The Engineer's Notebook

I wasn't in the top 10%, but I was in the top 15% of my class and I received the occasional spanking. And it worked (granted, my dad is a large manual laborer, so it only took once getting spanked by his frying pan sized hands). I had exactly one detention in high school (skipped choir as a senior to pick up my prom tux) and was known for being laid back and only aggressive/violent in sports. As a matter of fact, I don't think I got into a fight after the fifth grade. But like your article says, that is just anecdotal and proof of nothing.

I think the key here is the lower-income part. Why just look at lower income? It seems that there are so many other variables to take into consideration in a lower income environment that can have an impact on how someone scores on an early aptitude test.

I am not saying beating a kid is a good idea; I actually frown upon it. But my wife and I both received the occasional smack on the rear-end when we crossed a line (she graduated salutatorian, by the way) and we turned out fine. And with my own kid on the way, I am sure he will get one occasionally, and I for one am not fearing that it will destroy his IQ.

And to think... if your wife had never been spanked, she could have been valedictorian!

I agree that looking at just lower income families may create a sort of bias. Also the frequency of the spankings should be taken into account. I was sentenced to the couch (with no television) or to my room a couple of times for misbehaving. I received that sort of punishment much more often than spankings. And I knew when I got a spanking that what I was doing was absolutely not acceptable. I think the punishment should fit the crime and that spanking should only be reserved for the most undesirable of behaviors.

Congratulations on the child on the way! And Good Luck!

adj. dumb·er, dumb·est 1. a. Lacking the power of speech. Used of animals and inanimate objects. b. Often Offensive Incapable of using speech; mute. Used of humans. See Usage Note at mute. 2. Temporarily speechless, as with shock or fear: I was dumb with disbelief. 3. Unwilling to speak; taciturn. 4. Not expressed or articulated in sounds or words: dumb resentment. 5. Nautical Not self-propelling. 6. Conspicuously unintelligent; stupid: dumb officials; a dumb decision. 7. Unintentional; haphazard: dumb luck. I suggest that using the term "Dumber" to mean, "Stupid" is offensive to all the very clever deaf and dumb people in the world. Choose your words more carefully please. This is not a PC comment it is showing respect to those will special needs. If you child was born deaf and dumb would you like it being equated with stupidity? Is this a form of prejudice and bigotry? Yes it is.

I think that this study is a little flawed because it focuses on low income families. There seems like too many variables to account for in these studies. Something is always missing!

The WebMD article actually didn't specify that the survey data was limited to lower-income families. One study drew the spanking conclusion "after accounting for factors that could influence IQ scores, such as parental education and socioeconomic status," and still concluded, "spanking appeared to have a negative impact on intelligence" (emphasis added). The second survey referenced mentioned that it was cross-cultural, but doesn't specify that those surveyed were selected based on income.

I definitely agree that the "studies" were not designed to account for relevant variables. I'm currently doing grad work in psychology, and I see these kinds of weaknesses in a lot of studies and papers. After discussing the issue with fellow students, professors, and some of the studies' authors, I think the primary issue is a lack of training in research methodology. A lot of psychology/psychotherapy grad programs offer just enough exposure to stats/data analysis to give the students an illusion of competency.

Unfortunately, some of the poor study designs are agenda driven, but if the peer reviewers share the same agenda as the author, the "studies" get the sacrosanct status of peer-reviewed science.

Did you go to page 2 of the article?

That is where I found: "The researchers questioned 2,500 racially diverse, low-income moms about their use of spanking as a discipline tool for their toddlers."

Yes, and I should have talked about that one too—my bad. I was just looking at the fact that not all of the surveys had been exclusively limited to low-income families. (Darn tunnel vision ).

I found it amusing that the "most rigorous" study drew conclusions about the IQ and overall mental health of three year olds. Assessing these kinds of things for really young kids is as much voodoo as measurement. Kids this young are very open to suggestion/influence by their examiners. You can't leave them alone to fill out written surveys; they have to be assessed verbally, and they will respond to verbal and non-verbal cues from their assessors. It was also funny that Berlin was drawing conclusions about the "long-term" impact of spanking based on an evaluation of three-year-olds. You would think that long-term pronouncements would be postponed at least until the subjects' neurological development was complete.

To really asses the long-term impact of child-rearing strategies, I believe it would be good to look at how subjects are doing after they have been "on their own" for at least five years. All of the subjects in all of the surveys referenced were still in the structured environments of home and/or school. It would be more interesting to know how they do after leaving the nest. It is a much more valuable assessment of the effectiveness of their training.

Incidentally, I really appreciate you bringing up this topic. I've been wanting to discuss it with folks outside of my social circle since the mainstream media turned the surveys into a story. Many thanks.

I totally agree with you. I bet that the parents who spanked did present other violent behaviors and screams. I am sorry but I need to compare a dog with a kid... if you kick and scream at the dog it is definetly going to be a lot stupider and wont know what you are trying to tell him. But does anyone know training techniques for dogs? There is NO SCREAMING OR HITTING, SPECIALLY HITTING. Dogs don't know they want to learn but they start to get it soon and once they are mature they know a lot of things like they don't go inside the house unless you tell them to, they dont go around peeing everywhere etc.

By the way... who tha hell spanks their 1yr old baby??? are these people nuts? I bet these parents have like 5 other children. common, thats another factor. This study is totally flawed, theres millions of factors involved here and its imposible to know if the parents are lying or not.

I would rather study their parents behaviour to know how children are going to grow up like. Its like they say, an apple never falls far from the apple tree... I bet its true

At the same time, home-schoolers are often home-schooled for religious reasons, and religious parents tend to use spanking as part of discipline and child training (http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin25.htm ).

You misinterpreted this. Fundamentalists (both Christian and Islamic) recommend violence, but most religious people do not. Several religions and religious sects are strongly anti-violence (the most obvious being Tibetan Buddhism) and the vast majority of Christians do not advocate violence. Many Christians (and others) follow the example of Jesus.

The article went on to say this:

We predict that:

The use of corporal punishment -- whipping, spanking, tongue burning, washing the mouth out with soap, etc. will continue to decrease in North America as public awareness increases of: The ineffectiveness of violence as a discipline method compared to other techniques. The long-term hazards of this form of discipline, including clinical depression, clinical anxiety, drug addiction, and alcohol addiction. The link between serious forms of punishment and rage, violent actions, and other criminal acts among youth.

I'm not sure I follow this. For the past 50 years or so, spanking and corporal punishment has been in decline. Fewer schools using corporal punishment, fewer parents spanking their children. While society is less well behaved today than it was 50 years ago. More children getting getting into trouble in school, in college, and even more adults misbehaving.

I know that's a very generalized observation, but not one that I think is easily dismissed. There are many factors at involved so I suspect optimal discipline methods are much more complicated than most are willing to admit.

One could say that time out it cruel if taken to an extreme. Is it healthy to give a time out of one month for spilt milk or any other behaviour for that matter? So an abusive whipping of a child is likewise inappropriate for mis-behaviour.

Is it healthy to give a time out of one month for spilt milk or any other behaviour for that matter?

I occasionally spill milk even now, and do not get punished for doing so. It would never occur to me to punish a kid in any way for spilling milk, unless the spilling was part of a pattern of bad behavior for attention, for aggression, etc. When my kids used to spill milk, they would immediately feel bad and would rush to clean it up. They feel bad mainly because they feel incompetent, and punishing them in any way, shape, or form would be some sort of sick psychological torture. Talk about kicking a kid when he's down!

When my kids would spill something, I would praise them for cleaning up so quickly. It is a time for consoling them, not for punishing them. As an adult, I feel like an ass when I spill something, and having someone punishment me would not foster any sort of trust: it would make me think the punisher is bordeline psychotic. Kids are not subhuman. But I would never punish a dog or cat for an accident, either. If a cat poops outside the litter box because I have failed to clean it, that's my fault, not the fault of the cat.

