Does Spanking kids Work?

[Katzndogz]

It depends on the child. My son got wooden spoons broken over his backside. His granddaughter has never even gotten a harsh word. She just never does anything wrong. She wants to discuss issues first. She's four. She discusses everything with Grampa.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

deleted

 

[Pogo]

This thought just occurred to me, and for once addressing the OP's question about whether it "works"...

If I think back I can remember my own spankings/beltings/whippings (pick your verb) with vivid and visceral clarity, and I remember those of my siblings better than those of my own.

But if I try to remember what any of them were for -- any at all -- I draw a blank. I honestly don't know. Kinda raises a question about what the effect was.

I obviously can't speak to your experience.

I would say, however, that the age at which spanking is likely to be appropriate and effective is early enough that it would seem unusual to me for a person to remember either an individual spanking or the reason behind it. I would be equally as surprised for someone to remember individual time outs or the reasons behind those.

Well then I guess I don't follow the logic. I've read several posters here comment something to the effect that "I got spanked and I deserve it", so they must remember, if they can now conclude they deserved it.

(Of course what that makes me immediately think is, if you deserved it and you know you deserved it, then why would you commit the infraction in the first place, but I wouldn't expect an answer on that...)

I guess what I'm getting at is that while I remember the punishments and the angst that came with them, that memory is clear and easy to recall, but trying to remember what the infraction was that brought any of them about draws a blank. Except I do remember that the parent was enraged -- that's it.

So for me at least, the take-home message was "pain sucks". Nothing more than that. And that's meant as an answer to the OP question, "does it work?". Apparently it doesn't, or I would have remembered what the hell at least some of the "lessons" were.

 

[Montrovant]

This thought just occurred to me, and for once addressing the OP's question about whether it "works"...

If I think back I can remember my own spankings/beltings/whippings (pick your verb) with vivid and visceral clarity, and I remember those of my siblings better than those of my own.

But if I try to remember what any of them were for -- any at all -- I draw a blank. I honestly don't know. Kinda raises a question about what the effect was.

I obviously can't speak to your experience.

I would say, however, that the age at which spanking is likely to be appropriate and effective is early enough that it would seem unusual to me for a person to remember either an individual spanking or the reason behind it. I would be equally as surprised for someone to remember individual time outs or the reasons behind those.

Well then I guess I don't follow the logic. I've read several posters here comment something to the effect that "I got spanked and I deserve it", so they must remember, if they can now conclude they deserved it.

(Of course what that makes me immediately think is, if you deserved it and you know you deserved it, then why would you commit the infraction in the first place, but I wouldn't expect an answer on that...)

I guess what I'm getting at is that while I remember the punishments and the angst that came with them, that memory is clear and easy to recall, but trying to remember what the infraction was that brought any of them about draws a blank. Except I do remember that the parent was enraged -- that's it.

So for me at least, the take-home message was "pain sucks". Nothing more than that. And that's meant as an answer to the OP question, "does it work?". Apparently it doesn't, or I would have remembered what the hell at least some of the "lessons" were.

There are a few responses to this.

First, different people consider spanking appropriate at different ages.

Next, I happen to have a bad memory, so I have a bias about people remembering a lot of specific childhood incidents.

I also think that we often color our memories over time, so I find it hard to trust the efficacy of someone's memories of specific childhood incidents.

I would imagine that most people were either spanked later in life than I would consider effective, or simply remember having done bad things and getting spanked in a general sense. I know I was spanked, but not how often, or for what particularly, nor do I remember any particular spanking. I imagine I deserved it at least some of the time, as children tend to do some bad or dangerous things at times.

As I've said, I get the impression you had far more than spanking done to you. I would guess that I would say you were beaten and abused, which is a far more traumatic kind of experience than simple spanking and more likely to imprint on your memory.

However, I don't think you are really grasping the idea behind spanking, or even most parental discipline. It is not about one single incident of discipline remaining with a person for their entire life. It is just a single part of teaching any particular lesson. If someone is never spanked as a child, remembers being put in time outs, but not the particular reasons for those time outs, does that mean they were ineffective? No. It isn't about what specifics you remember as an adult, it's about learning general behaviors. Don't touch a hot stove. Don't play with electric sockets. Don't run with scissors. Don't talk back to your mother. Whatever the bad behavior is, the spank is, hopefully, an emphasis to the verbal lesson rather than a lesson in itself.

So even if you have completely forgotten the reason for a spanking as an adult, if you remembered it as a child and stopped some bad behavior in part because of it, it was effective.

Again, I don't want to equate what you went through to the kind of spanking I'm talking about.

 

[Pogo]

I obviously can't speak to your experience.

I would say, however, that the age at which spanking is likely to be appropriate and effective is early enough that it would seem unusual to me for a person to remember either an individual spanking or the reason behind it. I would be equally as surprised for someone to remember individual time outs or the reasons behind those.

Well then I guess I don't follow the logic. I've read several posters here comment something to the effect that "I got spanked and I deserve it", so they must remember, if they can now conclude they deserved it.

(Of course what that makes me immediately think is, if you deserved it and you know you deserved it, then why would you commit the infraction in the first place, but I wouldn't expect an answer on that...)

I guess what I'm getting at is that while I remember the punishments and the angst that came with them, that memory is clear and easy to recall, but trying to remember what the infraction was that brought any of them about draws a blank. Except I do remember that the parent was enraged -- that's it.

So for me at least, the take-home message was "pain sucks". Nothing more than that. And that's meant as an answer to the OP question, "does it work?". Apparently it doesn't, or I would have remembered what the hell at least some of the "lessons" were.

There are a few responses to this.

First, different people consider spanking appropriate at different ages.

Next, I happen to have a bad memory, so I have a bias about people remembering a lot of specific childhood incidents.

