Smacked children more successful later in life, study finds

[DemonicVixen]

Funny, i didn't get smacked as a kid. Instead i got beaten as a teenager. I get cups or my bedroom stool smashed across my head at least once every two months. Used to be once or twice a week and i can't say im all that smart.

 

[ChaosGenesis]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to hit your kids as long as they deserve it. I was hit a few times as a kid and you better believe I learned my lesson. I think I'm better for it.
The biggest thing about it all is knowing where to draw the line.

Bad Idea: Hit your kids for stupid reasons, or because you're drunk or no reason at all.
Bad Idea: Don't chastise your kids and let them do whatever they want and become social degenerates.
Good Idea: Smack your kids if they get out of line but be reasonable and only hard enough to teach a lesson, not cause any real physical damage.

 

[hamster mk 4]

I sympathize with the quote "It is very difficult to explain verbally to a young child why something they have done is wrong." Spending an 20 minutes explaining why crayoning a wall is bad to a 4 year old who is probably enjoying the attention anyway is counter productive.

I am not advocating 20 lashes, but a quick smack to remind the child of the consequences of displeasing you is appropriate.

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

Fine, I know five different ways I could hurt a child without leaving marks.

I'm sorry, that just came out wrong in my mind.

Honestly, it should ^.^

In person I am fairly... hmmm bubbly? shall we say?

Fact remains, I like making jokes about beating children and eating babies. *shrug* I am either a genuinely bad person, or I am inclined to 'shock' humor. Either way hearing someone say that they are well versed in the manners by which to discreetly harm children should cause a certain level of dissonance to readers/listeners.

Unless you were thinking of something else.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

So tell me, do you agree with this study about how children fare better if they were subjected to "reasonable chastisement"?. Were you smacked as a child?.

I agree, and I was smacked growing up, but half the time it was for stupid shit. Like once my mom was on the phone and I made myself a personal pizza thing for lunch, when it was done she came over and took half of it and I said "you're stealing half my lunch!" and she turned around and smack me in the face.

 

[Terramax]

Were you smacked as a child?.

No i was not.I have near perfect parents.

But they let you play videogames *boo, hiss*

Utter rubiish. My cousin was smacked as a child and she's become a leech on society. I on the other hand did not, and I am now at University studying Artificial Intelligence and Cybernetics. You don't need to hit children to get them to behave. You just need to be a good parent.

Going to Uni in the UK means technically you are no less a leech on society.

Pay off your tuition fees, put your degree to good use then come back and tell us you're a productive member of society.

On the topic itself, as already stated, 180 odd people is too far a low number. Also, there are just too many factors to put into consideration to figure out what makes people more or less successful and productive in their communities.

 

[ribonuge]

I don't understand how anyone could hit a child. The necessity for smacking is driven by bad parenting in the first place. Also the human brain is so complex, that attributing good grades and success to being hit in early childhood - is a bit farfetched. Instead of smacking, why not use encouragement and logical explanations for punishments?

 

[theguiltyone]

I don't understand how anyone could hit a child. The necessity for smacking is driven by bad parenting in the first place. Also the human brain is so complex, that attributing good grades and success to being hit in early childhood - is a bit farfetched. Instead of smacking, why not use encouragement and logical explanations for punishments?

That's what the parenting books tell you is proper procedure. All that flies out the window when you've got a attention-deficient six year old breaking things in the house and screaming at you, knowing you won't do anything but talk in return.

A sharp swat to the bottom and a 'don't do that unless you want another' works wonders, when the child in question just plain won't listen.

 

[SnipErlite]

Children need discipline. Simple.

=]

 

[Xanadu84]

OR!!!

Back in the day, hitting was socially acceptable, a common form of punishment. If you didn't hit your child, chances are it's because the parent didn't care enough to discipline you. If those same parents who cared enough to discipline there kids, but did it in a way besides hitting, they might have been even more successful. Come on, Correlation does not equal Causation is Psych 101. There is likely not a more basic Psych Research skill. Also, lets not forget a very small population size, Sampling error is a very real possibility, and experimenter bias. I smell a rat.