I've got to leave this discussion -- it's all too sick for me.

Yes.."Catch them doing something right!"

By my estimation, children are much more often reprimanded for wrongdoing than praised for doing right. On this same token, I estimate that a child's perception of being praised takes considerably more effort than reprimanding; i.e. 4 attaboys weighs as much emotionally as one spanking. Based on this estimate, our social culture needs 4 times the praise than reprimands.

I do not believe spanking makes you dumber. However, I do recommend that there be at least 4 rewards for every spanking to maintain emotional balance. An even higher ratio will improve society.

I too can eloquently direct languange without substantive import.

I think you missed my point or perhaps I did explain well enough to make my point clear. It's not about spilt milk. I used that as an example that I have often used in regard to punishment. I do not suggest punishment/discipline for spilling milk either. I am talking about an appropriate discipline for a child's action. So use another example...how about watching a TV show you told them not to watch? Is time out for a month appropriate? Of course not. And neither would a violent beating. That's the point I was trying to make. Many commentors want to equate a swat on the butt (whether painful or not) with a force level applied to a child far too severe for an adult to withstand.

You may not agree and you are entitled to your opinion.

Doug:

You couldn't be more right, except for one thing: I think you're too ready to give the benefit of the doubt to the social sciences. As measured against the desired outcome, namely the advancement of the cultural Marxist agenda, these research methods are not sloppy at all! On the contrary…

These methods produce exactly the results they are intended to produce.

I am reminded of the abuse of principal components analysis committed by Mann, et al. to produce the bogus "hockey stick" temperature curve in their now infamous paper which was then claimed to prove the existence of anthropogenic global warming.

Equally blatant are the countless studies, starting in the 1970's, which find no statistically significant differences between men and women (except when they can argue that men are inferior), because they lack the statistical power -- by design -- to distinguish between the presence and absence of such differences.

In each case, goal is good propaganda, not good science!

Yes, tell the people what they want to hear, according to the global filosophical beliefs of the moment, and then make up a "study" to tell them why they were right and you'll get your Ph D or maybe launch a best seller.

Yahlasit

Ooooh, drobertson, you totally stole my thunder. I was thinking the exact same thing: maybe dumb kids don't respond to anything but a swat. Maybe naturally aggressive kids can't be reached intellectually, and have to be dealt with corporally. (I don't actually believe any of this, mind you, but these are questions that don't seem to be addressed in the "study" as presented.) The report seems to have drawn the conclusion first, and found the evidence to support it.

"I," came from a lower income family, got spanked when needed, with a wide belt! My father knew that striking a child with the force present in a grown mans hands could injure a child severely. Besides that the strap looked more menacing and was always hanging around in plain site as a reminder of what I could expect if I disobeyed or crossed that well defined line. Spanking, not abused, is a fine tool for training children especially when one comes from a large family. I remember well Dr. Spock and his "Don't Spank Johnny" publication and I saw a generation of children grow up uncontrollable! AND; I read some 20 plus years that "SPOCK"admitted that he had gotten it wrong regarding the subject of "SPANKING".

TMF

By the way, Dr. Spock's son commited suicide.

Of course, here you are implying a cause-and-effect that is ENTIRELY unsubstantiated.

A reference to the "I got it wrong" would be great...I've read and heard about his theory and final outcome of his son.

I got wacked on the rear as a kid and hardly consider myself abused or diminished in any way. I was out of line and [IMHO]the wack is not a punishment but a firm reminder of who is in charge and I keep this in mind with my own children who are now very well behaved, do very well in school and, while not perfect, know to try hard and get great positive feedback from their parents instead of:

1. acting badly and getting negative feedback (a spank)

or worst

2. having no defined boundaries, discipline or direction to channel their creativity and energy. A kite needs a string pulling down to make it fly up...no string = no flight at all.

I know many will be discouraged or angered by this display of incongruity having worked diligently in hope of such acknowledgement which has been cheapened without conscious regard.

Does Getting Spanked Make You Dumber?

It has to be tunnel vision, how else could it be explained. Was stimulus money involved? I would be ashamed to be a party to this misrepresentation of education and waste of resources.

I've seen young kids tied to trees for lack of supervision, eating dirt, grow up to be well respected project engineers

I'm guessing there's an agenda...disgusting..................

"Spanking" should not be intended to inflict pain, but to express displeasure.

Is there something wrong with expressing displeasure verbally, just as adults do? We say to little kids who are fighting: "Use your words." We don't say: "Way to go kids -- beat the crap out of each other!" Those who spank do not spank to administer pleasure. They spank to administer pain and to humiliate. Otherwise the kid would not end up crying -- which seems to be the desired response.

If we want to teach our kids that violence is not the best response to conflict, then we can't have our response be a violent one. We need to talk, not hit.

Why would we want to teach our kids by example that hitting is a valid response to misbehaving? It doesn't prepare them for adulthood. Imagine if we treated adults as spankers treat kids: "John, I'm disappointed that you missed that deadline. Come over here for your spanking." Why is it OK to hit a tiny kid, but not OK to hit an adult?

Spankings desensitize kids to your words. They often humiliate kids when all the kid needs is some guidance, distraction, or attention. Because the parent is often angry or frustrated (which causes the parent to resort to spanking rather than thinking things through) at the time that the spanking is administered, the punishment is often out of proportion to the crime, and the kid gets the feeling that his parent is unfair and not to be trusted. That is not a good basis for a relationship.

Some good posts here.
Surely verbal punishment/abuse or even merely over harsh criticism can be as debilitating to a developing personality as a smack.
If you want to destroy someone's self confidence, verbal abuse is probably more effective.
I think many people would rather a short sharp smack than long telling off, the cold shoulder or other more enduring punishments.
It's a complex area, frequency and degree play an important part. Constant smacks (of sensible force) would loose impact? Whereas constant verbal criticism/belittling could be more destructive. Difficult to quantify, because the verbal would then become 'abuse'.

Anyhow, I like the new signature, I'm still voraciously contemplating it's veracity.
Del

Del:

Yes. Precisely. Thank you for pointing this out. (See also my post #24 in response to Blink.)

Oh yes, we say to kids "beat the crap out..." If you don't, then your kid is the one being beaten at school, and will grow up full of resentment and anger, and then, one day he'll go to school carrying a 38 Super, will shoot someone and everybody will say "I don't understand why this happened". Use your words my ass...

Yes a spank is supposed to deliver pain, make him realize he misbehaved, but not to humiliate.

I agree we need to talk, thats why we have diplomatics on our governments, but if it doesn't work, we also have an army.

It is still OK to treat an adult as a spanker treats kids; just let an adult do something real nasty to one of your beloved ones and I swear in God you'll be the first to not only "spank" him, but do all sorts of nasty things to himself.

When you spank, you should tell the reason, and not punish verbally your kid as well.

And finally, spanking doesn't come from frustrated parents, it comes from the fact that (in your childhood) you knew you were doing wrong, but kept going, you knew it was a bad idea and were already feeling guilty, but kept on going, you feared being discovered, but, you stubborn little devil didn't stop !

As a comment, when I was a kid and I deserved the punishment, my father hardly ever spanked me, and if so, he used to say first "You don't realize how I feel when I punish you, you just keep doing it, why ?".

Yahlasit

Blink,

I agree that talking to a child is a good thing, however a childs mind has not developed to a point that they can reason well. They do understand a swat on the hind quarters which somtimes brings tears. Now tell me, when a child that is wearing and inch or more of padding is swatted and they begin to cry, is it because pain was inflicted, or because they recongnize this action as dissapointment from the parent.

