Does Spanking kids Work?

[Chaussette]

Multiple times you've said hitting is hitting, yet have ignored my repeated questions about hitting as part of play.

Now you are calling those who hit children cowards, without explaining what those people are afraid of that makes them cowards. Nor have you explained how, if hitting is hitting is hitting, someone who hits a child as part of playing is a coward.

I could as easily say someone who consistently resorts to insults rather than discussion, as you have done, isn't intelligent enough to debate a subject.

There's nothing wrong with being opposed to spanking, but you have done little to discuss the subject.

Spanking as a kinky sex thing between consenting adults would be ok. But I don't see how you can play with a child that involves hitting them, that's dumb. And cowardly. A coward is someone who hits people who are substantially smaller than they are. Now you know.

So, you don't see how to play with any kind of hitting? That's too bad, but doesn't change the fact that it can and is done. It's not hitting to hurt, but if hitting is hitting is hitting, even when you aren't trying to hurt you may as well be the most abusive batterer ever, right?

I still don't know what these supposed cowards are afraid of. When I play with the little one, and I give her what we call spank-a-booty's, I'm being a coward?

You're teaching your child that violence is part of play time. Not good.

 

[G.T.]

A little story my daughter just told me about her friend and the encounter she had with her mom back in the day. Her friend began getting older as a teen ager, and she bagn hanging with the wrong crowd and such, as well as being influenced in the wrong ways also, so of course she bagn to get tougher and tougher, and more unruley as the days went by. Finally it came to a climax one day, where the teen called her mom a physcopathic B. The teen friend of my daughter said to her that it was the last time she ever tried that one, because all she remembers is picking herself up off of the floor after that burst of verbal outrage. She told my daughter that it was the hardest slap she thinks she ever got for being bad like that. She also told my daughter that till this very day, she don't mess with her mom like that anymore. The teenager now turned woman is 32years old, has three children of her own (2) boy's and one girl, and they are all doing great in their lives. She still, and will always love her mother and father is what she says, but she won't try her mom like that ever again.

Sad it had to come to that, but that is what happened in that incident. Worked for her and the teen girl in the situation at the time, but it could be construed by another as abuse, but would they be right on that ?

Yes, I would construe that as abuse.

Just like if it happened on the street, it would be an arrest able offense called assault.

People in these anecdotal fairy tale cases number one, have all different definitions for "turned out fine," and two - don't know everyone's deep dark secrets, behind closed doors things, to even judge turned out fine.....

and last point: She didn't turn out fine. She deems it ok to get knocked out cold by her parent - she respects her mom for it - - - - - so now she'll not feel too bad knocking out her own kids?

Did her mom "turn out fine" if she loses her temper so badly she knocks her daughter out, cold, like a boxer? That's "turned out fine," someone who will knock their kid out cold because of their bad temper?

You say knocked out cold eh, and her mother hit her like a boxer eh, but that is the way you must play this now isn't it ? In fact she didn't knock her daughter out cold (your words), but instead she slapped her pretty hard. Not sure if you know how kids speak about things, but it is a favorite saying by kids or adults talking about the past, and for whom got their punishment in this way, to always say I was picking myself up off of the floor (getting bragging rights for her mom you see), and this in her opinion of a punishment that fit the offense. You must have forgot the part where she said it was the hardest her mom ever slapped her for being bad. A slap is not what a boxer does now is it ? You have absoluetly no proof what so ever that she would do this to her own kids as based upon her past experience in life, but you are having to play that one in your liberal fantasy mind as well. You see folks, this is the kind of person and/or people who think in these twisted ways like this, and sadly they are the kind of people that we have all listened to in this nation now. All I can say is look at this nation now, because it is totally messed up, and it keeps getting worse as the information is pumped out by these people in the ways that it is being pumped out (dishonest), but people keep on giving them an audience, and that is what they thrive on in their dishonesty for which they push.

 

[BobPlumb]

Spanking as a kinky sex thing between consenting adults would be ok. But I don't see how you can play with a child that involves hitting them, that's dumb. And cowardly. A coward is someone who hits people who are substantially smaller than they are. Now you know.