I also think that we often color our memories over time, so I find it hard to trust the efficacy of someone's memories of specific childhood incidents.

I would imagine that most people were either spanked later in life than I would consider effective, or simply remember having done bad things and getting spanked in a general sense. I know I was spanked, but not how often, or for what particularly, nor do I remember any particular spanking. I imagine I deserved it at least some of the time, as children tend to do some bad or dangerous things at times.

As I've said, I get the impression you had far more than spanking done to you. I would guess that I would say you were beaten and abused, which is a far more traumatic kind of experience than simple spanking and more likely to imprint on your memory.

However, I don't think you are really grasping the idea behind spanking, or even most parental discipline. It is not about one single incident of discipline remaining with a person for their entire life. It is just a single part of teaching any particular lesson. If someone is never spanked as a child, remembers being put in time outs, but not the particular reasons for those time outs, does that mean they were ineffective? No. It isn't about what specifics you remember as an adult, it's about learning general behaviors. Don't touch a hot stove. Don't play with electric sockets. Don't run with scissors. Don't talk back to your mother. Whatever the bad behavior is, the spank is, hopefully, an emphasis to the verbal lesson rather than a lesson in itself.

So even if you have completely forgotten the reason for a spanking as an adult, if you remembered it as a child and stopped some bad behavior in part because of it, it was effective.

Again, I don't want to equate what you went through to the kind of spanking I'm talking about.

I do remember (and this would be no older than five, I know that by where we were living) being chewed out big time by my father for running out into the street where apparently a car had to stop short. I don't remember being struck over that, but I do remember the anger, which was common to both that incident and the belt.

While I understand the reason not to run out in the street without looking, I never understood, and still don't understand to this day, his reaction or how that was supposed to convey a lesson to a toddler. All his action taught me was that he was a dick. My mother explained it to me later in a calm, rational conversation, and that is when I learned the lesson -- or even comprehended what I had done.

I still come back to this: I don't believe people are motivated by negatives. I really don't.

 

[Montrovant]

Well then I guess I don't follow the logic. I've read several posters here comment something to the effect that "I got spanked and I deserve it", so they must remember, if they can now conclude they deserved it.

(Of course what that makes me immediately think is, if you deserved it and you know you deserved it, then why would you commit the infraction in the first place, but I wouldn't expect an answer on that...)

I guess what I'm getting at is that while I remember the punishments and the angst that came with them, that memory is clear and easy to recall, but trying to remember what the infraction was that brought any of them about draws a blank. Except I do remember that the parent was enraged -- that's it.

So for me at least, the take-home message was "pain sucks". Nothing more than that. And that's meant as an answer to the OP question, "does it work?". Apparently it doesn't, or I would have remembered what the hell at least some of the "lessons" were.

There are a few responses to this.

First, different people consider spanking appropriate at different ages.

Next, I happen to have a bad memory, so I have a bias about people remembering a lot of specific childhood incidents.

I also think that we often color our memories over time, so I find it hard to trust the efficacy of someone's memories of specific childhood incidents.

I would imagine that most people were either spanked later in life than I would consider effective, or simply remember having done bad things and getting spanked in a general sense. I know I was spanked, but not how often, or for what particularly, nor do I remember any particular spanking. I imagine I deserved it at least some of the time, as children tend to do some bad or dangerous things at times.

As I've said, I get the impression you had far more than spanking done to you. I would guess that I would say you were beaten and abused, which is a far more traumatic kind of experience than simple spanking and more likely to imprint on your memory.

However, I don't think you are really grasping the idea behind spanking, or even most parental discipline. It is not about one single incident of discipline remaining with a person for their entire life. It is just a single part of teaching any particular lesson. If someone is never spanked as a child, remembers being put in time outs, but not the particular reasons for those time outs, does that mean they were ineffective? No. It isn't about what specifics you remember as an adult, it's about learning general behaviors. Don't touch a hot stove. Don't play with electric sockets. Don't run with scissors. Don't talk back to your mother. Whatever the bad behavior is, the spank is, hopefully, an emphasis to the verbal lesson rather than a lesson in itself.

So even if you have completely forgotten the reason for a spanking as an adult, if you remembered it as a child and stopped some bad behavior in part because of it, it was effective.

Again, I don't want to equate what you went through to the kind of spanking I'm talking about.

I do remember (and this would be no older than five, I know that by where we were living) being chewed out big time by my father for running out into the street where apparently a car had to stop short. I don't remember being struck over that, but I do remember the anger, which was common to both that incident and the belt.

While I understand the reason not to run out in the street without looking, I never understood, and still don't understand to this day, his reaction or how that was supposed to convey a lesson to a toddler. All his action taught me was that he was a dick. My mother explained it to me later in a calm, rational conversation, and that is when I learned the lesson -- or even comprehended what I had done.

I still come back to this: I don't believe people are motivated by negatives. I really don't.

I disagree. I also think that your belief pretty much invalidates the idea of any laws, as they are pretty much motivation by negatives. And just as a child might learn not to put their hand into a fire by being burned, they might also learn not to do it with a swat to the hand, at least until they are old enough to understand why putting their hand in the fire is a bad idea.

I can accept the argument that people are less motivated by negatives, but not that they cannot be motivated by them at all.

 

[Pogo]

There are a few responses to this.

First, different people consider spanking appropriate at different ages.

Next, I happen to have a bad memory, so I have a bias about people remembering a lot of specific childhood incidents.

I also think that we often color our memories over time, so I find it hard to trust the efficacy of someone's memories of specific childhood incidents.

I would imagine that most people were either spanked later in life than I would consider effective, or simply remember having done bad things and getting spanked in a general sense. I know I was spanked, but not how often, or for what particularly, nor do I remember any particular spanking. I imagine I deserved it at least some of the time, as children tend to do some bad or dangerous things at times.