I firmly believe that it is a way to get thier attention, then they will begin to learn/understand what is expected. After all, I do not believe God was mistaken.

It strikes me (no pun intended) as really strange that this study is considered astounding. Child psychologists have advised against spanking for decades. Even when I was a kid, in the 1950's, it was considered bad practice by people who cared about such things and studied child psychology and child development. Physical abuse as a form of behavior mod does not work effectively if you want a loving, responsive, engaged kid. Obviously, hitting kids teaches them that violence is a means to achieving control over others. Such kids would be expected to become bullies and discipline problems. Abused kids very often do much worse in school, partly because they don't respond to ordinary (non-violent) discipline. Teachers cannot hit kids (for good reasons), and so if a kid only responds to physical punishment, then the teacher finds the kid impossible to control. Then such kids don't receive the attention that other better-behaved kids receive.

My parents were both valedictorians, and their parents virtually never spanked them, even in the early part of the 20th century. My brothers and I were only very rarely if ever spanked, and we were all 99% percentile kids (well, OK, except for the middle one, who was a point or two down from that). I've never spanked my kids, and would have felt profoundly stupid to have to do so: Picture this: a full grown adult outwitted to the extent that he feels compelled to physically abuse a two year old because he can't figure out how to elicit the behaviors he wants? Who would want to be in that situation?

Murray Straus is incorrect, from my perspective, when he says "The best kept secret of American child psychology is that kids who are not spanked are the best behaved and do the best in life. You won't find that in a single child development textbook, but it is true." I've read numerous parenting books (almost 20 years ago) and one or two child development texts from my college days (more like 40 years ago) and only one of those books (which was written by an absolute right-wing wacko authority freak) advised that spanking or other methods of physical abuse were anything but a bad idea.

It makes me wonder if a study on falling on your butt (simulating being spanked) would correlate to a lower IQ.

There is a profound difference between accidents and deliberate intimidation of a very small person by a very large person. Small children imitate what they are shown. So if you hit them to get your way, they will hit others to get their way too. It's simple.

I wonder if traffic violations might better be punished on the spot by a good pistol whipping by the cop?

agree & a GA.

"It's not the method of punishment but the attitudes, responsibilities, perspective, objectivity and mentoring involved."

spanking works best during the formative ages of children, and when the parent makes sure the erring child knows and understands why he/she is being punished.

Agreed. There a big contrast in the outcome between a child that is beat and left to figure things out on their own (we've all been in trouble before and not really understood why, haven't we?) and one that gets a pop on the butt to get their attention and (perhaps after a brief timeout to calm down) gets a thorough, child-level discussion about what they did wrong, why it isn't right, what is right and the positive reasurance that doing it right will make the parent very happy and proud. Follow through with being happy and proud when they do well.

Interesting...as a counter to your experience, both of my parents were valedictorians also. However, my mother's father was quite strict...possibly abusive by todays standards but I've never heard her speak of him as abusive with discipline. My father's father was quite physically abusive. My parents did not spare me discipline by any means. They were not abusive, but if I got out of line, I was spanked. Neither of my parents could be considered bullies and nor am I. While I did not turn out to be a valedictorian (perhaps they should have spanked me more.....or less?) I was an honor student academically and not badly behaved either (while in school or since then).

Our opposing experiences are only a small sample size, so perhaps is not significant to anyone but us.

Perhaps raising children to be well adjusted good citizens of average to high IQ has more to do with how the discipline is administered than what the actual disciplinary action is. Even though I didn't enjoy being punished, I knew I deserved it because of my actions (the majority of the time) . I'm not sure what goes through a child's mind when they are unjustly punished on a regular basis. I can certainly see how that may twist them. But such early abuses can be overcome....my father is living proof.

You said "I wonder if traffic violations might better be punished on the spot by a good pistol whipping by the cop?"

Actually it might for a segment of the population. Please don't get me wrong, I am in favor of such a form. Nearly all traffic violators are have passed the point of neurological development (I was going to say adults, but then it dawned on me that perhaps a significant % are still teens). Is it not reasonable to think a different type of punishment/discipline would be effective?

It is difficult, if not impossible, to reason with a 2 year old and it's barely easier with a 6 or 8 year old. If they respond well to taking away their toys or time out...that's great....if they respond better to a spanking, I see nothing wrong with that if it administered with love, is just (discipline fits action) and is consistent so the child knows what consequences to expect for their behavior.

Our opposing experiences are only a small sample size, so perhaps is not significant to anyone but us.

Of course.

I think that the idea that spanking causes a reduction in IQ would take a phenomenal amount of study to prove or even strongly suggest. (There are countries in which spanking is practiced much less than it is here, in which IQ's and performance on other standardized tests is higher. However the cultures are different in many other ways, so no conclusion regarding spanking can reasonably be drawn.)

I am not defending the study. My surprise is only with the notion that some think this is a new idea. It is essentially Dr Spock's well-publicized idea that teaching kids to deal with conflict by physical violence is not a good idea. Dr Spock's rationale* seems pretty logical to me, and his views were widely supported by even hard-core conservatives like my parents -- who would spank as a last resort. I, personally, have never had the need to spank. (Spock never recanted his position on spanking, incidentally, but instead said that he thought we, as a society, may have been too permissive. Spanking is a completely different issue than discipline.)

My kids are extraordinarily disciplined, according to their teachers, other parents, etc., despite having been raised by gentle parents. Perhaps the reason we could always find something to motivate correct behavior without spanking had more to do with the kids' innate willingness to please their parents, and nothing to do with spanking or not spanking.

In animal training, beating the animal is ineffective. Most enlightened horse trainers no longer train by beating the horse, and the results are better. My son is something of a "horse whisperer" and can administer medication to unsocialized horses quietly and gently and far more quickly than those who treat the horses roughly. The horses are apparently able to sense that he means them no harm, whereas they correctly sense that some others do mean them harm, as evidenced by being willing to administer pain (with twitches, etc) as a first resort, in the interests of saving some time. Many trainers have found that gaining the horse's trust works better in every respect than intimidation does.

In psych lab I worked with rats in Skinner boxes, and positive reinforcement was far more effective than negative reinforcement.

Perhaps raising children to be well adjusted good citizens of average to high IQ has more to do with how the discipline is administered than what the actual disciplinary action is.

I seriously doubt that much can be done with discipline to raise or lower IQ, (in its traditional meaning -- high IQ kids can be identified at very young ages and at advanced ages -- and the score does not change appreciably). There is some evidence that early experiences positively influence what we have called IQ (listening to a lot of music, for example) but there is overwhelming evidence that IQ is passed on genetically. There is a strong correlation between the standard IQ tests and SAT tests. Originally, the SAT tests were intended to measure only "aptitude" (thus the A in SAT) and it was thought, for a long time, that studying for the SAT was pointless. Kaplan proved that to be wrong, but nevertheless, the largest gains have been on the order of 10% -- most of what is measured appears to be innate.

And much of what is measured is of little utility, other than for convenience in directing kids to a particular college or career path. I happen to have scored well on these tests, but meet people everyday who have not, and nevertheless do much better at loads of things than I do. George Bush had particularly low SAT scores, but nevertheless made it to the Presidency. I think Gardner's multiple intelligences is a better model.

Physical violence is a continuum that begins with hitting with the intention of causing pain or humiliation. It can then escalate, and many of us have witnessed cases that make us uncomfortable, by our standards, if a spanking seems far too vigorous for the "crime." By the spanking parent's standards the spanking seems "just right." This thread provides evidence of that range, with several posters suggesting that having one kid beat the crap out of another is a good thing. Where I live, it was not too long ago that slaves were brutally and routinely beaten, and the consensus then was that such behavior was just fine.

I'd rather ere on the side of non-violence.