So, you don't see how to play with any kind of hitting? That's too bad, but doesn't change the fact that it can and is done. It's not hitting to hurt, but if hitting is hitting is hitting, even when you aren't trying to hurt you may as well be the most abusive batterer ever, right?

I still don't know what these supposed cowards are afraid of. When I play with the little one, and I give her what we call spank-a-booty's, I'm being a coward?

You're teaching your child that violence is part of play time. Not good.

Football!

 

[oldfart]

We never finished the analysis from yesterday (dons goatée, Viennese accent) about how this lesson came to be learned.

Are you saying then that had you not been spanked you would have gone down that path, ended up in jail, etc? Are you saying that the only reason you're not down that path now is that you might get spanked?

Why did you engage in those things (that needed correction) in the first place? What was the objective?

Beyond spanking it out of me to get it to stop, the only other thing to stop me would be law enforcement. Children can be ruthless, snotty, entitled, belligerent, immature, violent, you name it. Like dictators. Why did I do those things? Hell, I don't even know. I was wild and wanted whatever the hell I wanted, and no one would dare stop me. Someone had to make it known that this kind of bad behavior was absolutely unacceptable, Pogo.

What I was really trying to get at there is your reasoning for starting that behaviour in the first place -- something a bit more detailed than "I was wild" -- what exactly was the objective in your mind, the expected return?.....

I'm trying to get at the process of how that evolved: how violence brings about a voluntary change in behaviour. Obviously you're an adult now and you're not refraining from these things on account of your parents threatening a spanking. There's kind of a missing link there. What I'm searching for is the bridge that got you from there to here.

Please thicken the Viennese accent, polish your spectacles, and re-light the pipe. You are asking how the transition from Kohlberg's Stage one (avoidance of punishment) to stage 2 (egocentric behavior) is accomplished. It is the progression from "How do I avoid punishment?" to "What's in it for me?"

Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kohlberg's work has been subjected to a lot of criticism and modification, but remains the basis if theories of moral development and research in the area.

My answer would be that in most cases there is a parallel development as small children learn to manipulate those around them, especially parents, to get what they want; and on the part of parents who transition from negative reinforcement to positive reinforcement. It's a dance and the dance is more important to understanding than the individual dancers.

I would further comment that Kohlberg's stage 1 is a process of demands, for what the child wants and for what the parent wants. Sometimes this becomes a power struggle and the conflict devolves into a demand for obedience met by an insistence on autonomy (Terrible Twos!). The two most common resolution devices are violence or the threat of violence (especially in matters involving danger to safety) and negotiation. A history of successful negotiation ushers in stage 2.

A lot of developmental psychology goes into this transition. Emotional self-control is a big factor for the child. Initially the child who doesn't get what they want inevitably throws a temper tantrum. When sufficient violence is the response, eventually the tantrum ceases; but the child has not learned much about self-control. If the child gets what they want as a result of the tantrum, the behavior is reinforced and the child has learned an effective tactic for manipulating parents. The real purpose of time out is to wait out and short circuit the adrenaline rush that goes with the tantrum and provide an opportunity to talk about why tantrums will not work and what alternatives the child has in getting what they want.

It can get pretty complicated. Any punishment is attention, and runs the risk of being perceived by the child as a "win" if they feel neglected and want more attention paid to them. A bit later in life, the child will try the same thing, only the approval sought is not the parents, it is others such as siblings and playmates. Again, this kind of behavior is best addressed after separating the child from the audience.

Successful parents usually have no doctrinaire overarching strategy, they make it up as they go along, rely on their intuition, and add to their toolkit as they can. Absolutes are for boundary conditions (health and safety, avoiding perverse incentives, acting out fundamentally dysfunctional relationships) and the range of behaviors left in the acceptable range is pretty broad.

Now isn't it time for coffee and pastry?

 

[BobPlumb]

We never finished the analysis from yesterday (dons goatée, Viennese accent) about how this lesson came to be learned.