As I've said, I get the impression you had far more than spanking done to you. I would guess that I would say you were beaten and abused, which is a far more traumatic kind of experience than simple spanking and more likely to imprint on your memory.

However, I don't think you are really grasping the idea behind spanking, or even most parental discipline. It is not about one single incident of discipline remaining with a person for their entire life. It is just a single part of teaching any particular lesson. If someone is never spanked as a child, remembers being put in time outs, but not the particular reasons for those time outs, does that mean they were ineffective? No. It isn't about what specifics you remember as an adult, it's about learning general behaviors. Don't touch a hot stove. Don't play with electric sockets. Don't run with scissors. Don't talk back to your mother. Whatever the bad behavior is, the spank is, hopefully, an emphasis to the verbal lesson rather than a lesson in itself.

So even if you have completely forgotten the reason for a spanking as an adult, if you remembered it as a child and stopped some bad behavior in part because of it, it was effective.

Again, I don't want to equate what you went through to the kind of spanking I'm talking about.

I do remember (and this would be no older than five, I know that by where we were living) being chewed out big time by my father for running out into the street where apparently a car had to stop short. I don't remember being struck over that, but I do remember the anger, which was common to both that incident and the belt.

While I understand the reason not to run out in the street without looking, I never understood, and still don't understand to this day, his reaction or how that was supposed to convey a lesson to a toddler. All his action taught me was that he was a dick. My mother explained it to me later in a calm, rational conversation, and that is when I learned the lesson -- or even comprehended what I had done.

I still come back to this: I don't believe people are motivated by negatives. I really don't.

I disagree. I also think that your belief pretty much invalidates the idea of any laws, as they are pretty much motivation by negatives. And just as a child might learn not to put their hand into a fire by being burned, they might also learn not to do it with a swat to the hand, at least until they are old enough to understand why putting their hand in the fire is a bad idea.

I can accept the argument that people are less motivated by negatives, but not that they cannot be motivated by them at all.

We venture onto a tenuous analogy if we start equating laws with corporal punishment but... we basically did this a few hours ago talking about passing laws against any kind of spanking. Refraining from doing something because it's illegal (or other negative) isn't "motivation". It's negative reinforcement for lack of a better term. It's calculating a risk and deciding the risk isn't worth the return. "Motivation" would be taking some action or refraining from some action because one wants to take or refrain from that action -- because it's part of one's values. That's the difference I'm distinguishing.

There's a stop sign I blow through around here, just because it's inefficient to stop at it. My motivation for efficiency trumps the negative reinforcement that if I'm caught I'll get a ticket. Should I decide some day that I want to stop at that sign, I will. But the negative reinforcement of the law doesn't influence me.

Motivation (as I've described it here) is a far stronger incentive than a negative reinforcement, I think you agree. That's why I focus on popular mores rather than laws. And to slide back to our topic, that's why I think my mother calmly explaining the car approaching in the street is far more effective than my father just getting pissed off about it.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Well then I guess I don't follow the logic. I've read several posters here comment something to the effect that "I got spanked and I deserve it", so they must remember, if they can now conclude they deserved it.

(Of course what that makes me immediately think is, if you deserved it and you know you deserved it, then why would you commit the infraction in the first place, but I wouldn't expect an answer on that...)

I guess what I'm getting at is that while I remember the punishments and the angst that came with them, that memory is clear and easy to recall, but trying to remember what the infraction was that brought any of them about draws a blank. Except I do remember that the parent was enraged -- that's it.

So for me at least, the take-home message was "pain sucks". Nothing more than that. And that's meant as an answer to the OP question, "does it work?". Apparently it doesn't, or I would have remembered what the hell at least some of the "lessons" were.

There are a few responses to this.

First, different people consider spanking appropriate at different ages.

Next, I happen to have a bad memory, so I have a bias about people remembering a lot of specific childhood incidents.

I also think that we often color our memories over time, so I find it hard to trust the efficacy of someone's memories of specific childhood incidents.

I would imagine that most people were either spanked later in life than I would consider effective, or simply remember having done bad things and getting spanked in a general sense. I know I was spanked, but not how often, or for what particularly, nor do I remember any particular spanking. I imagine I deserved it at least some of the time, as children tend to do some bad or dangerous things at times.

As I've said, I get the impression you had far more than spanking done to you. I would guess that I would say you were beaten and abused, which is a far more traumatic kind of experience than simple spanking and more likely to imprint on your memory.

However, I don't think you are really grasping the idea behind spanking, or even most parental discipline. It is not about one single incident of discipline remaining with a person for their entire life. It is just a single part of teaching any particular lesson. If someone is never spanked as a child, remembers being put in time outs, but not the particular reasons for those time outs, does that mean they were ineffective? No. It isn't about what specifics you remember as an adult, it's about learning general behaviors. Don't touch a hot stove. Don't play with electric sockets. Don't run with scissors. Don't talk back to your mother. Whatever the bad behavior is, the spank is, hopefully, an emphasis to the verbal lesson rather than a lesson in itself.

So even if you have completely forgotten the reason for a spanking as an adult, if you remembered it as a child and stopped some bad behavior in part because of it, it was effective.

Again, I don't want to equate what you went through to the kind of spanking I'm talking about.

I do remember (and this would be no older than five, I know that by where we were living) being chewed out big time by my father for running out into the street where apparently a car had to stop short. I don't remember being struck over that, but I do remember the anger, which was common to both that incident and the belt.

While I understand the reason not to run out in the street without looking, I never understood, and still don't understand to this day, his reaction or how that was supposed to convey a lesson to a toddler. All his action taught me was that he was a dick. My mother explained it to me later in a calm, rational conversation, and that is when I learned the lesson -- or even comprehended what I had done.