All of this is off topic, I suppose. One logical answer to the question is "Yes, it makes sense that abusing kids leads to them doing poorly in school (by a chain of events that Dr Spock proposed) and yes, it makes sense that if we teach kids, by example, to use violence instead of reason, reward, or motivation to change behavior, that this could lead to behavior problems that might in turn lead to problems in school. It would take one heck of a study to prove any of this however. But is spanking abusive? To me it is a slippery slope, and I have not personally found any need for spanking. So why do it?

Spock was at his peak of popularity when I was a kid. SAT scores were higher then than they have ever been -- we were getting ready to put a man on the moon, and had a focus on science. SAT scores have dropped ever since with a full 50 point re-centering being required a decade or two ago. As acceptance for spanking has increased after the Spock days, kids have gotten dumber. So there is a correlation, but again, it is impossible to say that the cause is renewed acceptance of spanking.

There are two conditions: 1. You have a kid who cannot be disciplined by means other than hitting. Then you have a serious problem demanding professional help. What are you going to do when the kid gets big? Shoot him? 2. You have a kid who can be disciplined by means other than hitting. Then use those other means.

What is so appealing about hitting and intimidating by force?

*"Despite its common acceptance, spanking is a less effective strategy than timeout or removal of privileges for reducing undesired behavior in children. Although spanking may immediately reduce or stop an undesired behavior, its effectiveness decreases with subsequent use. The only way to maintain the initial effect of spanking is to systematically increase the intensity with which it is delivered, which can quickly escalate into abuse. Thus, at best, spanking is only effective when used in selective infrequent situations."

From this.

"Spock was at his peak of popularity when I was a kid. SAT scores were higher then than they have ever been...SAT scores have dropped ever since..."

Does this not suggest that possibly Spock's approach had a negative impact on the development of subsequent generations?

Not that correlation proves causal relationships...

One of the very few comments that make sense. Bravo, GA

Thank you for adding true perspective to this otherwise seat of the pants issue

Oy-vey, Guest! Could you please enlighten us with the definition of Marxism? I grudgingly agree with some of what you've said (I too, am disgusted by "political correctness" -- the term itself gags me), but why did "Marxist" become code for "Obama-liker?"

"Cultural Marxism" pretty much sums it up. Well said.

Please define cultural Marxism for the sake of my understanding your commentary.

Hey Blinkster, you sort of contradicted your own point: your parents were valedictorians, and they were spanked ("virtually never"). You and your siblings were 99th-percentile kids, and you were spanked ("only very rarely if ever"). What conclusion should we draw from this information?

I find this astounding that this 'study' is worth discussing.

It smacks more of a researcher attempting to push an agenda rather than real science.

Sorry, I'm sure the papers are wearing all the correct window dressings and the text hits all of the right hot buttons, but if the experiment summary makes you smack your forehead...

You tested the IQs of three year olds? Really?

Mensa must be banging on your door for prospective members.

The researchers are a product of there own childhood could I hazard a guess they were not spanked as children?? Also a long with a % of the populations in what were classified as advanced countries, I doubt the family's of other countries would have the time or patience to promote such twaddle.

To digress the natives of the Amazon living in isolation seem to be able to raise children who love there parents and vice versa without such psychological twaddle.

So for the last 40 years Dr Spock's mandate has been followed by unknown numbers of families and yet I look around and find my self surrounded by a large numbers of dumb people, they reside in all walks of life unfortunately a lot of them in government and judicial and academia where they berate us with some of the most stupid rubbish that to my way of thinking is incomprehensible. A point in question yesterday a mother was arrested by the police for assaulting her child with a weapon[ read wooden spoon] her child was overheard by a teacher in school talking about it. If this is not the height of stupidity I would like somebody to explain it to me.

If this is the case where did all these dumb people come from? I rather think Dr Spock's prodigies are just the opposite of what this survey has produced, I certainly received a good lashing from my father when I was a young lad for playing with matches and setting fire to something which was not appreciated, it taught me a very positive lesson and as far as I can tell has not distorted my outlook on life. In school the cane was used on the boys one teacher was really into this, ask me which teacher I remember most vividly? it certainly focuses the mind.

I conclude from this that corporal punishment inhibits the development of spelling, punctuation, and grammar skills.

Yea I agree with most of the posts here. I was spanked a lot as a child and...

Why am I posting this again?

O yeah. I was spanked a lot as a child and I graduated high school with a 4.0 and I graduated college with nearly a 3.9 (degree in mechanical engineering).

My parents tried various methods of punishing me. Anything from time-out to spanking. I always found loop holes in the punishment or ways to pretend I was being disciplined without actually suffering (ie I would hide toys and play with them as soon as my parents turned around). With spanking, however, I found ways to soften the blow but the point always got across. It rarely took more than one spanking for me to stop a particular bad behavior.

2,500 low income moms surveyed....data pulled from one targeted group, a very small one at that, when considering the entire population of the globe is the basis for the claim. I wonder how many low-income moms were surveyed in China? South America? Somewhere outside of North Carolina? This makes randomness of her data suspect as well. Alas, what do I know.. I am just a dumb (must be I was subject to corporal punishment) chemical engineer. Come to think of it most of my engineering, doctoral, and barrister/solicitor (that's a lawyer for all the "spanked" readers) friends must be stupid as well. I am sure she knows what she is doing; she did poll ~ .00004% of the global population and I am sure she considered the demographics. Anyway, 2 other people agreed with her armed with data and citations...oh wait, my mistake, those were just opinions that must be true because one of them is in on "The best kept secret". Well, at least they spelled out IQ for all the "spanked" people.

Thanks to Bliss for one sane voice in this madness. Here is one simple line for the, I-got-spanked-and-it-didn't-do-me-any-harm, brigade. Violence is no solution to our problems. To the guest on about the holy book, spare the rod etc, what about a quote from another holy man, "Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love.. Dr Martin Luther King The only time Jesus raised a stick was to beat the money changers out from the temple. Maybe we should try that instead of letting cops beat motorists. Then the money men may have thought twice about filling their pockets, whilst at the same time, bankrupting the western economy. (OK, lets settle for impounding their yachts and get something back from the money grabbing asses.) Children deserve better treatment than pain, and humiliation; which is how a beating feels, in case you smackers have all forgotten. Try a cuddle when they are out of line. Try and sing an old song, your mother sang to you, to make then feel valued, instead of abused. Use you petrified imaginations to divert them, because as a father of three, I can tell you, it works better than a slap. Trying to instill obedience, through inflicting pain, is folly. Better still, teach them that it is reasonable to challenge and question authority. Not follow orders, like a sheep or a peasant bowing to the Lord of the Manor. The cycle of violence must be broken. Children need protection. Gone are the days when a teacher at your local school could pick up a belt and beat your child; and a very good riddance to those days, and their kind, Yet, some still feel justified in beating and inflicting pain on their own children at home. Shame on you. Hold your heads and weep, like your children did. You don't like the survey? Tough. I'm buying it. Suck it up and reconsider you own moral ineptitude. Your inablity to show love to you kids when they need you most. As for Dr Spock. To bring up this tragic event in order to back up a feeble argument that tries to legitimise violence is indefensible. You owe Leonard Nimoy an apology. My siblings were smacked, so was I, but I never had to smack my kids. I broke the cycle of violence. My son is the only one of numerous grandchildren who visits, telephones and shows any respects to his grand parents. He is kind and gentle, and yes, he took beatings in the school playground from children who had violence in there lives, but at least he knew they were the fools, the predatory and the unkind, not him. I am proud of him. To the guest who is bleating on about cultural marxism. This is not a political or idealogical issue. It is an issue relating to the family. Leave the social scientist alone, who are trying to discover why there is so much violence around. 2500 is not a small sample group. It takes a lot of work to analyise this kind of data. It's not like measuring the tensile strength of steel. It is much more complex, with many variations. You need to narrow the research to a manageable control group. Here is my hunch, maybe it was the fact that you beat your child that led to my child being a target for violence in the school playground. So stop it. We want our children live in peace and harmony, without the threat of violence. If anyone is taking the easy way out on this debate, it is you who preach that violence is justifiable. It is you who won't listen and try to make change. Where has your tradition of violence within the family led us to?

