Poll: Parents need to get paddled too.

[Eclectic Dreck]

Well, duh. That's why you need to teach them. Of course if you leave them on their own they are going to do stupid shit. That's why kids need parents.

I agree.

There was a boy at school who used to beat me for reasons such as looking at him funny. I feared and hated him, and thought he was scum.

A valid position. I took a different tack and engaged in bloody brawls with such hooligans. I didn't win often but, then, I never got in a fight with the same person twice. Different routes to the same end and all.

My mother I respect, because she is intelligent, patient and would give me reasons for her actions.

My assertion is simply this: you respect her mother. If she told you to do something (or not do something) reasonable, you'd take the suggested course (presumably). So, what is the mechanism there? Through respect, your mother has gained a measure of power. In my view, that power is born of fear. Nothing so crude as a base mortal fear of pain of course. In different situations, you'd have different reasons to follow. Not wanting to disappoint is simply a social fear - the same mechanism that plays it's little part when it comes to less wholesome control mechanisms like peer pressure.

I had zero respect for teachers who didn't know their stuff and who yelled at me. I would have only despised them more if they also used violence.

I am not advocating violence as a first or only training mechanism. Like anything else, it has to be properly applied. Spanking a dog randomly will at best confuse the animal and can easily damage any training that has already taken place. Spanking a child in the context you give is inappropriate simply because it serves to undermine any training that might take place.

Would you respect a dictator who ruled you with an iron fist?

Nope. I may fear him though.

Would you respect a government that used fear to control you?

Nope.

Aren't you raising your child to accept such a state of affairs?

No. In both of your examples, fear is used as the primary (perhaps only) control mechanism. In spite of what you may think, fear is useful to people. Children who play in the street do so because they have no fear of doing so. Children who do drugs do so because something in their life is stronger than the fear the have of the consequences. Fear is a fundamental emotion that is critical to governing our lives. I don't play in the street because I don't want to be maimed or killed (also, it would look silly). I don't do drugs because I don't want the physical and mental side effects inherent.

Fear is what keeps people from doing things that are stupid.

Such people scare me, but it doesn't follow I respect them. Quite the opposite.

Fear and respect are not the same thing. Respect is fear to a noble end. Fear to an ignoble end is not respect; it is petty tyranny.

I wouldn't want blind obedience from my kids. After all, they aren't going to be kids forever, finally they need to grow up and figure out their own way. And what if they're right about something, and I'm wrong?

It depends upon the context in my view. If your child is four, blind obedience is the best you can hope for. You won't get it through any humane means of course but it's still what you shoot for.

I do agree in one respect though - no matter what you do some mistakes just need to be made. The fundamental goal of parenting is to ensure that as many of these mistakes as possible be made when consequences can be greatly mitigated. All you have as a parent is an imperfect box of tools to accomplish this task.

Spraying a cat with a water bottle is hardly painful (and with mine that never worked, because they only got really wild and thought it was a funny game).

Physical punishment need not be painful, just physical. I expect water is commonly used because trying to pin a cat down to swat it is a good way to lose blood. After all, five of six ends of a cat are pointy.

And I've never used hitting with a newspaper either. I have used shaking a newspaper to make a noise the animal didn't like, though.

Yes, it is possible to train a dog without the newsprint truncheon. The utility of the device depends upon the breed. If you can assert pack dominance without physicality (if you have a small dog for example), physical punishment is less useful than in cases where one must earn that place in the animal's social hierarchy (large working dogs - German Shepherds for example).

But I'd never use anything that causes unnecessary pain.
Some discomfort, maybe, to avoid bigger discomfort.

Discomfort and pain are just arbitrary thresholds of the same thing. I'm not advocating doing damage (drawing blood, brusing, etc) - you aren't engaged in a deathmatch.

A friend of mine has adopted problem-dogs, and those dogs are, or have been, afraid of people because their previous owners have had no idea how to train them.
They can still be problematic, but she has worked to rid them of their fear.

Misplaced violence can harm, certainly. But so can misplaced affection. "Small Dog Syndrome" is a common example of the latter malady which basically what happens when an owner is unable to assert authority over the animal.

Or, you know, you want to please the person you respect, or want to be like them.

That follows the "living up to an ideal" bit.