In year 11 maths we were told to memorise the phrase "a cause-effect relationship can not be inferred." So, yeah. Just cause there's a correlation between two figures, doesn't mean they affect each other. Did you know that cities with more firemen have more fires per year, on average? And that cities with more churches have more crime, on average?

Also, almost 100% of Heroin addicts started there addiction by drinking milk. And, an increase in storks causes an increase in human babies.

Personally, I think, "Correlation does not equal causation" has a better ring to it, but I think that the cause-effect relationship is probably the single most important thing which children could ever learn in schools, which is usually not taught. Kudos to your school for doing so.

 

[Xanadu84]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to hit your kids as long as they deserve it. I was hit a few times as a kid and you better believe I learned my lesson. I think I'm better for it.
The biggest thing about it all is knowing where to draw the line.

Bad Idea: Hit your kids for stupid reasons, or because you're drunk or no reason at all.
Bad Idea: Don't chastise your kids and let them do whatever they want and become social degenerates.
Good Idea: Smack your kids if they get out of line but be reasonable and only hard enough to teach a lesson, not cause any real physical damage.

Better idea: use a mix of positive re-enforcement and negative punishment, usually in variable schedules, and cut out aggressive forms of positive punishment like corporal punishment which just brings about bad learning models. Scientifically speaking, it is a far more effective way to mold behavior, far better then smacking your child around, even if it is just enough to teach them a lesson. Hitting kids is frowned upon because, quite simply, it isn't as good as other strategies. Maybe a few people frown of hitting kids because there just wimps, but the people who know what there talking about don't hit there kid because they can point to the empirical data that says it is not a good idea.

 

[ribonuge]

I don't understand how anyone could hit a child. The necessity for smacking is driven by bad parenting in the first place. Also the human brain is so complex, that attributing good grades and success to being hit in early childhood - is a bit farfetched. Instead of smacking, why not use encouragement and logical explanations for punishments?

That's what the parenting books tell you is proper procedure. All that flies out the window when you've got a attention-deficient six year old breaking things in the house and screaming at you, knowing you won't do anything but talk in return.

A sharp swat to the bottom and a 'don't do that unless you want another' works wonders, when the child in question just plain won't listen.

Yes but why is the child doing that in the first place? Because of bad parenting. Children are alot more mentally advanced than you might think. There really isn't that much difference between a babies brain and an adults apart from sysnapses not being fully formed.There's even some benefits. For example when you look at something ie. your computer screen, your attention and awareness focus on that one thing. Whereas, with a baby their attention is on everything at once.

Thinking about it logically, if you were to hit a child what would it teach them? Fear? "Not to do it again" is what you say. But that is essentially not teaching them why they shouldn't do it, but to fear the parent. Violence never works in any situatuation. Even a stern slap on the wrist regularly would have made me hate my parents. If the child won't listen, it's because the method of discipline is flawed - or because you don't know the child in question. Impatience doesn't reward, from my experience in life.

 

[theguiltyone]

I don't understand how anyone could hit a child. The necessity for smacking is driven by bad parenting in the first place. Also the human brain is so complex, that attributing good grades and success to being hit in early childhood - is a bit farfetched. Instead of smacking, why not use encouragement and logical explanations for punishments?

That's what the parenting books tell you is proper procedure. All that flies out the window when you've got a attention-deficient six year old breaking things in the house and screaming at you, knowing you won't do anything but talk in return.

A sharp swat to the bottom and a 'don't do that unless you want another' works wonders, when the child in question just plain won't listen.

Thinking about it logically, if you were to hit a child what would it teach them? Fear? "Not to do it again" is what you say. But that is essentially not teaching them why they shouldn't do it, but to fear the parent. Violence never works in any situatuation. Even a stern slap on the wrist regularly would have made me hate my parents. If the child won't listen, it's because the method of discipline is flawed - or because you don't know the child in question. Impatience doesn't reward, from my experience in life.