I will NOT hang my head and weep. Read my other comments... I did not beat my children. They were spanked occasionally. They are NOT violent. I am not violent. My grandchildren love me. I teach Nursery at my church. I was spanked occasionally. My children were spanked occasionally. My grandchuldren were and are spanked occasionally. I still love my parents. My children and I still have a GREAT relationship. My grandchildren love to come over and visit.

Most of the families I have had experience with being around that NEVER punished, only "hugged" and talkded to thier chldren about what they did wrong, had serious discipline problems with their children. I am very glad you have not had that problem. The punishment should fit the offense; AND the punishment for the same offense should be different depending on the child. Know your kids and what works for them.

Having no form of discipline (spanking or otherwise) may teach children that there are no consequences for their actions or if they do something wrong, they can get away with it.

No one here has proposed "no form of discipline." The issue is not discipline but the form of discipline. Why do you believe it is OK to hit a kid, but not an adult... or do you treat adults violently too?

Be mindful that the hardness of the spank determines whether it is discipline or abuse.

The same was said of whipping slaves. For some, if no blood was drawn, everything was fine. For others, if the welts went away after a week or two everything was OK. I would stipulate that if you can't figure out how to discipline without violence, then it is likely that you can also not figure out what level of pain or humiliation is appropriate. From my observations, at least, parents routinely spank until tears flow, and if a kid laughs in response to spanking that only angers the parent, causing harder spanking. Likewise if the kid seems "defiant."

If a kid truly knows that you love him and knows that he can talk with you, then all you need to do is say that you're disappointed, hurt, angered, or embarrassed by a particular behavior. That is punishment enough. If your kid does not "get" that without having to also hit him, then you've failed at establishing love, trust, and meaningful communication. If my wife tells me that I have hurt her, she does not need to follow up with a punch.

I have seen hundreds of poorly-disciplined, rude, loud, obnoxious kids getting spanked in restaurants, stores, etc. I have seen very few appropriately disciplined kids behaving this way. That would seem to suggest that spanking does not work well.

If you are considered to be 'beating your child' then you are not spanking them, you are physically abusing them!

I consider people who spank their kids to be beating them.

Given there are so many effective means of discipline in which the child develops his or her own moral compass that do not involve violence, why choose violence? What makes your kid so special, or yourself so uncreative, that you feel you need to hit him or her?

King was right. At every level, violence begets violence.

I do not believe that spanking is hitting a child. Spanking a child is a way of conveying that you are very displeased by their actions. I define spanking as a swift slap to the butt. No marks or bruises. I also personally believe that using belts or wooden spoon to spank children is unacceptable. This is just where I draw the line. Do not presume that just because I believe that spanking children (within the terms of my beliefs) that I condone any violent treatment of any individual. And it is equally unacceptable to pass judgment by suggesting that I treat adults violently.

It seems to me that you believe that hitting and spanking are the same thing as you seem to use them interchangeably in your comment. I wonder, why is the child crying? If they are crying because it hurts, then it is abuse. If the child is crying because they feel humiliated, I believe that that is what the point of spanking really is. I am not saying that humiliating children is always right, but it is the times when I am most humiliated that I rethink my actions and opinions before repeating the same mistake. As an adult, humiliation of that sort usually comes via verbal reprimand, but this is a different matter and I am deviating from my argument or main point.

If a parent is easily angered when a kid laughs in response to spanking and responds by spanking harder, then they are a problem area. They need to recheck their emotions and try another approach with regards to discipline.

I also don't agree with spanking in public. Discipline should be applied once the child is removed from the situation. There are many different ways to spank your children. Just like there are many variables that alter your IQ, there are many different variables that determine how your child grows up as a result of spanking. Variables like, how hard was the child spanked? to how often? are questions that need to be answered before you can correlate spanking to rude, loud, and obnoxious kids. I don't need examples of how one spanking made a kid grow up bitter. There are outliers and exceptions to every rule.

I am uncreative because I believe that spanking is a valid use of punishment for a child for some situations? No. I believe that spanking is a valid use of punishment because of my own personal experiences with my parents spanking me and watching children grow up without a good structure of punishment. I am not saying that my beliefs will never change, but for now, I believe that spanking is valid as a form of punishment when used mindfully.

I do not believe that spanking is hitting a child.

I'd suggest taking a physics course. Belief does not enter into it.

Others, unlike you, "believe" that using belts, spoons, canes, and whips are all just fine. There are several in this discussion who take that position -- one law violator, in particular, thinks a belt is just peachy. Presumably, because you do not want to be judged you will not judge those others. Nor will you judge the societies that carry the punishment idea further and cut off hands for theft. Cultural relativism and "it's just a matter of degree" would suggest that this practice is OK too, I suppose.

One of our kids was in the Cornell University Early Childhood Development program. Ithaca is a place where one rarely sees kids getting spanked, (because all Ithacans are Marxist, I have learned) but certainly in the ECD program kids were never spanked, and the level of discipline was far better than in the southern public school where my children eventually went, in a town in which kids were routinely spanked in public (and if others are like you, one could assume that kids there were spanked more frequently in private.) The ECD people knew how to control and nurture kids because they were exceptionally well-trained and educated in the subject matter (imagine that!) If parents read the child development literature, and are willing to learn rather than simply carry "beliefs" from generation to generation (as we carried the belief that slavery was OK, and that women should not be allowed to vote, from generation to generation) most will find that few respected programs such as that at Cornell recommend spanking.

I am uncreative because I believe that spanking is a valid use of punishment for a child for some situations?

Not necessarily. You are uncreative temporarily, I'd say, if you can't think of a better and more effective way of disciplining a child than a swift slap. But that is only my opinion, and I imagine that you are creative in many aspects of your life and also imagine that you are genuinely well-intentioned. I only offer the dissenting view here for balance. It seems that the good answer votes are strongly in favor of the violent approach.

Hello Blink,

This is my good answer for you, and those who believe that mouthing off at little children is sufficient to get children to stop doing something that annoys those you may be visiting, or those you may be sharing space with such as in a Dr. office, etc.

By your shouting at your misbehaving children you are annoying others who must share the same area with you, even more than your child. Parents who discipline there children are rarely told not to come back with their children. However: I have personally witnessed parents of unruly children being told not to return with their children, to find someone else to watch said children. I have dated women with children, who I was truly fond of, considering even settling down with, (marriage) only to find that their children were out of control, "hopelessly" because mom didn't discipline them when they needed it. I have ended these relationships quickly. I have had to ask friends to leave my home, when I was married, and raising my own children. because they didn't discipline their children and said children were absolute "BRATS". My children would ask why they couldn't do as the other children were doing and not getting punished for said conduct.

By not doing that which is necessary to educate you children as to what is acceptable behavior when in the presence of others, you hurt your child. I am not talking about striking a child with a fist, wooden spoon or any other hard object. I frown on striking any child with a hard object or even the broad side of my hand. A wide strap looks menacing and if there is a double layer of said strap, it is even better, as it will make a loud cracking sound when the punishment is administered, but it actually is less painful than a switch, and unlikely to leave any evidence of punishment. We are not talking about just beating up on a child every time they get it wrong. After all we learn by our mistakes, even as children, but children will naturally test parental authority. However when a child decides to challenge parental authority, swift a decisive punishment is in order, not for the satisfaction of the parent, but for the benefit of the child.