Or recognise they know better than you what they're doing and it's in your own interest to follow them.
For example, I respect my friend's knowledge on computer programming, and if he told me to do something to my computer I'd listen to him.

Ceding to the expertise of another in cases where there is no compelling reason to do otherwise is an irrelevant case. If you believed you had a different way to do some problem that was potentially better (or at least equally efficient) and then you followed your friend in spite of this, then perhaps it would be an example.

And even if fear was the underlying factor (and depending on your definition, fear can be good for you, if you're afraid of failure or things that can really harm you), you're admitting that you can achieve respect without the threat of beating/harm.

Yes, you can achieve respect without beating someone. In many cases, there are more efficient routes to that end. But just because fear is not a necessary condition to earn respect, respect gains it's power from fear. You don't want to disappoint your mom (that's fear). You want to live up to an ideal (or, conversely, you are afraid of not living up to an ideal) - that's fear.

There are many mechanisms of control. It is possible to train without physical punishment just as it is possible to train without some reward. Yes, I agree that violence must be used with caution because it can easily undermine any training objective you might have (as you said, a teacher beating you would not make you any more likely to follow their edicts). But that does not detract from the fact that violence is a provably useful training tool used across the ages by parents training kids, people training animals, or government training people.

I guess I should put this closing bit in some context. Take for example some athlete who participates on some sport (It doesn't really matter which). This athlete shows up late for practice in violation of the coaches edict that practice begins at a particular point. The coach wants to ensure that this rule is violated as rarely as possible as players showing up late disrupts practice and degrades the capabilities of the team. The coach as plenty of options available to this end: they could send the player to run sprints or some other equally exhausting (and painful) activity, they could have the player stand in front of the team and explain themselves (minor shaming), or have the player explain themselves while the team endures some exhausting activity (major shaming) or they could simply have the player forfeit their right to play in the next game. Any of these are valid strategies that meet the desired end. Physical punishment is not necessary of course but negative reinforcement is if you want to use the infraction as a training opportunity.

-Edit- Corrected quotes

 

[Lieju]

This discussion is kinda shifting from beating your kids to fear as a motivator and using physical punishments in general.

And I have said from the start that negative reinforcement is a viable method, as are physical punishments, depending on the scale we are talking about.
For example, letting the child go hungry if they won't eat can be called 'physical', but it's a logical effect of the child not eating, and it's something they are doing to themselves.

A valid position. I took a different tack and engaged in bloody brawls with such hooligans. I didn't win often but, then, I never got in a fight with the same person twice. Different routes to the same end and all.

I've never been a violent person, so I basically attempted to run most of the time.

My assertion is simply this: you respect her mother. If she told you to do something (or not do something) reasonable, you'd take the suggested course (presumably). So, what is the mechanism there? Through respect, your mother has gained a measure of power. In my view, that power is born of fear. Nothing so crude as a base mortal fear of pain of course. In different situations, you'd have different reasons to follow. Not wanting to disappoint is simply a social fear - the same mechanism that plays it's little part when it comes to less wholesome control mechanisms like peer pressure.

Fear is one of the great motivators, but it's far from being the only one, and there's a difference in whether you are afraid the person telling you to do something, and being afraid of the thing that person is helping you to avoid.
If you try enough, you can associate fear with anything, because it's avoiding things, and no matter what your course of action, you are avoiding something.
I am looking for a girlfriend because I'm afraid of being unloved.
I am studying because I'm afraid I'm useless to society.
I am eating this piece of chocolate because I'm afraid of the lack of pleasure.

Or, I'm looking for a girlfriend because I want companionship.
I'm studying because I want to know things and feel useful.
I'm eating this piece of chocolate because I want to feel pleasure and the good taste brings me that.

But defining it in such broad terms makes it meaningless.
If I say a child is afraid of it's mother, usually that would mean a certain level of uneasiness, and it would mean something.

But if you define fear to mean not much at all, that phrase is meaningless because according to your definition every child is afraid of their mother.

No. In both of your examples, fear is used as the primary (perhaps only) control mechanism. In spite of what you may think, fear is useful to people. Children who play in the street do so because they have no fear of doing so. Children who do drugs do so because something in their life is stronger than the fear the have of the consequences. Fear is a fundamental emotion that is critical to governing our lives. I don't play in the street because I don't want to be maimed or killed (also, it would look silly). I don't do drugs because I don't want the physical and mental side effects inherent.