Well in mine, spanking works. That was the method my father used, and you know, every time he did give me a swat, he sat down with me and explained why I got it, and why what I did was wrong. I learned faster that way than had he simply been talking to me, in which case I probably would have ignored him, or else been too young to understand. It curbed improper behavior and got me thinking BEFORE I did something. Spankings stopped at twelve, when I WAS old enough for pure explanation and punishments like grounding or loss of privileges would have been more effective. And I don't fear my father, or feel any anger towards him for what he did, because that spanking was accompanied with rationale and reason, rather than anger and impatience.

You're giving too much credit to the same kids who happily chew their own boogers because they can, I think. I'm not saying beat your child regularly, and never strike them in anger, of course. But a spanking does no real damage to a child, speaking as a child who DID get spanked, and it can be a powerful tool when just talking will not or cannot get through.

 

[ribonuge]

I don't understand how anyone could hit a child. The necessity for smacking is driven by bad parenting in the first place. Also the human brain is so complex, that attributing good grades and success to being hit in early childhood - is a bit farfetched. Instead of smacking, why not use encouragement and logical explanations for punishments?

That's what the parenting books tell you is proper procedure. All that flies out the window when you've got a attention-deficient six year old breaking things in the house and screaming at you, knowing you won't do anything but talk in return.

A sharp swat to the bottom and a 'don't do that unless you want another' works wonders, when the child in question just plain won't listen.

Thinking about it logically, if you were to hit a child what would it teach them? Fear? "Not to do it again" is what you say. But that is essentially not teaching them why they shouldn't do it, but to fear the parent. Violence never works in any situatuation. Even a stern slap on the wrist regularly would have made me hate my parents. If the child won't listen, it's because the method of discipline is flawed - or because you don't know the child in question. Impatience doesn't reward, from my experience in life.

Well in mine, spanking works. That was the method my father used, and you know, every time he did give me a swat, he sat down with me and explained why I got it, and why what I did was wrong. I learned faster that way than had he simply been talking to me, in which case I probably would have ignored him, or else been too young to understand. It curbed improper behavior and got me thinking BEFORE I did something. Spankings stopped at twelve, when I WAS old enough for pure explanation and punishments like grounding or loss of privileges would have been more effective. And I don't fear my father, or feel any anger towards him for what he did, because that spanking was accompanied with rationale and reason, rather than anger and impatience.

You're giving too much credit to the same kids who happily chew their own boogers because they can, I think. I'm not saying beat your child regularly, and never strike them in anger, of course. But a spanking does no real damage to a child, speaking as a child who DID get spanked, and it can be a powerful tool when just talking will not or cannot get through.

I learned faster that way than had he simply been talking to me, in which case I probably would have ignored him

Alright , would you say it would be appropriate and helpful if teachers were allowed hit children in their classes because they weren't getting something right all the time? You're missing my point. Violence just doesn't work in rearing children. If it did the world wouldn't have many problems and we'd be living in a Utopia. All that does is teach aggression. If anything the parent-child relationship in a violent setting (however minimal) is a social hierarchy. Similar to a Master-Slave relationship.

You're giving too much credit to the same kids who happily chew their own boogers because they can

No I am not. I don't think children chew their own mucous because they aren't spanked in childhood.

But a spanking does no real damage to a child, speaking as a child who DID get spanked

When you learn to self-psychiatry, please get back to me.

 

[Nomad]

I'm sorry, but no, I disagree. the vast majority of people I know who were never hit as children are pretentious morons who think themselves above the 'commoners' who were hit growing up. Like most things in life, the intention behind something is what does the most damage, like someone further up said, when you burn yourself you associate that pain with heat, you don't fear that cause, you just learn not to touch it. Fear and caution are two different things.

... Before going any further, I want proper statistics to back up your claim of "the vast majority" being the way you describe. Second, your argument is null and void by virtue of the countries that have prohibited child abuse (yes, that includes spanking and whatnot), such as Sweden, as someone mentioned.