Frankly, I have friends who raised their children your way. The wife is a school teacher, and a very religious lady. They have four children, three of them are now adults. One is incarcerated, and another has ruined his brain, all doing drugs. The younger son got the discipline that the older two did not and stayed away from the drug scene. The youngest child, a daughter, has seen what has happened to her older brothers and has learned by watching what is acceptable conduct and what is not. She can well be described as a perfect little lady. She has had to receive very little discipline through out her life, she is now 18 yrs. old.

Your obligation as a parent is to provide your children with an ample opportunity to succeed in life after they leave the nest. My children avoided the drug scene, and are now all raising their own families. In this world of excessive temptation, I believe that the record shows that, my method of rearing my children worked and yours may not.

TMF

Frankly, I have friends who raised their children your way.

You don't have a clue how I raised my children.

By your shouting at your misbehaving children you are annoying others who must share the same area with you,

I have never had to shout at my kids to get them to be quiet in restaurants or elsewhere. If there has ever been any criticism of my son, it is that he doesn't speak up. In my experience at least, it is the spankers who shout and scream -- it is all a continuum of failed discipline and inappropriate methods to gain control. If you have to hit a kid to gain control, you are probably doing something very wrong, or simply taking the lazy way out for short term gain without thought given to the consequences. It is little different than a bar fight -- if you have to throw punches to "prove your point" you've already lost -- you're a redneck nitwit. Sure, you can beat the crap out of the other guy, and perceive yourself to have gained the upper hand -- but a guy with intact confidence and self-esteem would have long since left the scene.

You seem to have surrounded yourself with poorly-disciplined kids. Most of my friends have charming, polite, quiet kids. You need to increase your sample size, by a factor of 1000.

Amazing as this may seem to you, I am not a drug addict or criminal, and did not raise my kids as your friends did. It would be safe to assume that they did many things wrong in raising their kids (as everyone does, including me), and that adding beating to the mix may not have changed things, but probably would have made things much worse. Serious abuse is common in families where drug addiction is a factor. If they spent their time shouting at their kids, then something was probably very wrong with their discipline approach -- or to be fair, perhaps their kids were sociopaths, and they did as well as can be expected. Some kids are wired for addiction, and become addicted under the same conditions as other kids who are experimenting. 50% of highschoolers have done drugs, but a relatively small (but still too large) percentage get addicted. It is easy for you or I to say that they are bad parents, but they may have done the best they could.

Shouting is not discipline, spanking is not discipline, caning is not discipline, mouth burning is not discipline, cutting off fingers is not discipline. In virtually all industrialized, civilized countries, spanking is illegal, and crime rates are lower in those countries than here.

There are very large differences between discipline and violence. Violence toward children includes verbal violence. My kids have never been loud in restaurants, unless the setting encourages loudness (as in Chucky Cheese). I have never had to shout at them, or "mouth off" as you say, to get them to behave well.

Well-disciplined kids are not too unlike well-disciplined dogs -- practically thrilled to behave well and get praise for it. My daughter gets a kick out of teaching our old dog new tricks and she is expert at it. Not once has she had to raise her voice. And the dog wags his tail like crazy when he gets it right.

I believe that the record shows that, my method of rearing my children worked and yours may not.

The only "record" of any merit here is the behavioral research. Obviously, you think you did well, and I think I did well -- but that is true of virtually all parents, no matter how abusive they are. The anectdotal evidence is just stories -- essentially BS. Real research supports the contention that spanking is counter-productive, and many well-respected organizations, such as the American Pediatric Asociation, support this contention, based upon the research findings. Laws around the world support this contention.

The only way of knowing if one method works better than another is to do the science. People always "believe" that their parenting method is best. But the people who know what the heck they are talking about, the behavioral scientists, say spanking is not a good practice.

My personal experience says that refraining from spanking produces kids that win competitions on the national level, that are 99 percentile accedamically, are consistently praised by teachers and volunteer organisations as being unusully polite, well-behaved, and genuinley engaged in doing the right thing. I know other parents who have used the same disciplinary techniques with simiar results. I likewise know a few parents who will spank under some condtions, and their kids turned out OK, too. But this is all annecdotal. The research is all we can use to make rational decisions.

There is a profound difference between letting kids run amuk, and appropriately disciplining kids. But don't take my word for it -- read the literature.

In this world of excessive temptation...

There has always been "excessive temptation." When I was a kid, alcohol was available, hookers were available, drugs were available. This was true centuries ago, too. Most well-socialized people do not find those things "tempting".

Sorry for the long post... I don't have time to edit it.

Shouting is not discipline, spanking is not discipline, caning is not discipline, mouth burning is not discipline, cutting off fingers is not discipline. In virtually all industrialized, civilized countries, spanking is illegal, and crime rates are lower in those countries than here.

Thank you for pointing out that discipline is recognizing an order or code of conduct. Though lower crimes rates in other countries maybe correctly attributable to differences in what constitutes a crime than whether they spank or not.

Other than situations where safety is an issue I believe attempts by many parents at correcting a child's conduct in public is an indication of their incompetence, however as noted strong willed children will test your mettle and public venues are not off-limits to them. I would no sooner pull a child's pants down an swat their behind in the public eye than I would berate a subordinate in view or hearing of others especially his contemporaries.

Shouting has a very unsettling effect on all sensible individuals except those whom only get negative attention and they respond in more aggressive or confrontational ways, go figure.

In the toddler stages children and puppies have much in common, both good and bad.

Everyone should realize that any method a parent chooses to employ for behavior modification can be used improperly as can any other tool. Possibly in low income domestic situations parents may become overwhelmed as can occur in any situation especially when resources are limited and immediate social interaction is seen as burdensome. In perspective many have no concept of the pressures experienced by low income parents in much of the world.

Sorry about that "Blinky", didn't mean to push your hot button with so much force that it would cause you to "Explode"

Allow me though to make this point with out you coming to a complete melt down. Clearly you and your family live on the right side of the "Tracks". You may or may not be wealthy, but you and yours are certainly living a bit higher up the hill than most of the American public. I know this just from analyzing you remarks and reading your posts. Likely, you have had lots of time to spend with your babies as they have grown up. More likely than not you didn't permit your children ("kids are the off spring of goats") to hang out on the "corner" as is often the case in city centers. And just as likely, you were a careful parent who didn't permit your children to associate with other children whom you may have determined to be trouble makers or excessively mischievous. Likely you are the model mom as were those actresses who played on the Donna Reed Show and Father Knows Best, the Brady Bunch, etc.

However , life stiles of those who live down the line, where both parents worked hard for just enough money to feed and clothe their children, are much more stressful than yours seems to be. I grew up knowing that there were families only a few miles from where I lived, who lived in homes that were less crowded than mine, where each of the two or three at the most children had their own bed rooms, and their moms shopped in the finer stores for their clothes and never wore "hand me downs" to school or even play. These parents and children knew that a college education was in their future because these parents were much better paid. The environment that children grow up in is far different for families such as I have just defined. My father got no pleasure out of punishing me or my siblings. I really didn't get many spankings in my life and neither did the others. However; we all knew that discipline is a part of growing up, spankings were the punishment of last resort, and if you got one you did something to deserve it.

What we did not learn was to hate our parents. What we did learn was that our parents cared enough about us to resort to spanking us if it clearly was appropriate. The last child I spanked was my son Jimmy, he had just turned 12 yrs. old. Jimmy was a good child but just enjoyed antagonizing his sisters and mother to no end. His mom had been telling him that if he didn't stop, the result would be a spanking.