I still come back to this: I don't believe people are motivated by negatives. I really don't.

I'm going to agree with you on that one, Pogo. I didn't spank my child as a toddler and he was a most loving child. He was not spoiled in the least and others told me he was a very sweet boy. He grew up to be a thoughtful man and a good father. I don't like the word "punish" and I don't like the idea of "refined violence" as Jake put it - I'm not accusing people who spank their children of child abuse but I am questioning their patience to raise children. If a parent is extremely angry they should wait until a latter time to discuss what happened. Not acting in the heat of the moment. I believe if parents spent quality time with their children they wouldn't be acting out half the time anyhow. They are hungry for attention. I'd say do the real job of parenting and teach through example, fun videos - veggie tales has many great videos on good manners and behavior - do's and don'ts -watch it with them and talk about it! ... go to the parks and let them get some exercise, do what they would like to do more often, don't wear them out at shopping malls, when they should have a nap or their lunch time... give them the freedom to have a bad mood day, to feel bored and the room to work it out without interfering.

* I do not believe it is EVER alright for a parent to raise their voice to their child. If you wouldn't yell at your neighbor or co worker why in the world would you ever terrify your own child by yelling at them? Screaming at a child in anger is verbal abuse. It shouldn't happen.

 

[Pogo]

There are a few responses to this.

First, different people consider spanking appropriate at different ages.

Next, I happen to have a bad memory, so I have a bias about people remembering a lot of specific childhood incidents.

I also think that we often color our memories over time, so I find it hard to trust the efficacy of someone's memories of specific childhood incidents.

I would imagine that most people were either spanked later in life than I would consider effective, or simply remember having done bad things and getting spanked in a general sense. I know I was spanked, but not how often, or for what particularly, nor do I remember any particular spanking. I imagine I deserved it at least some of the time, as children tend to do some bad or dangerous things at times.

As I've said, I get the impression you had far more than spanking done to you. I would guess that I would say you were beaten and abused, which is a far more traumatic kind of experience than simple spanking and more likely to imprint on your memory.

However, I don't think you are really grasping the idea behind spanking, or even most parental discipline. It is not about one single incident of discipline remaining with a person for their entire life. It is just a single part of teaching any particular lesson. If someone is never spanked as a child, remembers being put in time outs, but not the particular reasons for those time outs, does that mean they were ineffective? No. It isn't about what specifics you remember as an adult, it's about learning general behaviors. Don't touch a hot stove. Don't play with electric sockets. Don't run with scissors. Don't talk back to your mother. Whatever the bad behavior is, the spank is, hopefully, an emphasis to the verbal lesson rather than a lesson in itself.

So even if you have completely forgotten the reason for a spanking as an adult, if you remembered it as a child and stopped some bad behavior in part because of it, it was effective.

Again, I don't want to equate what you went through to the kind of spanking I'm talking about.

I do remember (and this would be no older than five, I know that by where we were living) being chewed out big time by my father for running out into the street where apparently a car had to stop short. I don't remember being struck over that, but I do remember the anger, which was common to both that incident and the belt.

While I understand the reason not to run out in the street without looking, I never understood, and still don't understand to this day, his reaction or how that was supposed to convey a lesson to a toddler. All his action taught me was that he was a dick. My mother explained it to me later in a calm, rational conversation, and that is when I learned the lesson -- or even comprehended what I had done.

I still come back to this: I don't believe people are motivated by negatives. I really don't.

I'm going to agree with you on that one, Pogo. I didn't spank my child as a toddler and he was a most loving child. He was not spoiled in the least and others told me he was a very sweet boy. He grew up to be a thoughtful man and a good father. I don't like the word "punish" and I don't like the idea of "refined violence" as Jake put it - I'm not accusing people who spank their children of child abuse but I am questioning their patience to raise children. If a parent is extremely angry they should wait until a latter time to discuss what happened. Not acting in the heat of the moment. I believe if parents spent quality time with their children they wouldn't be acting out half the time anyhow. They are hungry for attention. I'd say do the real job of parenting and teach through example, fun videos - veggie tales has many great videos on good manners and behavior - do's and don'ts -watch it with them and talk about it! ... go to the parks and let them get some exercise, do what they would like to do more often, don't wear them out at shopping malls, when they should have a nap or their lunch time... give them the freedom to have a bad mood day, to feel bored and the room to work it out without interfering.

* I do not believe it is EVER alright for a parent to raise their voice to their child. If you wouldn't yell at your neighbor or co worker why in the world would you ever terrify your own child by yelling at them? Screaming at a child in anger is verbal abuse. It shouldn't happen.

Special kudos for this one. Words to parent by.

 

[Montrovant]

There are a few responses to this.

First, different people consider spanking appropriate at different ages.

Next, I happen to have a bad memory, so I have a bias about people remembering a lot of specific childhood incidents.

I also think that we often color our memories over time, so I find it hard to trust the efficacy of someone's memories of specific childhood incidents.

I would imagine that most people were either spanked later in life than I would consider effective, or simply remember having done bad things and getting spanked in a general sense. I know I was spanked, but not how often, or for what particularly, nor do I remember any particular spanking. I imagine I deserved it at least some of the time, as children tend to do some bad or dangerous things at times.

As I've said, I get the impression you had far more than spanking done to you. I would guess that I would say you were beaten and abused, which is a far more traumatic kind of experience than simple spanking and more likely to imprint on your memory.