Are you saying then that had you not been spanked you would have gone down that path, ended up in jail, etc? Are you saying that the only reason you're not down that path now is that you might get spanked?

Why did you engage in those things (that needed correction) in the first place? What was the objective?

Beyond spanking it out of me to get it to stop, the only other thing to stop me would be law enforcement. Children can be ruthless, snotty, entitled, belligerent, immature, violent, you name it. Like dictators. Why did I do those things? Hell, I don't even know. I was wild and wanted whatever the hell I wanted, and no one would dare stop me. Someone had to make it known that this kind of bad behavior was absolutely unacceptable, Pogo.

What I was really trying to get at there is your reasoning for starting that behaviour in the first place -- something a bit more detailed than "I was wild" -- what exactly was the objective in your mind, the expected return?.....

I'm trying to get at the process of how that evolved: how violence brings about a voluntary change in behaviour. Obviously you're an adult now and you're not refraining from these things on account of your parents threatening a spanking. There's kind of a missing link there. What I'm searching for is the bridge that got you from there to here.

Please thicken the Viennese accent, polish your spectacles, and re-light the pipe. You are asking how the transition from Kohlberg's Stage one (avoidance of punishment) to stage 2 (egocentric behavior) is accomplished. It is the progression from "How do I avoid punishment?" to "What's in it for me?"

Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kohlberg's work has been subjected to a lot of criticism and modification, but remains the basis if theories of moral development and research in the area.

My answer would be that in most cases there is a parallel development as small children learn to manipulate those around them, especially parents, to get what they want; and on the part of parents who transition from negative reinforcement to positive reinforcement. It's a dance and the dance is more important to understanding than the individual dancers.

I would further comment that Kohlberg's stage 1 is a process of demands, for what the child wants and for what the parent wants. Sometimes this becomes a power struggle and the conflict devolves into a demand for obedience met by an insistence on autonomy (Terrible Twos!). The two most common resolution devices are violence or the threat of violence (especially in matters involving danger to safety) and negotiation. A history of successful negotiation ushers in stage 2.

A lot of developmental psychology goes into this transition. Emotional self-control is a big factor for the child. Initially the child who doesn't get what they want inevitably throws a temper tantrum. When sufficient violence is the response, eventually the tantrum ceases; but the child has not learned much about self-control. If the child gets what they want as a result of the tantrum, the behavior is reinforced and the child has learned an effective tactic for manipulating parents. The real purpose of time out is to wait out and short circuit the adrenaline rush that goes with the tantrum and provide an opportunity to talk about why tantrums will not work and what alternatives the child has in getting what they want.

It can get pretty complicated. Any punishment is attention, and runs the risk of being perceived by the child as a "win" if they feel neglected and want more attention paid to them. A bit later in life, the child will try the same thing, only the approval sought is not the parents, it is others such as siblings and playmates. Again, this kind of behavior is best addressed after separating the child from the audience.

Successful parents usually have no doctrinaire overarching strategy, they make it up as they go along, rely on their intuition, and add to their toolkit as they can. Absolutes are for boundary conditions (health and safety, avoiding perverse incentives, acting out fundamentally dysfunctional relationships) and the range of behaviors left in the acceptable range is pretty broad.

Now isn't it time for coffee and pastry?

I will have a Krispy cream donut with hot chocolate.

 

[Montrovant]

Spanking as a kinky sex thing between consenting adults would be ok. But I don't see how you can play with a child that involves hitting them, that's dumb. And cowardly. A coward is someone who hits people who are substantially smaller than they are. Now you know.

So, you don't see how to play with any kind of hitting? That's too bad, but doesn't change the fact that it can and is done. It's not hitting to hurt, but if hitting is hitting is hitting, even when you aren't trying to hurt you may as well be the most abusive batterer ever, right?

I still don't know what these supposed cowards are afraid of. When I play with the little one, and I give her what we call spank-a-booty's, I'm being a coward?

You're teaching your child that violence is part of play time. Not good.