Whether your parents believe in human rights or not has nothing to do with social or economic class. It has to do with emotional maturity and common decency. You have still not explained why hitting a child is better than hitting a stranger, or hitting your wife. Violence is always violence, regardless magnitude, target or purpose.

I wonder, by the way, how most of the proponents of this would react to me "smacking" my wife to "make her learn".

...wait, that comparison WAS a joke, right?

No. Explain to me what makes one better than the other. The only difference I can see is that your wife would be more able to defend herself than your child is.

I would also like to point out that whether or not beating your kid is good for him in the end is absolutely irrelevant in every way. You shouldn't beat your kid because it's mean. Violence is a primitive, unempathic and cruel solution to any problem. Regardless of efficiency, regardless of target, regardless of magnitude and regardless of purpose. Violence is violence. Period.

 

[Woodsey]

I (very) occasionally got a smack when I was younger - most of the time, if I was being a real shit, then I'd get the warning which was enough. I had quite a bit of a temper (inherited from my Dad) but I was never badly behaved.

My half-brother (age 6) on the other hand (child to my *****-witch of a step mum) has never been smacked, and he's a whiny little shit who cries at every opportunity.

EDIT:

At 17, a friend once told me,

"I told my mom to f*ck off one time, and she backhanded me so hard I'll never do it again."

He learned.

Just read that, which demonstrates everything exactly what I mean.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I'm sorry, but no, I disagree. the vast majority of people I know who were never hit as children are pretentious morons who think themselves above the 'commoners' who were hit growing up. Like most things in life, the intention behind something is what does the most damage, like someone further up said, when you burn yourself you associate that pain with heat, you don't fear that cause, you just learn not to touch it. Fear and caution are two different things.

... Before going any further, I want proper statistics to back up your claim of "the vast majority" being the way you describe. Second, your argument is null and void by virtue of the countries that have prohibited child abuse (yes, that includes spanking and whatnot), such as Sweden, as someone mentioned.

Whether your parents believe in human rights or not has nothing to do with social or economic class. It has to do with emotional maturity and common decency. You have still not explained why hitting a child is better than hitting a stranger, or hitting your wife. Violence is always violence, regardless magnitude, target or purpose.

I wonder, by the way, how most of the proponents of this would react to me "smacking" my wife to "make her learn".

...wait, that comparison WAS a joke, right?

No. Explain to me what makes one better than the other. The only difference I can see is that your wife would be more able to defend herself than your child is.

I would also like to point out that whether or not beating your kid is good for him in the end is absolutely irrelevant in every way. You shouldn't beat your kid because it's mean. Violence is a primitive, unempathic and cruel solution to any problem. Regardless of efficiency, regardless of target, regardless of magnitude and regardless of purpose. Violence is violence. Period.

Maybe you should pay attention. I said PEOPLE I KNOW.

 

[Virus0015]

Well I would detest the use of violence against children, but when you consider some of todays youth it doesn't seem to be worth protecting those kinds of morals. However violence is not the only solution, for example think how much better the UK would be if we simply chained all of the Chavs and so called "gangsters" to lamposts and fed them dogfood?

 

[McHanhan]

Were you smacked as a child?.

No i was not.I have near perfect parents.

But they let you play videogames *boo, hiss*

Utter rubiish. My cousin was smacked as a child and she's become a leech on society. I on the other hand did not, and I am now at University studying Artificial Intelligence and Cybernetics. You don't need to hit children to get them to behave. You just need to be a good parent.

Going to Uni in the UK means technically you are no less a leech on society.

Pay off your tuition fees, put your degree to good use then come back and tell us you're a productive member of society.

On the topic itself, as already stated, 180 odd people is too far a low number. Also, there are just too many factors to put into consideration to figure out what makes people more or less successful and productive in their communities.

I can agree with that. Perhaps the study needs further evaluation but still I think people are been too critical on this topic. Afterall it's not about beating your kids, it's about a firmer action that just grounding them or taking away their toys/games/computer.

 

[ae86gamer]

I was never hit. But I was threatened a hell of a lot.

And I'm doing good in school.