But the thing is, you're afraid of those things because they can harm you, instead of being afraid of some third party that will harm you if you do things that might hurt you.

It's okay to teach a child fear, but those threats exist in the real world. teach them to fear things that can harm them, not you.

It depends upon the context in my view. If your child is four, blind obedience is the best you can hope for. You won't get it through any humane means of course but it's still what you shoot for.

I seriously hope you are either not serious or not ever going to have kids if you think you shouldn't treat them humanely.

Do you actually have children? Or have you ever dealt with kids? Because you're gravely underestimating children.
A girl who is a relative of mine (I guess you could say I'm her aunt) is three.
And she understands consequence and has empathy.

A while back she was misbehaving, throwing sticks at people because she thought it was funny.
All we did was say :"That hurts. How would you feel if someone did that to you?", and she stopped. Social animals like humans have that empathy inherently.
And they can from an early age understand that actions have consequences.

Physical punishment need not be painful, just physical. I expect water is commonly used because trying to pin a cat down to swat it is a good way to lose blood. After all, five of six ends of a cat are pointy.

Generally, you want to train your cat and treat it in such a way it will not bite or scratch you.
Dfferent animals have different instincts, and a cat that's not a pack-animal doesn't have the same kinds of instinct for dominant behaviour dogs do.
You can assert dominance over them, not as their pack-leader, but as their mom.

And again, I have never said I'm against physical punishment, for example, lifting the animal and holding it still can be considered physical, but I am against causing pain.
And using positive reinforcement works better anyway.
Plus it feels nicer to me.
I'd rather use positive over negative in every case.
Some negative reinforcement needs to be used, but the goal should be to use it as little as possible.
And negative reinforcement can be just the lack of positive one.
For example, if your cats bites your toes to get you attention, ignore it. Lift your feet up. If you give the cat attention, you're reinforcing that bad behaviour. But if it gets ignored, it learns that won't get it what it wants.

I guess I should put this closing bit in some context. Take for example some athlete who participates on some sport (It doesn't really matter which). This athlete shows up late for practice in violation of the coaches edict that practice begins at a particular point. The coach wants to ensure that this rule is violated as rarely as possible as players showing up late disrupts practice and degrades the capabilities of the team. The coach as plenty of options available to this end: they could send the player to run sprints or some other equally exhausting (and painful) activity, they could have the player stand in front of the team and explain themselves (minor shaming), or have the player explain themselves while the team endures some exhausting activity (major shaming) or they could simply have the player forfeit their right to play in the next game. Any of these are valid strategies that meet the desired end. Physical punishment is not necessary of course but negative reinforcement is if you want to use the infraction as a training opportunity.

And I've never said that negative reinforcement is not useful or necessary.
What I have been saying is that:
-negative reinforcement need not be beating, or even physical
-positive reinforcement is more effective (and personally I just dislike punishing. I'll do it if necessary, but I don't find enjoyement in it)
-blind obedience is not necessary or desirable

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

And I've never said that negative reinforcement is not useful or necessary.
What I have been saying is that:
-negative reinforcement need not be beating, or even physical
-positive reinforcement is more effective (and personally I just dislike punishing. I'll do it if necessary, but I don't find enjoyement in it)
-blind obedience is not necessary or desirable

I agree with all points save the last one, as there are countless cases where the risk inherent in some act are great enough that most reasonable people would demand obedience. This is where the various sit-com lines of "If everyone jumped off a cliff" or "Because I said so" come from.

I still disagree on a number of points you made along the way. For example, my perception is that fear is what keeps you from doing something - a host of other emotions are what push against that fear. There is one other bit I wanted to comment on specifically:

But the thing is, you're afraid of those things because they can harm you, instead of being afraid of some third party that will harm you if you do things that might hurt you.

Yes, I can conceptualize the danger. It is real and immediate - friends have died or been irreparably damaged by such things. But until you see such things, the danger is nebulous theory - something that's easy to know without really understanding. Negative reinforcement (fear of a third party) in this case serves in the stead of that understanding. It isn't perfectly effective but the alternative is to hope that a group that is generally incapable of long term planning and who are capable of looking at a risk that happens to some notable fraction of their peers and routinely say "that won't happen to me" make the right decision when they'll often have terribly compelling reasons not to.