You seem to be assuming that any violence, however mild, is automatically bad.

Or perhaps you are just unwilling to admit you were mistaken about hitting is hitting is hitting, and that there are in fact degrees?

 

[Chaussette]

So, you don't see how to play with any kind of hitting? That's too bad, but doesn't change the fact that it can and is done. It's not hitting to hurt, but if hitting is hitting is hitting, even when you aren't trying to hurt you may as well be the most abusive batterer ever, right?

I still don't know what these supposed cowards are afraid of. When I play with the little one, and I give her what we call spank-a-booty's, I'm being a coward?

You're teaching your child that violence is part of play time. Not good.

You seem to be assuming that any violence, however mild, is automatically bad.

Or perhaps you are just unwilling to admit you were mistaken about hitting is hitting is hitting, and that there are in fact degrees?

Teaching children that hitting and violence is a game leads to them growing up accepting a warmongering nation with troops all over the world killing people for no real reason.

Hitting by degrees is kinda like being stupid by degrees. You're still stupid.

 

[Montrovant]

You're teaching your child that violence is part of play time. Not good.

You seem to be assuming that any violence, however mild, is automatically bad.

Or perhaps you are just unwilling to admit you were mistaken about hitting is hitting is hitting, and that there are in fact degrees?

Teaching children that hitting and violence is a game leads to them growing up accepting a warmongering nation with troops all over the world killing people for no real reason.

Hitting by degrees is kinda like being stupid by degrees. You're still stupid.

Ah. So is that the same as degree with temperature? If you're hot, you're hot, it doesn't matter how much?

If you're hit in football, it's the same as hit when spanked, it's the same as punched by an abusive spouse?

What about if I'm giving high fives? That's a form of hitting. If hitting is hitting is hitting, and there is no real differentiation between kinds of hitting, then giving high fives is teaching a child to accept a warmongering nation?

Or what if I slap a table to get the attention of a child? That's still hitting and a form of violence. Does that teach the same lesson as a spank, and the same lesson as a belt, the same lesson as a punch?

Hey! We need to outlaw dodgeball, that teaches hitting and violence, right? And wrestling! And hockey! Baseball and basketball and soccer and lacrosse have hitting, too! Sometimes games of tag can seem like hitting, we wouldn't want to teach any bad lessons of violence and lead our children to accept warmongering, let's get rid of those too, yes?

But of course you are right, degree doesn't matter......

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Spanking girl friends works...or it did way back when during the Reagan Administration

 

[Pogo]

You're teaching your child that violence is part of play time. Not good.

You seem to be assuming that any violence, however mild, is automatically bad.

Or perhaps you are just unwilling to admit you were mistaken about hitting is hitting is hitting, and that there are in fact degrees?

Teaching children that hitting and violence is a game leads to them growing up accepting a warmongering nation with troops all over the world killing people for no real reason.

Hitting by degrees is kinda like being stupid by degrees. You're still stupid.

I wouldn't put it that directly. But it is an aspect of the same mindset.

 

[Pogo]

Spanking girl friends works...or it did way back when during the Reagan Administration

Reagan was your girlfriend?

 

[Montrovant]

You seem to be assuming that any violence, however mild, is automatically bad.

Or perhaps you are just unwilling to admit you were mistaken about hitting is hitting is hitting, and that there are in fact degrees?

Teaching children that hitting and violence is a game leads to them growing up accepting a warmongering nation with troops all over the world killing people for no real reason.

Hitting by degrees is kinda like being stupid by degrees. You're still stupid.

I wouldn't put it that directly. But it is an aspect of the same mindset.

I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. If you are unable to understand hitting as play being different from hitting to hurt, this conversation is pointless. That says to me that you are unwilling or unable to accept that there are differing degrees.

Hitting as part of play, when no one is hurt and no one is trying to hurt, is not part of the same mindset as a warmongering nation. They are unrelated.

 

[beagle9]

Yes, I would construe that as abuse.

Just like if it happened on the street, it would be an arrest able offense called assault.