However, I don't think you are really grasping the idea behind spanking, or even most parental discipline. It is not about one single incident of discipline remaining with a person for their entire life. It is just a single part of teaching any particular lesson. If someone is never spanked as a child, remembers being put in time outs, but not the particular reasons for those time outs, does that mean they were ineffective? No. It isn't about what specifics you remember as an adult, it's about learning general behaviors. Don't touch a hot stove. Don't play with electric sockets. Don't run with scissors. Don't talk back to your mother. Whatever the bad behavior is, the spank is, hopefully, an emphasis to the verbal lesson rather than a lesson in itself.

So even if you have completely forgotten the reason for a spanking as an adult, if you remembered it as a child and stopped some bad behavior in part because of it, it was effective.

Again, I don't want to equate what you went through to the kind of spanking I'm talking about.

I do remember (and this would be no older than five, I know that by where we were living) being chewed out big time by my father for running out into the street where apparently a car had to stop short. I don't remember being struck over that, but I do remember the anger, which was common to both that incident and the belt.

While I understand the reason not to run out in the street without looking, I never understood, and still don't understand to this day, his reaction or how that was supposed to convey a lesson to a toddler. All his action taught me was that he was a dick. My mother explained it to me later in a calm, rational conversation, and that is when I learned the lesson -- or even comprehended what I had done.

I still come back to this: I don't believe people are motivated by negatives. I really don't.

I'm going to agree with you on that one, Pogo. I didn't spank my child as a toddler and he was a most loving child. He was not spoiled in the least and others told me he was a very sweet boy. He grew up to be a thoughtful man and a good father. I don't like the word "punish" and I don't like the idea of "refined violence" as Jake put it - I'm not accusing people who spank their children of child abuse but I am questioning their patience to raise children. If a parent is extremely angry they should wait until a latter time to discuss what happened. Not acting in the heat of the moment. I believe if parents spent quality time with their children they wouldn't be acting out half the time anyhow. They are hungry for attention. I'd say do the real job of parenting and teach through example, fun videos - veggie tales has many great videos on good manners and behavior - do's and don'ts -watch it with them and talk about it! ... go to the parks and let them get some exercise, do what they would like to do more often, don't wear them out at shopping malls, when they should have a nap or their lunch time... give them the freedom to have a bad mood day, to feel bored and the room to work it out without interfering.

* I do not believe it is EVER alright for a parent to raise their voice to their child. If you wouldn't yell at your neighbor or co worker why in the world would you ever terrify your own child by yelling at them? Screaming at a child in anger is verbal abuse. It shouldn't happen.

What if you would yell at a neighbor or co worker?

 

[Montrovant]

I do remember (and this would be no older than five, I know that by where we were living) being chewed out big time by my father for running out into the street where apparently a car had to stop short. I don't remember being struck over that, but I do remember the anger, which was common to both that incident and the belt.

While I understand the reason not to run out in the street without looking, I never understood, and still don't understand to this day, his reaction or how that was supposed to convey a lesson to a toddler. All his action taught me was that he was a dick. My mother explained it to me later in a calm, rational conversation, and that is when I learned the lesson -- or even comprehended what I had done.

I still come back to this: I don't believe people are motivated by negatives. I really don't.

I disagree. I also think that your belief pretty much invalidates the idea of any laws, as they are pretty much motivation by negatives. And just as a child might learn not to put their hand into a fire by being burned, they might also learn not to do it with a swat to the hand, at least until they are old enough to understand why putting their hand in the fire is a bad idea.

I can accept the argument that people are less motivated by negatives, but not that they cannot be motivated by them at all.

We venture onto a tenuous analogy if we start equating laws with corporal punishment but... we basically did this a few hours ago talking about passing laws against any kind of spanking. Refraining from doing something because it's illegal (or other negative) isn't "motivation". It's negative reinforcement for lack of a better term. It's calculating a risk and deciding the risk isn't worth the return. "Motivation" would be taking some action or refraining from some action because one wants to take or refrain from that action -- because it's part of one's values. That's the difference I'm distinguishing.

There's a stop sign I blow through around here, just because it's inefficient to stop at it. My motivation for efficiency trumps the negative reinforcement that if I'm caught I'll get a ticket. Should I decide some day that I want to stop at that sign, I will. But the negative reinforcement of the law doesn't influence me.

Motivation (as I've described it here) is a far stronger incentive than a negative reinforcement, I think you agree. That's why I focus on popular mores rather than laws. And to slide back to our topic, that's why I think my mother calmly explaining the car approaching in the street is far more effective than my father just getting pissed off about it.

Well, depending on the age and individual child, they may not be able to really understand some of the things they need to know. You can tell them not to run into the road, you can tell them that cars can seriously hurt or even kill them, but they may not truly understand that. Small children do not, in general, process information the same way as an adult. They usually don't really understand death, or even serious injury; they also don't have the same kind of ingrained self-preservation. So in instances where one is attempting to protect the child from danger, it may be better for them to deal with a little shock and pain from a spank to drive the lesson home until they can understand the reasoning.

That, I think, is the biggest issue. Children do not think like adults. Treating them as you would an adult is going to be ineffective at best. That may not mean spanking, but it does mean that logic and reason are not necessarily going to work, either. So if you use time outs or taking away privileges or whatever non-physical discipline you wish, you still will have a hard time teaching some things to an average 5 year old.

I don't think we're actually that far apart on the issue.

 

[ScienceRocks]

It installs discipline in them. Something that is lacking these days.

 

[Pogo]

I disagree. I also think that your belief pretty much invalidates the idea of any laws, as they are pretty much motivation by negatives. And just as a child might learn not to put their hand into a fire by being burned, they might also learn not to do it with a swat to the hand, at least until they are old enough to understand why putting their hand in the fire is a bad idea.

I can accept the argument that people are less motivated by negatives, but not that they cannot be motivated by them at all.