I came home form work one late afternoon, and his mom met me at the door, gave me a kiss and a hug as was customary with us. Then she said" Jimmy is in hes room, and needs to be spanked. I said "OK" what has he done to deserve a spanking. His mom stated that he was just getting totally out of hand, challenging her when she would tell him to stop annoying his sisters, and just doing everything he could to annoy her also when she was trying to get her work done. (My wife worked at home). She said that this had been going on for some time and now it was time to put this conduct to a stop.

After I had consumed an iced tea, I went to Jimmy's room and closed the door. I was not angry. I would never spank a child when I might be angry. I asked him if he knew what he was being punished for and he said "yes" and related that he had been turning the light on and off in the room where his mom was working. I said, that doesn't seem to be enough for your mom to request that I spank you, what else have you done to deserve to be spanked? He then really poured it all out. He mentioned things that he had done for which I had advised him that he was going to get spanked if he didn't straighten up, the many times he had annoyed his mom and sisters. and just generally disobeyed his mom, the dumping went on for about what seemed 10 minutes at the time. Then I told him that this would be the last time he would be spanked, that in the future punishments would be much longer lasting. Things like he would not be permitted to use my boat to go fishing when ever he wanted to, or maybe not be permitted to ride his motorcycle for a week or maybe even a month, etc. "Jimmy said", "well", "I'm glad that I am old enough that this will be my last spanking", and I understand that I must be punished when I do things that I shouldn't, and I understand that punishments will not be quick, that they will be lasting, long enough for me to really get the message, but I know that I deserve to be punished when I do wrong. With that he turned his butt to me and bent over. He got whacked only once. Then he asked is that all, and I said yes. I do not enjoy having to punish my children, especially when I have worked hard all day. You got the message today, don't forget it. I do not enjoy disciplining my children at all, but I would not be a good father if I didn't live up to my responsibility. "Jimmy, Donna and Elizabeth, were my step children, but I was really the only father they had ever known"

TMF

I think that perhaps the use of the word violence may be too broadly applied with regards to discipline by spanking.

Violence:noun

1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.
3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
4. a violent act or proceeding.
5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.
6. damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration: to do editorial violence to a text.

I do not think those of us that are in favor of spanking are in anyway advocating the use of intense force, rough or injurious physical force, unjust or unwarranted exertion of force. The spankings that were administered to me hurt. But so did a significant amount of horse play with my friends. So did stepping on sand-spurs or walking on a hot road barefoot which I did voluntarily as a kid, although not for the purpose of inflicting pain on myself, but because I did not want to wear shoes when I played outside. I learned that my actions had consequences.

I am not opposed to, nor think it's a bad idea to use other forms of discipline.

Another issue that really hasn't been mentioned is that when children are really too young to understand logic and have a limited vocabulary(under 3 years old) they should obey their parents without question. That doesn't mean children should not ask why, but they should do so after they have done what is requested of them. It's not a matter of parental power over the child it's about safety. If I see my 2 year old reaching for something that will injure him (pot of boiling water) I want him to instinctively stop when I say stop...ask me afterwards why. Not ignore me and get hurt. He will learn either way. I am not saying to spank a child for doing something harmful...but for disobeying. A spanking (not violent whipping) is a lot easier to get over emotionally and physically than 3rd degree burns or being hit by a car.

You say "If a kid truly knows that you love him and knows that he can talk with you, then all you need to do is say that you're disappointed, hurt, angered, or embarrassed by a particular behavior."

How can a 2 year old truly know what love even is? How can a 2 year old know he can talk to you...he can barely talk in the first place?

I need to post replies to just a couple of the comments / arguments in the post above:

"Why do you believe it is OK to hit a kid, but not an adult" - Although I don't have a source to directly quote, I do recall reading about scientific studies that showed that the reasoning ability in the human brain is not fully developed until well into the teen years. This is one of the key reasons why (at least in North America) the legal system deals with children who commit crimes entirely differently than adults. For the same reason, it is inappropriate to expect that discipline of adults and children should be the same.

"I have seen hundreds of poorly-disciplined, rude, loud, obnoxious kids getting spanked in restaurants, stores, etc. I have seen very few appropriately disciplined kids behaving this way." - How would you know how the children who are not being spanked in the restaurant are disciplined when they do misbehave? If they are behaving well when you see them, then no discipline is required. Perhaps they are behaving because they know what will happen if they don't!

I agree with many of the posts in this thread that the study is so flawed that no conclusion can be reached from it. It does not show causality, since there is no reason to believe that the children who were spanked would have had the same IQ as those that weren't in any case.

Thanks for the great discussion. It's good to see that the majority are on the side of being reasonable rather than the side of political correctness.

btw: Leonard Nimoy is not the Dr Spock being referred to. James T Kirk's friend was "Mr Spock"

Dr Spock did a lot of good and was firmly against many 'modern medicine' paradigms of his day. There was a period in 'modern' medicine when the doctors were telling mothers what to do and how to do it...becoming quite ludicrous:

• Tie an in-labor mother to a table and push on her stomach to get the baby to come out...??? (This was still the practice when my sister was born some 40 yrs ago)
• Bottle feeding is best (so why do mom's make milk then?)
• ...go read some of his stuff if you want to find out for yourself instead of passing along hearsay.
  

Dr Spock said to mom's "you know more than you think" and did a good job promoting the development of relationships between mother and baby...more intimate contact with kids as respected individuals instead of little crying annoyances that should be sent to daycares or put in playpens in another room where they can't be heard.

He also said: Ultimately, parenting is not all that difficult if you use your sixth sense and discrimination power. To prevent confusion, ignore what neighbors and other busybodies say. And don't be overawed by expert opinions, including that of Dr Spock who himself admitted: " Every child is different, every parent is different, every illness or behavior problem is somewhat different from every other. All I can do is prescribe the most common developments and problems in the most general terms."

and, no (directed to everyone referring to his son), neither of his sons committed suicide ...his grandson did but he had schizophrenia.

The anti-spank position of Dr Spock is from his opinion that children should be treated with respect. I think that loving, controlled discipline helps everyone (regardless of age) grow and learn to take responsibility for their actions and behavior, whether this be a pop on the butt as a kid, grounding as an adolescent or a speeding ticket or jail time for adults. Personally I'd rather my kids figure out the relationship between actions and consequences earlier rather than later.

I think the 'right way' of parenting children has evolved a lot and will continue. In retrospect it's easy to see some ideas as silly, if not disturbing, but only time will tell for now.

This is not about political correctness, it's about right and wrong. I disagree with spanking because I see it differently, not because I read it somewhere in a pc manual. I suppose if I object to the description, "dumber", to mean "stupid", on the grounds that it is an insult to all the very clever deaf and dumb people in the world, then that makes me a marxist. No it makes me a thoughtful individual who cares about words and communication and how they can be used to hurt people. Foster prejudice and bigotry. You are the one suffering from a form of brainwashing. Every time you see someone with another opinion you jump to a daft conclusion. I think the red scare has infected your mind and you see it everywhere. That's like me saying you are a fascist because you approve of spanking. Did I say anything about the break up of the family? No. I have a loving and extended family, thanks very much, who mean every bit as much to me, as yours do to you. "I must remind you again: we are not discussing violence here; we are discussing spanking" If striking a child with your hand is not violence against a person, then my granny was a virgin. Open your eyes! Call a spade a spade. You think i am blurring the boundaries? That's rich. It's like a mirror world sometimes. You'll be telling us next that beating your wife with a rod less wide than your thumb, is not domestic violence either. I am sneakily trying to change the subject? The subject is spanking, which IS violence against a child. You are in denial. You are trying to make this an issue of indoctrination and political correctness and divert us from realising that violence against a child is wrong, brutal and unnecessary. As for my son he was taught that if someone perpetrated violence against him, he should report it. Which he did. There is more than one way to defend yourself in a situation like that. That is the way to do handle it not lash out mindlessly. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Hello Guest,

I've taken the liberty to copy your previous post; the one in which you claim you're not duscussing violence. I've underlined the word spank and in bold the word violence or words to that effect and corrected your spelling errors.