People in these anecdotal fairy tale cases number one, have all different definitions for "turned out fine," and two - don't know everyone's deep dark secrets, behind closed doors things, to even judge turned out fine.....

and last point: She didn't turn out fine. She deems it ok to get knocked out cold by her parent - she respects her mom for it - - - - - so now she'll not feel too bad knocking out her own kids?

Did her mom "turn out fine" if she loses her temper so badly she knocks her daughter out, cold, like a boxer? That's "turned out fine," someone who will knock their kid out cold because of their bad temper?

You say knocked out cold eh, and her mother hit her like a boxer eh, but that is the way you must play this now isn't it ? In fact she didn't knock her daughter out cold (your words), but instead she slapped her pretty hard. Not sure if you know how kids speak about things, but it is a favorite saying by kids or adults talking about the past, and for whom got their punishment in this way, to always say I was picking myself up off of the floor (getting bragging rights for her mom you see), and this in her opinion of a punishment that fit the offense. You must have forgot the part where she said it was the hardest her mom ever slapped her for being bad. A slap is not what a boxer does now is it ? You have absoluetly no proof what so ever that she would do this to her own kids as based upon her past experience in life, but you are having to play that one in your liberal fantasy mind as well. You see folks, this is the kind of person and/or people who think in these twisted ways like this, and sadly they are the kind of people that we have all listened to in this nation now. All I can say is look at this nation now, because it is totally messed up, and it keeps getting worse as the information is pumped out by these people in the ways that it is being pumped out (dishonest), but people keep on giving them an audience, and that is what they thrive on in their dishonesty for which they push.

Let me try and clarify if I can here.

So you see this woman when telling her story, she uses speech that gives umph to her story - Example: " I found that I was picking myself up off of the floor", where as to her it is a bragging right in which she uses in respect to what it done for her afterwards (knocked some sense back into her, in which is another metaphore used by story tellers like her and others who had experienced such things like this also in their lives as well), and it transitioned her from a terrible situation in her life to a good situation in her life. She is now grown into adulthood, and she does love to tell about these things as being the very things that saved her in her life or so she figures. She is proud of her mom that she stood up for herself in a situation like that, and that she didn't coward down under the fear of her daughter now as a teenager, finally being able to challenge her as in some cases with even physical violence. She was glad her mom won the day that day, because she knew how bad she had become at the time, and she understood that her mom had to take action because of her supposed to be innocent young teenager for whom had become someone that was unruley, and even dangerous to the mom possibly, and her own self in life. One good slap for her done the trick, and she braggs about it to this very day. Oh and she loves her mom, and would do anything and everything for her. It's all good!

 

[gnarlylove]

I was thinking about this just the other day. I was hit/spanked for doing things I was told not to. It may have been effective in preventing that behavior and attribute greater authority to their prohibition in the future but this method of punishment had a negative consequences. What does violence engender? More violence, aggression, and anger turned inwards sometimes called depression.

Spanking is not as effective as time out in the long run because time out does not create and reinforce violent tendencies.

So maintaining this strategy as legitimate only seems to prevent us from realizing a common goal: reduction in violence. Thus we are less likely to quit being violent with one another. It's not like human expression must always have violence as a part--human nature has certain tendencies but they can easily be kneaded through proper education.

But I learned violence engenders negative consequences the hard way: I have 3 kittens that do bad things on occasion like shitting every where. So I would punished them through slightly violent means, no direct hitting but soon after I realized changes in behavior etc plus they continued shitting anywhere and everywhere. So I stopped those practices immediately and it has taken a month to one of the kittens to seem relatively normal but there are still issues, I can tell. Why think a developing child is any different? If you are being hit without understanding why, it may be hard to realize it was for your own good. So you turn inward to avoid for the sake of pain instead of becoming enlightened as to why you don't do X.