We venture onto a tenuous analogy if we start equating laws with corporal punishment but... we basically did this a few hours ago talking about passing laws against any kind of spanking. Refraining from doing something because it's illegal (or other negative) isn't "motivation". It's negative reinforcement for lack of a better term. It's calculating a risk and deciding the risk isn't worth the return. "Motivation" would be taking some action or refraining from some action because one wants to take or refrain from that action -- because it's part of one's values. That's the difference I'm distinguishing.

There's a stop sign I blow through around here, just because it's inefficient to stop at it. My motivation for efficiency trumps the negative reinforcement that if I'm caught I'll get a ticket. Should I decide some day that I want to stop at that sign, I will. But the negative reinforcement of the law doesn't influence me.

Motivation (as I've described it here) is a far stronger incentive than a negative reinforcement, I think you agree. That's why I focus on popular mores rather than laws. And to slide back to our topic, that's why I think my mother calmly explaining the car approaching in the street is far more effective than my father just getting pissed off about it.

Well, depending on the age and individual child, they may not be able to really understand some of the things they need to know. You can tell them not to run into the road, you can tell them that cars can seriously hurt or even kill them, but they may not truly understand that. Small children do not, in general, process information the same way as an adult. They usually don't really understand death, or even serious injury; they also don't have the same kind of ingrained self-preservation. So in instances where one is attempting to protect the child from danger, it may be better for them to deal with a little shock and pain from a spank to drive the lesson home until they can understand the reasoning.

That, I think, is the biggest issue. Children do not think like adults. Treating them as you would an adult is going to be ineffective at best. That may not mean spanking, but it does mean that logic and reason are not necessarily going to work, either. So if you use time outs or taking away privileges or whatever non-physical discipline you wish, you still will have a hard time teaching some things to an average 5 year old.

I don't think we're actually that far apart on the issue.

Hm. We may have just drifted farther apart, because I'm just not buying this "children do not think like adults" line. Communication on the level we're talking is a very very basic visceral level, and it's as common to adults and children as it is to animals. If one would not beat one's dog or cat, then one shouldn't treat a child any differently; OTOH if one does beat one's dog, that dog will take on the same reactions a human will. Regardless of age.

Here's what I mean: in my example nothing in my father's reaction tells me anything at all about cars in the street. All it tells me is the old man's got a hair up his ass and he's a lot bigger than me and I'm in danger in the present (not the past in the street). On the other hand my mother's calm rational explanation takes that pressure off and lets me see something going on besides a giant ogre bellowing at me. When you're in danger, self-preservation IS the priority -- not whatever circumstances just happened in the street. And children absolutely feel that. And self-preservation shuts everything else down.

A little insignificant incident but a good example: a friend was angry with her dog for whatever reason and was angrily demanding "Jasmine, come HERE! NOW!" Of course Jasmine only cowered and pulled further into her corner. She could sense the anger. I got my friend to stand aside, bent down and in a cheerful musical voice said "Jasmine - c'mon!". She got up immediately and came to me. Why? Because the danger was over. There was no anger in my voice.

This is a very very basic emotional dynamic. Doesn't matter if you're an adult, a child, or a dog. Works the same. Fear is just not a useful motivation tool. The priority of the recipient of fear is to alleviate the danger, and the danger in that moment is the switch. It's certainly not the street traffic.

Somebody a while back tried to draw a comparison between the effectiveness of spankng and that of torture. It's the same dynamic at work -- the torturee will tell the interrogator anything he wants to hear, because his priority is to stop the torture. It's the same thing. Fear just doesn't work.

 

[The Professor]

I personally believe that when children are eight years old, their parents should take them into the deep woods and leave them there with a Swiss Army knife and a peanut butter sandwich. I did that to all my kids except for my son John. I really loved that little guy so I put a dollop of jelly on his peanut butter sandwich.

Joking, of course.

I have always taken parenting seriously. I agree with Jacquelyn Kennedy who said, “If you bungle raising your children, I don't think whatever else you do well matters much.” Unfortunately, in today's chaotic world far too many parents seek the most expedient methods of dealing with their children with little regard for the long term effects of such treatment. We know that children deserve more than to be ruled by fear yet we still use fear as a tool. I think Harry Emerson Fosdick was right on point when he said:

“The first impressions of childhood are almost ineradicable, and the first impression which many a home makes upon a child is that duty is an unpleasant necessity. He feels driven to it by fear of ill consequence if he disobey. Desirable results in quiet and good order can be at once obtained by a swift and vehement appeal to such fear. "If you do not stop that," we burst out to a little child, "I will -- ." And then follows the first threat that leaps into the irate parent’s mind. The consequence is immediate: A shivering life draws in upon itself, constrained, repressed. No wonder that duty has uncomfortable associations in multitudes of minds! It is a commentary on parents everywhere that, over two thousand years after Alexander the Great conquered India, Indian mothers are still telling their children that Iskander will get them if they do not obey.

“Upon the other hand, to discover the petulant child’s real need and to give a true satisfaction where a false one was being sought, to unfold the disobedient child into positive goodwill that drives illwill out, to get joyful expression instead of sullen repression --anyone can tell that this is the superior method by noting the faculties in himself which this requires. All that it takes to appeal to fear is indignation and vehemence, and they are cheap. But so to understand the child as to unfold his life into positive and radiant character takes the finest qualities that we posses --insight, sympathy, intelligence, tact and patience. Some parents bring up their children on thunder and lightning, but thunder and lightning never yet made anything grow. Rain and dew and sunshine cause growth -- quiet, penetrating forces that develop life. And while thunder and lightning are occasionally useful to clear the air, it is amazing with how little of them a family can get along if only there is enough of the vitality that causes growth” (Twelve Tests of Character, Chapter 5, Section II, emphasis my own).