Thanks to Bliss for one sane voice in this madness. Here is one simple line for the, I-got-spanked-and-it-didn't-do-me-any-harm, brigade. Violence is no solution to our problems. To the guest on about the holy book, spare the rod etc, what about a quote from another holy man, "Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love.. Dr Martin Luther King The only time Jesus raised a stick was to beat the money changers out from the temple. Maybe we should try that instead of letting cops beat motorists. Then the money men may have thought twice about filling their pockets, whilst at the same time, bankrupting the western economy. (OK, lets settle for impounding their yachts and get something back from the money grabbing asses.) Children deserve better treatment than pain, and humiliation; which is how a beating feels, in case you smackers have all forgotten. Try a cuddle when they are out of line. Try and sing an old song, your mother sang to you, to make then feel valued, instead of abused. Use you petrified imaginations to divert them, because as a father of three, I can tell you, it works better than a slap. Trying to instill obedience, through inflicting pain, is folly. Better still, teach them that it is reasonable to challenge and question authority. Not follow orders, like a sheep or a peasant bowing to the Lord of the Manor. The cycle of violence must be broken. Children need protection. Gone are the days when a teacher at your local school could pick up a belt and beat your child; and a very good riddance to those days, and their kind, Yet, some still feel justified in beating and inflicting pain on their own children at home. Shame on you. Hold your heads and weep, like your children did. You don't like the survey? Tough. I'm buying it. Suck it up and reconsider you own moral ineptitude. Your inability to show love to you kids when they need you most. As for Dr Spock. To bring up this tragic event in order to back up a feeble argument that tries to legitimise violence is indefensible. You owe Leonard Nimoy an apology. My siblings were smacked, so was I, but I never had to smack my kids. I broke the cycle of violence. My son is the only one of numerous grandchildren who visits, telephones and shows any respects to his grand parents. He is kind and gentle, and yes, he took beatings in the school playground from children who had violence in there lives, but at least he knew they were the fools, the predatory and the unkind, not him. I am proud of him. To the guest who is bleating on about cultural Marxism. This is not a political or idealogical issue. It is an issue relating to the family. Leave the social scientist alone, who are trying to discover why there is so much violence around. 2500 is not a small sample group. It takes a lot of work to analyse this kind of data. It's not like measuring the tensile strength of steel. It is much more complex, with many variations. You need to narrow the research to a manageable control group. Here is my hunch, maybe it was the fact that you beat your child that led to my child being a target for violence in the school playground. So stop it. We want our children live in peace and harmony, without the threat of violence. If anyone is taking the easy way out on this debate, it is you who preach that violence is justifiable. It is you who won't listen and try to make change. Where has your tradition of violence within the family led us to?

And now the rest of your rant...

This is not about political correctness, it's about right and wrong. I disagree with spanking because I see it differently, not because I read it somewhere in a PC manual. I suppose if I object to the description, "dumber", to mean "stupid", on the grounds that it is an insult to all the very clever deaf and dumb people in the world, then that makes me a Marxist. No it makes me a thoughtful individual who cares about words and communication and how they can be used to hurt people. Foster prejudice and bigotry. You are the one suffering from a form of brainwashing. Every time you see someone with another opinion you jump to a daft conclusion. I think the red scare has infected your mind and you see it everywhere. That's like me saying you are a fascist because you approve of spanking. Did I say anything about the break up of the family? No. I have a loving and extended family, thanks very much, who mean every bit as much to me, as yours do to you. "I must remind you again: we are not discussing violence here; we are discussing spanking" If striking a child with your hand is not violence against a person, then my granny was a virgin. Open your eyes! Call a spade a spade. You think i am blurring the boundaries? That's rich. It's like a mirror world sometimes. You'll be telling us next that beating your wife with a rod less wide than your thumb, is not domestic violence either. I am sneakily trying to change the subject? The subject is spanking, which IS violence against a child. You are in denial. You are trying to make this an issue of indoctrination and political correctness and divert us from realizing that violence against a child is wrong, brutal and unnecessary. As for my son he was taught that if someone perpetrated violence against him, he should report it. Which he did. There is more than one way to defend yourself in a situation like that. That is the way to do handle it not lash out mindlessly. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Astonishing how often we read of the topic you've claimed you're not concerned with. I can none other than agree you've blurred the subject with impudence.

I like the presentation.

With respect, Other Guest, it's possible that the study is flawed but still drew conclusions that are not incorrect. I think those that are saying the study was flawed are citing the fact that the sample of 2500 was drawn from a focused demographic, ie, lower-income families. If that was intentional, the conclusion should state that there's a correlation between corporal punishment and poor scholastic performance, or IQ, or whatever, among low-income families. Not that spanking leads to low IQ among all humans. It was pointed out several times that confusing correlation with causation is a rookie mistake unworthy of anyone who purports to publish a "scientific" study. So yes, the study was unquestionably flawed. But assuming it's conclusion must therefore be wrong makes the same rookie mistake, doesn't it?

But assuming it's conclusion must therefore be wrong makes the same rookie mistake, doesn't it?

Even a blind chicken occasionally gets a kernel of corn...

You are right in saying that just because the study is flawed does not mean the conclusion is incorrect. But for me the conclusion is invalid (even if it's correct). Because the study was flawed makes it much more difficult to accept the conclusion.

Well, two outta three ain't bad. However, I think you veer off into the weeds when you make assumptions about one's political motivations.

I think it's arrogant and narrow-minded to think that belief in magic is the only thing that can persuade people to behave themselves.

Now the wisdom of spanking is equated with belief in magic because spanking is presented within the context of a Christian worldview. I think your shovel must have broke because you sure didn't dig very deep with that response since this IS a thread about spanking.

Actually, I think it's one-TENTH of that: 0.000004%.

Children, dogs, cats, other animals. We are all the same. For the little ones to grow up to be "good" big ones the little ones need to learn the meaning of "no" and "yes". Spanking is one component of the discipline that is used by parents. If parents use spanking (no) along with homework help, little league, "family time", etc. (yes) then properly used spanking should help with development and therefore help with the score on the IQ test.

If the parent ignores the child until the child has done something wrong then this "spanking parent" is really a parent that is not providing the balanced environment the child needs.

I suspect the bias in this story is that the group of parents included an above average number of "don't bother me" parents that spank and ignore their children.

Well I would have to disagree with the study. As stated in the original post not enough varibles were stated or evaluated. I was spanked as a child and I was 6th in my high school graduating class. I have since then completed 4 college degrees, all with a 3.0 or higher (and I am still in my 20s), with one of those degree disciplines to be Electrical Engineering. To further add I have an 8 year old who I use spanking as a disciplinary measure with and just last year he skipped 2nd grade and has not brung home a grade lower then a B.

I think the study is a bit biased. For starters they only used low income families for research, they did not mention the frequency of the spankings, nor the intensity or if other disciplinary measures were involved. When judging a childs intelligence and performance several factors have to be taking into consideration, like their environment, available resources, morals, standards and values parents instill in them, etc.

I spanked all three of my kids (the youngest is 31). They always ranked very high in their classes, and are very successful in life... and have never been aggressive...although on of my sons was in Special Ops and went to Iraq thre times. He is his children's favorite toy! All of my children are "kid magnets". Children seem to just know they are good people. My brother and I were both spanked, and I think we turned out OK. In fact, I teach one of the Nursery classes at church (ages 18 months to 3 years old). Noone has ever accused either of us as aggressive or of below average intelligence.