 

[Pogo]

You say knocked out cold eh, and her mother hit her like a boxer eh, but that is the way you must play this now isn't it ? In fact she didn't knock her daughter out cold (your words), but instead she slapped her pretty hard. Not sure if you know how kids speak about things, but it is a favorite saying by kids or adults talking about the past, and for whom got their punishment in this way, to always say I was picking myself up off of the floor (getting bragging rights for her mom you see), and this in her opinion of a punishment that fit the offense. You must have forgot the part where she said it was the hardest her mom ever slapped her for being bad. A slap is not what a boxer does now is it ? You have absoluetly no proof what so ever that she would do this to her own kids as based upon her past experience in life, but you are having to play that one in your liberal fantasy mind as well. You see folks, this is the kind of person and/or people who think in these twisted ways like this, and sadly they are the kind of people that we have all listened to in this nation now. All I can say is look at this nation now, because it is totally messed up, and it keeps getting worse as the information is pumped out by these people in the ways that it is being pumped out (dishonest), but people keep on giving them an audience, and that is what they thrive on in their dishonesty for which they push.

Let me try and clarify if I can here.

So you see this woman when telling her story, she uses speech that gives umph to her story - Example: " I found that I was picking myself up off of the floor", where as to her it is a bragging right in which she uses in respect to what it done for her afterwards (knocked some sense back into her, in which is another metaphore used by story tellers like her and others who had experienced such things like this also in their lives as well), and it transitioned her from a terrible situation in her life to a good situation in her life. She is now grown into adulthood, and she does love to tell about these things as being the very things that saved her in her life or so she figures. She is proud of her mom that she stood up for herself in a situation like that, and that she didn't coward down under the fear of her daughter now as a teenager, finally being able to challenge her as in some cases with even physical violence. She was glad her mom won the day that day, because she knew how bad she had become at the time, and she understood that her mom had to take action because of her supposed to be innocent young teenager for whom had become someone that was unruley, and even dangerous to the mom possibly, and her own self in life. One good slap for her done the trick, and she braggs about it to this very day. Oh and she loves her mom, and would do anything and everything for her. It's all good!

See, that reading doesn't really make sense.

If I read correctly you're saying this girl is glad her mom stood up and took her place of authority, and you kind of imply that had the mom not done that it would have wrecked the dynamic of parent and child that should be the case -- and that she (the girl) knew that.

Well if that's the case, if the girl believes that's the proper hierarchy value (and it is), then why attack the mom in the first place??

Just doesn't add up.

 

[Pogo]

I was thinking about this just the other day. I was hit/spanked for doing things I was told not to. It may have been effective in preventing that behavior and attribute greater authority to their prohibition in the future but this method of punishment had a negative consequences. What does violence engender? More violence, aggression, and anger turned inwards sometimes called depression.

Spanking is not as effective as time out in the long run because time out does not create and reinforce violent tendencies.

So maintaining this strategy as legitimate only seems to prevent us from realizing a common goal: reduction in violence. Thus we are less likely to quit being violent with one another. It's not like human expression must always have violence as a part--human nature has certain tendencies but they can easily be kneaded through proper education.

But I learned violence engenders negative consequences the hard way: I have 3 kittens that do bad things on occasion like shitting every where. So I would punished them through slightly violent means, no direct hitting but soon after I realized changes in behavior etc plus they continued shitting anywhere and everywhere. So I stopped those practices immediately and it has taken a month to one of the kittens to seem relatively normal but there are still issues, I can tell. Why think a developing child is any different? If you are being hit without understanding why, it may be hard to realize it was for your own good. So you turn inward to avoid for the sake of pain instead of becoming enlightened as to why you don't do X.

Beautifully said.

 

[Pogo]

Teaching children that hitting and violence is a game leads to them growing up accepting a warmongering nation with troops all over the world killing people for no real reason.

Hitting by degrees is kinda like being stupid by degrees. You're still stupid.

I wouldn't put it that directly. But it is an aspect of the same mindset.

I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. If you are unable to understand hitting as play being different from hitting to hurt, this conversation is pointless. That says to me that you are unwilling or unable to accept that there are differing degrees.

Hitting as part of play, when no one is hurt and no one is trying to hurt, is not part of the same mindset as a warmongering nation. They are unrelated.