 

[Montrovant]

We venture onto a tenuous analogy if we start equating laws with corporal punishment but... we basically did this a few hours ago talking about passing laws against any kind of spanking. Refraining from doing something because it's illegal (or other negative) isn't "motivation". It's negative reinforcement for lack of a better term. It's calculating a risk and deciding the risk isn't worth the return. "Motivation" would be taking some action or refraining from some action because one wants to take or refrain from that action -- because it's part of one's values. That's the difference I'm distinguishing.

There's a stop sign I blow through around here, just because it's inefficient to stop at it. My motivation for efficiency trumps the negative reinforcement that if I'm caught I'll get a ticket. Should I decide some day that I want to stop at that sign, I will. But the negative reinforcement of the law doesn't influence me.

Motivation (as I've described it here) is a far stronger incentive than a negative reinforcement, I think you agree. That's why I focus on popular mores rather than laws. And to slide back to our topic, that's why I think my mother calmly explaining the car approaching in the street is far more effective than my father just getting pissed off about it.

Well, depending on the age and individual child, they may not be able to really understand some of the things they need to know. You can tell them not to run into the road, you can tell them that cars can seriously hurt or even kill them, but they may not truly understand that. Small children do not, in general, process information the same way as an adult. They usually don't really understand death, or even serious injury; they also don't have the same kind of ingrained self-preservation. So in instances where one is attempting to protect the child from danger, it may be better for them to deal with a little shock and pain from a spank to drive the lesson home until they can understand the reasoning.

That, I think, is the biggest issue. Children do not think like adults. Treating them as you would an adult is going to be ineffective at best. That may not mean spanking, but it does mean that logic and reason are not necessarily going to work, either. So if you use time outs or taking away privileges or whatever non-physical discipline you wish, you still will have a hard time teaching some things to an average 5 year old.

I don't think we're actually that far apart on the issue.

Hm. We may have just drifted farther apart, because I'm just not buying this "children do not think like adults" line. Communication on the level we're talking is a very very basic visceral level, and it's as common to adults and children as it is to animals. If one would not beat one's dog or cat, then one shouldn't treat a child any differently; OTOH if one does beat one's dog, that dog will take on the same reactions a human will. Regardless of age.

Here's what I mean: in my example nothing in my father's reaction tells me anything at all about cars in the street. All it tells me is the old man's got a hair up his ass and he's a lot bigger than me and I'm in danger in the present (not the past in the street). On the other hand my mother's calm rational explanation takes that pressure off and lets me see something going on besides a giant ogre bellowing at me. When you're in danger, self-preservation IS the priority -- not whatever circumstances just happened in the street. And children absolutely feel that. And self-preservation shuts everything else down.

A little insignificant incident but a good example: a friend was angry with her dog for whatever reason and was angrily demanding "Jasmine, come HERE! NOW!" Of course Jasmine only cowered and pulled further into her corner. She could sense the anger. I got my friend to stand aside, bent down and in a cheerful musical voice said "Jasmine - c'mon!". She got up immediately and came to me. Why? Because the danger was over. There was no anger in my voice.

This is a very very basic emotional dynamic. Doesn't matter if you're an adult, a child, or a dog. Works the same. Fear is just not a useful motivation tool. The priority of the recipient of fear is to alleviate the danger, and the danger in that moment is the switch. It's certainly not the street traffic.

Somebody a while back tried to draw a comparison between the effectiveness of spankng and that of torture. It's the same dynamic at work -- the torturee will tell the interrogator anything he wants to hear, because his priority is to stop the torture. It's the same thing. Fear just doesn't work.

Ah, but here's the thing : as a parent you WANT a small child to be afraid of going into the road! Not cowering terror, but enough fear to assure they don't do it. Why? Because they do not understand danger the way an adult will. They just don't get the importance of avoiding the cars on their own. Now, if you ask why they shouldn't go into the road, they can tell you because of the cars.....but that knowledge isn't the same for them as for an adult, as evidenced by the fact they often will run out into the road.

Yes, adults and children can feel the same emotions, but in adults they are most often filtered through our thoughts and experiences. Children, I think, experience the world in a much less filtered manner. So if it is easier to get a small child to fear a spanking if they run into the road, because that is a fear they can understand, instead of fearing the consequences of the car, which they don't quite grasp, I think the spanking is fine.

Again, I can't use your experiences but I think they fall well outside what I am talking about. However, the fact that you are afraid of your father rather than the car in the road may be secondary to the fact that you stay out of the road. And while you may at 5 have been able to understand and respect the danger the cars represent, I don't think the average 5 year old does. Certainly the 4 year old I nanny and her 3 year old friend from next door still have a hard time remembering not to just wander into the street. And before you ask, no, I've never spanked the little one for running into the street. However, not only is she a pretty well-behaved child, I'm fairly overprotective and don't give her much opportunity to do it. With a more obstinate child or if she played on her own more, I might do things a bit differently. I'd rather she be a bit confused as to why she was spanked than have her end up hit by a car; I'd rather she be afraid of punishment until I know she can understand the importance of avoiding cars on her own.

Oh, and as to torture. I think torture is an ineffective means of information gathering not because it doesn't work, but because it is inconsistent in how often and how much it will work. I think you can get valid information from torture, but you can just as easily get false information as the victim tries to tell you what you want to know. It's not that torture cannot work, rather it is inefficient (outside of the obvious immorality of it).

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

That is brilliant, Professor! I love that lesson. There is a great story about a bishop named Fenelon who tutored the incorrigible son of a king. I believe it was the king of England. The boy was known for throwing terrible tantrums when it rained outside and Fenelon was hired for his wisdom on how to handle the boy and help him gain control of his wild emotions. He ordered all the help to ignore the boys tantrums and instead look at him with pity - which would lead to the boy thinking about why everyone was looking at him that way and avoiding him during his tantrums. The boy began to feel embarrassed about how he was acting. He stopped throwing tantrums. Fenelon rewarded his efforts with much praise and gained the boys trust. He learned what interested the boy and helped him develop his natural talents. He always kept his word and taught the future king the importance of good virtues. The boy was transformed and everyone was looking forward to the day he would take the throne. Unfortunately he became sick before taking the throne and died. That is just one example of wisdom solving what a Kings entire court could not!