 

[IndomitableSam]

You tell a kid not to do something, they'll still do it for a while. You give a kid a swat (enough to shock the kid, not actually hurt them), and they learn really quick.

After about age 4/5 you don't need to hit your kids anymore - their minds have conceptualized wrong and right and they don't need 'training' anymore. They have a moral compass to go by. By that time regular "take away" type punishments work. *

... That said, my mother slapped me when I was a teenager and I deserved it. She probably should have slapped me more for the things I said and did to her. I'm all for slapping your kids if they're doing something really severely wrong anf they know it. Slap them across the face and say "there, you hurt me, now I've hurt you. Don't ever do that again, or I will ____(insert regular punishment like no internet, no phones, no money, presents, kick out of house, etc)____."

Then have a talk about respect. If they want to go to the cops, they can. They just need to be made aware of the fact that they would never have a home to go back to and the entire extended family (well, mine, anyway), would not open their doors to them either.


*Experience: School librarian and ran an after school program/daycare for children aged 4-11.

 

[Shivarage]

Nor is evidence ever needed so long as something is firmly blamed on the nebulous "the rich" eh?

Ahh, you can see where you are wrong my friend, the evidence is clear and acknowledged but "the rich" in order to stay rich must ignore and deny the fact they take much more than they give, is how being rich works

 

[Karma168]

Note: This only applies to parents/carers, people who work with children (e.g. teachers) should not be allowed to use corporal punishment in any circumstances

I think it depends on the age and the situation. If it's a very young child with bad communication skills using the instinctive pain response can be more effective as it hammers home the message much more than a naughty step ever could. This is not to say it should be the first thing used, other punishments should always be preferable.

As the child gets older (say 3-5) more 'soft' punishments are preferable as the child can be expected to understand the reasons behind their punishment. In an absolute last case scenario for serious misbehaviour it could still be used.

By the time they're 10(ish) you shouldn't be using any kind of physical punishment and should be using purely 'soft' punishment.


Corporal punishment is not inherently bad, it can serve as an effective last resort that makes children understand they need to stop what they are doing. The problem is people that use it as a go-to response rather than a last resort and raise their children to fear the belt well into their teens, that is not a healthy message to teach children.

As long as it is both moderate (causes no long term harm) and scarce (not a daily occurrence) then I see no reason

 

[anthony87]

regardless of the fact that it is proven that corporal punishment lowers a child's IQ.

Have something to cite as evidence that supports your argument? Go ahead, I'm sure there's a TON of studies that will back you, right?

Right?

He may not have cited them but there ARE studies that pretty much say that physical punishment, can adversely affect a childs IQ, metal state etc.

There's also studies that say video games turn children violent......

 

[Aerodyamic]

regardless of the fact that it is proven that corporal punishment lowers a child's IQ.

Have something to cite as evidence that supports your argument? Go ahead, I'm sure there's a TON of studies that will back you, right?

Right?

He may not have cited them but there ARE studies that pretty much say that physical punishment, can adversely affect a childs IQ, metal state etc.

There's also studies that say video games turn children violent......

I'd like to see those studies ACTUALLY cited and linked, because I'm sure they're every bit as valid as the other studies you've mentioned, about video games making children more violent. I'm sure they're at least as good as the studies done in the 80's that showed that D&D and heavy metal music turned children into Satan worshipers, and the ones in the 90's that proved that the M:TG CCG and heavy metal continued to turn children into Satan worshipers.

Shit, maybe there's a pattern there, but I don't know if I'm smart enough to detect it. Maybe my parents shouldn't have used corporal punishment throughout the formative years of my upbringing.

 

[JoJo]

Um, OP, who exactly is that rant aimed at? Parents aren't a homogeneous mass with all the same opinions and views, they are human beings like you and I, all with their own unique flaws and habits. All you've done is listed a load of "PC" and bad parenting stereotypes and claimed without any evidence that every parent embodies every single one.

As for corporal punishment itself, having worked with children a number of times in the past, my career would have been rather short if I was unable to control children without hitting them. That takes patience and skill however, something which many parents do lack and instead take the easy way out, much to the detriment of their offspring as many corporal punishment studies have shown.