That's not what I was comparing. I'm comparing the concept of hitting and violence with the concept of warmongering. They're not the same thing and one doesn't by itself lead to the other, but it is part of the same mindset that condones and values violence.

 

[oldfart]

We never finished the analysis from yesterday (dons goatée, Viennese accent) about how this lesson came to be learned.

Are you saying then that had you not been spanked you would have gone down that path, ended up in jail, etc? Are you saying that the only reason you're not down that path now is that you might get spanked?

Why did you engage in those things (that needed correction) in the first place? What was the objective?



What I was really trying to get at there is your reasoning for starting that behaviour in the first place -- something a bit more detailed than "I was wild" -- what exactly was the objective in your mind, the expected return?.....

I'm trying to get at the process of how that evolved: how violence brings about a voluntary change in behaviour. Obviously you're an adult now and you're not refraining from these things on account of your parents threatening a spanking. There's kind of a missing link there. What I'm searching for is the bridge that got you from there to here.

Please thicken the Viennese accent, polish your spectacles, and re-light the pipe. You are asking how the transition from Kohlberg's Stage one (avoidance of punishment) to stage 2 (egocentric behavior) is accomplished. It is the progression from "How do I avoid punishment?" to "What's in it for me?"

Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kohlberg's work has been subjected to a lot of criticism and modification, but remains the basis if theories of moral development and research in the area.

My answer would be that in most cases there is a parallel development as small children learn to manipulate those around them, especially parents, to get what they want; and on the part of parents who transition from negative reinforcement to positive reinforcement. It's a dance and the dance is more important to understanding than the individual dancers.

I would further comment that Kohlberg's stage 1 is a process of demands, for what the child wants and for what the parent wants. Sometimes this becomes a power struggle and the conflict devolves into a demand for obedience met by an insistence on autonomy (Terrible Twos!). The two most common resolution devices are violence or the threat of violence (especially in matters involving danger to safety) and negotiation. A history of successful negotiation ushers in stage 2.

A lot of developmental psychology goes into this transition. Emotional self-control is a big factor for the child. Initially the child who doesn't get what they want inevitably throws a temper tantrum. When sufficient violence is the response, eventually the tantrum ceases; but the child has not learned much about self-control. If the child gets what they want as a result of the tantrum, the behavior is reinforced and the child has learned an effective tactic for manipulating parents. The real purpose of time out is to wait out and short circuit the adrenaline rush that goes with the tantrum and provide an opportunity to talk about why tantrums will not work and what alternatives the child has in getting what they want.

It can get pretty complicated. Any punishment is attention, and runs the risk of being perceived by the child as a "win" if they feel neglected and want more attention paid to them. A bit later in life, the child will try the same thing, only the approval sought is not the parents, it is others such as siblings and playmates. Again, this kind of behavior is best addressed after separating the child from the audience.

Successful parents usually have no doctrinaire overarching strategy, they make it up as they go along, rely on their intuition, and add to their toolkit as they can. Absolutes are for boundary conditions (health and safety, avoiding perverse incentives, acting out fundamentally dysfunctional relationships) and the range of behaviors left in the acceptable range is pretty broad.

Now isn't it time for coffee and pastry?

I will have a Krispy cream donut with hot chocolate.

Krispy Kreme? Where! Where!

 

[beagle9]

Let me try and clarify if I can here.

So you see this woman when telling her story, she uses speech that gives umph to her story - Example: " I found that I was picking myself up off of the floor", where as to her it is a bragging right in which she uses in respect to what it done for her afterwards (knocked some sense back into her, in which is another metaphore used by story tellers like her and others who had experienced such things like this also in their lives as well), and it transitioned her from a terrible situation in her life to a good situation in her life. She is now grown into adulthood, and she does love to tell about these things as being the very things that saved her in her life or so she figures. She is proud of her mom that she stood up for herself in a situation like that, and that she didn't coward down under the fear of her daughter now as a teenager, finally being able to challenge her as in some cases with even physical violence. She was glad her mom won the day that day, because she knew how bad she had become at the time, and she understood that her mom had to take action because of her supposed to be innocent young teenager for whom had become someone that was unruley, and even dangerous to the mom possibly, and her own self in life. One good slap for her done the trick, and she braggs about it to this very day. Oh and she loves her mom, and would do anything and everything for her. It's all good!