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I do remember (and this would be no older than five, I know that by where we were living) being chewed out big time by my father for running out into the street where apparently a car had to stop short. I don't remember being struck over that, but I do remember the anger, which was common to both that incident and the belt.

While I understand the reason not to run out in the street without looking, I never understood, and still don't understand to this day, his reaction or how that was supposed to convey a lesson to a toddler. All his action taught me was that he was a dick. My mother explained it to me later in a calm, rational conversation, and that is when I learned the lesson -- or even comprehended what I had done.

I still come back to this: I don't believe people are motivated by negatives. I really don't.

I'm going to agree with you on that one, Pogo. I didn't spank my child as a toddler and he was a most loving child. He was not spoiled in the least and others told me he was a very sweet boy. He grew up to be a thoughtful man and a good father. I don't like the word "punish" and I don't like the idea of "refined violence" as Jake put it - I'm not accusing people who spank their children of child abuse but I am questioning their patience to raise children. If a parent is extremely angry they should wait until a latter time to discuss what happened. Not acting in the heat of the moment. I believe if parents spent quality time with their children they wouldn't be acting out half the time anyhow. They are hungry for attention. I'd say do the real job of parenting and teach through example, fun videos - veggie tales has many great videos on good manners and behavior - do's and don'ts -watch it with them and talk about it! ... go to the parks and let them get some exercise, do what they would like to do more often, don't wear them out at shopping malls, when they should have a nap or their lunch time... give them the freedom to have a bad mood day, to feel bored and the room to work it out without interfering.

* I do not believe it is EVER alright for a parent to raise their voice to their child. If you wouldn't yell at your neighbor or co worker why in the world would you ever terrify your own child by yelling at them? Screaming at a child in anger is verbal abuse. It shouldn't happen.

What if you would yell at a neighbor or co worker?

I wouldn't. If you would then an anger management course might help.

 

[Asclepias]

I do remember (and this would be no older than five, I know that by where we were living) being chewed out big time by my father for running out into the street where apparently a car had to stop short. I don't remember being struck over that, but I do remember the anger, which was common to both that incident and the belt.

While I understand the reason not to run out in the street without looking, I never understood, and still don't understand to this day, his reaction or how that was supposed to convey a lesson to a toddler. All his action taught me was that he was a dick. My mother explained it to me later in a calm, rational conversation, and that is when I learned the lesson -- or even comprehended what I had done.

I still come back to this: I don't believe people are motivated by negatives. I really don't.

I'm going to agree with you on that one, Pogo. I didn't spank my child as a toddler and he was a most loving child. He was not spoiled in the least and others told me he was a very sweet boy. He grew up to be a thoughtful man and a good father. I don't like the word "punish" and I don't like the idea of "refined violence" as Jake put it - I'm not accusing people who spank their children of child abuse but I am questioning their patience to raise children. If a parent is extremely angry they should wait until a latter time to discuss what happened. Not acting in the heat of the moment. I believe if parents spent quality time with their children they wouldn't be acting out half the time anyhow. They are hungry for attention. I'd say do the real job of parenting and teach through example, fun videos - veggie tales has many great videos on good manners and behavior - do's and don'ts -watch it with them and talk about it! ... go to the parks and let them get some exercise, do what they would like to do more often, don't wear them out at shopping malls, when they should have a nap or their lunch time... give them the freedom to have a bad mood day, to feel bored and the room to work it out without interfering.

* I do not believe it is EVER alright for a parent to raise their voice to their child. If you wouldn't yell at your neighbor or co worker why in the world would you ever terrify your own child by yelling at them? Screaming at a child in anger is verbal abuse. It shouldn't happen.

What if you would yell at a neighbor or co worker?

Then you would need to work on that. Your behavior is something you can control with practice and understanding where your behavior comes from. I know this because I was very angry as a teenager and young adult. I learned that it only hurt me walking around angry all the time. Funny thing is the birth of my first child was the motivator for the change.

 

[Asclepias]

That is brilliant, Professor! I love that lesson. There is a great story about a bishop named Fenelon who tutored the incorrigible son of a king. I believe it was the king of England. The boy was known for throwing terrible tantrums when it rained outside and Fenelon was hired for his wisdom on how to handle the boy and help him gain control of his wild emotions. He ordered all the help to ignore the boys tantrums and instead look at him with pity - which would lead to the boy thinking about why everyone was looking at him that way and avoiding him during his tantrums. The boy began to feel embarrassed about how he was acting. He stopped throwing tantrums. Fenelon rewarded his efforts with much praise and gained the boys trust. He learned what interested the boy and helped him develop his natural talents. He always kept his word and taught the future king the importance of good virtues. The boy was transformed and everyone was looking forward to the day he would take the throne. Unfortunately he became sick before taking the throne and died. That is just one example of wisdom solving what a Kings entire court could not!

I maintain that ostracism is one of the most powerful tools. I forgot where I picked it up but I read a book where if you did something outside of the tribal laws they acted like you did not exist or you were a ghost. It was either a NA tribe or an African tribe.

 

[Duped]

You do what you need to do to bring about the results you want. If you want a little gang banger than don't dicipline them, and you may get your wish.

In Marine boot camp I saw brutal disipline to purge the weaknesses of many who came from a soft home - most did not make it.

If you don't disipline your child - you hate your child! Pain is a great incentive - if you use it early, you won't have to use it much!