits of team sports, you are welcome to create a separate discussion for it).

Psychologically speaking, the goal in any sort of behavior change in adults should be to instill intrinsic motivation, rather than relying on extrinsic motivation; intrinsic motivation is lasting, extrinsic can cease whenever the reward/punishment/whatever ceases and the behavior will lapse. I imagine with children this is even more important as they are even more of an easily manipulated (and I mean this in a generic sense, not the sense with a negative connotation) blank slate. Thus, the goal with parenting should be to provide the child with intrinsic motivation to behave in a pro-social manner; this means there should be a clear, direct connection between the undesired behavior and some consequence that demonstrates the negative aspects of the behavior, so as to help the child to justify the need for behavioral change.

Possible objection: the child is too young to internalize the value. In this case, no method, no matter how scientific or how brutal, can succeed, as the child's brain simply has not developed sufficiently to allow the necessary understanding and capacity for memory (hence attitude) formation. I lack expertise in developmental psychology, so I do not know the specific time-frame for childhood psychological development, but the cause-effect, behavior-consequence relationship can be simplified at younger age and made more complex over time to ensure understanding. Assaulting the child (word choice validated if the child's point of view is considered) teaches her/him nothing but the usefulness of violence in disputes, and this lesson endures to adulthood, continuing the vicious cycle of violence. Impractical from a scientific perspective, absolutely unethical from a human perspective.

Too long, couldn't read, much less rebut.

 

[Gustave5436]

Your answer says it all...I don't need to discredit you, you have achieved that all by yourself.

My thoughts are frequently a bit disorganized, but the psychology (which is backed up by significant empirical study) I was attempting to explain is quite solid.

 

[Jeff1787]

My thoughts are frequently a bit disorganized, but the psychology (which is backed up by significant empirical study) I was attempting to explain is quite solid.

You obviously are very well read, but also you don't have a lick of common sense. Good night!!

 

[JollyRoger]

You obviously are very well read, but also you don't have a lick of common sense. Good night!!

Spanking someone in a thread while advocating no spanking is a pretty neat trick though.

 

[MobBoss]

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

Of course it is, hence the word 'evidence' there.

The evidence also says that people who were beaten as children tend to be less well-adjusted than people who were not.

Heh. Whatever gets you through the night I guess.

It is the nature of statistics that there will be outliers and so forth.

Its also the nature of statistics that you can make them say pretty much whatever you want.

 

[JollyRoger]

Its also the nature of statistics that you can make them say pretty much whatever you want.

Some people massage statistics, but spanking them may get them to confess what you want too.

 

[MobBoss]

Only weak or uninspired parents need to resort to spanking,

Well, Rik, since I spanked my kids, and I dont consider myself either. Myself, I think parents that refuse to spank their kids simply in denial, and are the same kind of spineless louts who take their brawling brats to movies to annoy everyone around them. Or let them throw unmitigated fits while out in public while ignoring how badly behaved their kid is. Most would rather medicate their kid with pills to adjust their behavior than give them a needed swat every now and then.

perhaps since they can't think of more constructive ways to discpline/punish children.

No, I only rarely spanked them and it didnt work equally well on all my kids. It wasnt needed all the time or even that often, and it was also simply one parenting tool out of many that we used to raise our kids.

I'm not saying that you fit into that cathegory. I hope this was a joke.
Knowing you, it probably wasn't.

Not any more so than any of your own comments.

Instead of pointing out where you are wrong, I'll just limit myself to the reverse question; "Maybe you didnt do it right?". (I have 60 years of experience from over 10000 sources behind me.)

/shrug. And I got 3 kids that are doing great in life. And they themselves thank me today for being that way with them, because their friends, some of whom their parents refused to spank, ended up either pregnant or on drugs. You see, where I live, that 'no spank' thing is kind of the preppy parent thing to do....and often their kids turn out to be little emo delinquents. Go figure.

I did what I did as I thought was right, and it worked out fine.

Weak and uninspired my ass.

 

[Shadylookin]

Temple, Texas on the other hand....

...revived it at the demand of parents who longed for the orderly schools of yesteryear.

I wonder if there is a rule written down somewhere that says you have to forget all the horrible things your generation did as teenagers that really pissed off your parents? Every now and then my parents would start with their "good old days when kids behaved" and I'd have to remind them that at least we haven't had any race riots.

 

[classical_hero]

If a child is raised from day one to respect their parents and know the boundaries, the need to spank will never arise.

Children with 'behavioural issues' should be put in special homes or merely put down.

Come on. I know that i was taught such things, but I often did things that should have merited a spanking when I was younger. Children are like that and they will want to do what they want to do and you have to be able to get them under control. Reasoning with them does not always help. Sometimes the consequences of the actions are punishment enough and sometimes you need extra punishment to put the message through. The last line show that you have no idea about children at all.

 

[Shylock]

No, but I'd spank its mother.

 

[JollyRoger]

The is no documentation that God spanked His son and look how he turned out - on death row.

 

[Mad Man]

wheres the option for tasering?