See, that reading doesn't really make sense.

If I read correctly you're saying this girl is glad her mom stood up and took her place of authority, and you kind of imply that had the mom not done that it would have wrecked the dynamic of parent and child that should be the case -- and that she (the girl) knew that.

Well if that's the case, if the girl believes that's the proper hierarchy value (and it is), then why attack the mom in the first place??

Just doesn't add up.

Might not make sense to you, but for many it makes perfect sense. I had a friend that had a father and mother who never layed a hand upon him, and especially once he got to be around 16 years old. My friend was big and was no joke. He was a terror at this point to his father and mother sadly enough. He abused his family (took advantage of their meekness in life), and I saw him act out once in which made me feel sad for him and his family (mom and dad). Not sure what the answer should have been, because back then I was just 16, and I couldn't whip him. There was no phone calling going on back then either. I wish his dad could have tore his butt from limb to limb one time, but he was to meek of a person to do so, and thus stood the abuse from his son. I wish I could have torn him from limb to limb also, but I was no match for this fella. I quit hanging around him after saw what he was capable of, and what he was doing to his mom and dad. I could only hope that when I would tell someone about it, that they would know what to do, because I didn't know what to do at the time.

 

[Asclepias]

Let me try and clarify if I can here.

So you see this woman when telling her story, she uses speech that gives umph to her story - Example: " I found that I was picking myself up off of the floor", where as to her it is a bragging right in which she uses in respect to what it done for her afterwards (knocked some sense back into her, in which is another metaphore used by story tellers like her and others who had experienced such things like this also in their lives as well), and it transitioned her from a terrible situation in her life to a good situation in her life. She is now grown into adulthood, and she does love to tell about these things as being the very things that saved her in her life or so she figures. She is proud of her mom that she stood up for herself in a situation like that, and that she didn't coward down under the fear of her daughter now as a teenager, finally being able to challenge her as in some cases with even physical violence. She was glad her mom won the day that day, because she knew how bad she had become at the time, and she understood that her mom had to take action because of her supposed to be innocent young teenager for whom had become someone that was unruley, and even dangerous to the mom possibly, and her own self in life. One good slap for her done the trick, and she braggs about it to this very day. Oh and she loves her mom, and would do anything and everything for her. It's all good!

See, that reading doesn't really make sense.

If I read correctly you're saying this girl is glad her mom stood up and took her place of authority, and you kind of imply that had the mom not done that it would have wrecked the dynamic of parent and child that should be the case -- and that she (the girl) knew that.

Well if that's the case, if the girl believes that's the proper hierarchy value (and it is), then why attack the mom in the first place??

Just doesn't add up.

Might not make sense to you, but for many it makes perfect sense. I had a friend that had a father and mother who never layed a hand upon him, and especially once he got to be around 16 years old. My friend was big and was no joke. He was a terror at this point to his father and mother sadly enough. He abused his family (took advantage of their meekness in life), and I saw him act out once in which made me feel sad for him and his family (mom and dad). Not sure what the answer should have been, because back then I was just 16, and I couldn't whip him. There was no phone calling going on back then either. I wish his dad could have tore his butt from limb to limb one time, but he was to meek of a person to do so, and thus stood the abuse from his son. I wish I could have torn him from limb to limb also, but I was no match for this fella. I quit hanging around him after saw what he was capable of, and what he was doing to his mom and dad. I could only hope that when I would tell someone about it, that they would know what to do, because I didn't know what to do at the time.

Sounds more like he was never punished and taught respect for authority. Withholding punishment is not the same thing as not spanking. You have to teach your child boundaries and respect. You dont have to that by spanking or hitting them.