Does Getting Spanked Make You Dumber?

I have raised six well adjusted children, now adults with their own children, my Grandchildren, they all did very well in college and are making good livings. In a previous post I described how I would swat them on their diapers between the ages of two and three and I did this after I had told them to do something once. I never had to swat them hard it was used as an attention getter that they had crossed their boundaries. They were then given explanations and lots of love. Having set their boundaries they quickly learned not to cross them and they were happy well adjusted children. When they became teenagers dripping with hormones we used grounding and the lecture method. Which was a fate worse than death for them, they would rather have taken a whipping. They were warned though if they ever disrupted a class in school they would get the belt, only one of my son's challenged that when he was sixteen and I whipped him with a belt. His teacher, who had called and told me about the indecent to begin with, called me back the following day and said I don't know what you did and she said she didn't want to ask, but she wished more parents did it. He made an A in her class. He now does work for NASA and other agencies designing, Installing and building telecommunication and main frame computers. I know my children benefited from a home set with boundaries and the occasional swat, but you have to start when they are young.

#1)...IQ differences, less then the Standard Deviation of error(SD), is insignificant, the SD is 15. So IQ comparisons for spanked vs nonspanked is a waste of effort.

#2)...Who spanks children at 1 year of age? Even the "terrible Two's" are a little early to spank children, much less have a meaningful discussion beyond thats a "no-no" or that's a real "Bozo-no-no".

The study observed an interesting and thought provoking correlation of survey data, but, for many, many reasons, did not come close to establishing a causal relationship. Also, the study focused on very young children. The comments in response range all over the block and take the topic well beyond the survey. Many have contributed much to the discussion but, with a few exceptions, relatively little of it has been very scholarly. Much of the debate has been "my parents spanked me and I became a rocket scientist, but these other kids were never spanked and they are horrible people."

Surely, we all recognize that there are far too many uncontrolled variables to derive anything remotely approaching a meaningful observation of causlaity. It is interesteing that in a discussion forum so densely populated by engineering types, presuambly well-grounded in the physical sciences, how ascientific the discussion became on a topic focused on human behavior. Religious traditions and defensive anecdotal autobiography really don't stack up against the scientific method, where the true goal is or should be a better understanding of causality.

In the absence of definitive evidence, and focusing solely on the parent's choice of a child rearing method, my extremely abbreviated, simplified opinions are:

1. Some level of corporal punishment, including spanking, can be part of a child-rearing method, that will yield good results often enough to generate numerous supporters willing to perpetuate that strategy...hence, the large degree of anecdotal support evident in this forum.

2. Very likely, the best child-rearing method is one which does not rely on corporal punishment, at all.

3. The best child-rearing method is one which likely requires significantly more training than all but a few % of parents are willing or able to obtain.

4. To obtain optimum results, effective child-rearing methods which do not incorporate corporal punishment, likely require parents willing and able to execute them in a more precise, consistent, and patient manner. For that reason, they achieve the optimum results more infrequently the method, itself, merits.

5. Probably, only a relatively small fraction of parents are naturally capable of effectively implementing child-rearing methods which do not incorporate corporal punishment (perhaps 10-20%).

6. Without adequate training, the better child-rearing methods would likely underperform lesser methods based on the use of some corporal punishment. That is an 85% method carried out with an 85% efficiency will, on average, outperform a 100% method carried out with 65% efficiency.

7. Thus, though there are likley multiple superior child rearing methods which do not incorporate corporal punishment, a lesser method which does involve corporal punishment may be the better choice for a larger fraction of parents (perhaps 65-80%).

8. Some parents are such bad parents and/or bad people, that their children could use some protection from the parent's discipline on occasion (perhaps 5-10%).

9. The persons and parents represented in this forum likely and, perhaps, substantially, overrepresent the better anecdotal stories and certainly underrepresent the worse. Thus, the responses will be biased in favor of corporal punishment stories that turned out reasonably well, while there will be few prepared to tell the horror stories.

Basically, parenting is demanding and complicated. There is no perfect parenting manual for raising a child. What a child will respond to best to varies over a broad spectrum...child to child...and for the same child over time and circumstance. Few parents have the luxury to obtain optimum preparation and training. Thus, most must be satisfied with trying to do their best, reacting to disciplinary situations with a response in the hopes that it will be effective and appropriate. When that response involves some corporal punishment, most parents seek to execute it in the most loving, patient manner that the moment permits.

Any parent concerned with doing the best he/she can do, should not be made to feel guilty for falling short of perfect or for employing a child rearing method that is not the optimum method. This fraction is likely the source of the majority of the pro-spanking comments tendered on this topic. If someone suggests that spanking may be non optimal (or bad), those who resort to some corporal punishment and those who were raised that way, would naturally feel defensive and some become almost militantly pro spanking.

My parents spanked us and, usually, to a degree merited by some misbehavior on our part. My siblings and I mostly turned out well. From my perspective, the spankings that I recall did not much serve to educate or improve me in the way intended; rather, they made me careful about how I went about doing what I chose to do in the future. The lessons and observations that actually shaped my moral behavior and guided my actions and decisions were primarily obtained elsewhere than through the spankings. I was lucky, my parents were decent people and I would not want them to feel any guilt over have spanked me. If they weren't perfect, they were good and did their best. I accept that and them.

Some parents, however, are not good parents and some are not good people. For those persons, any child rearing method will produce fewer good results. For those persons, a child rearing method that employs corporal punishment will often result in horribly abusive excesses and/or disturbingly counterproductive results.

Here's a horror story. When I was a teenager, two of the homes within sight of my front door were occupied by the families of two siblings. In one house, the three children were never spanked, the two parents were not too involved, the house was never clean ( i.e., filthy dirty), but those three kids grew up to be useful adults. The parents were not bad people, they were just lazy and dirty. In the other home, the mother was primarily responsible. The dad was around some, when he wasn't stealing or drugging. The two boys were raised with a swift smack or a spanking (sometimes, oftentimes, severe) whenever the mother deemed it called for. The older boy was put to death in his 20s by the state of Texas (in 2003) for physically abusing his 11-month-old child to death. The younger of the two boys was sentenced to life for killing a man in a bar. I grew up in Houston in a mixed lower middle class to quite poor area. Though I don't know of any other stories from my area involving state mandated executions, similarly bad stories were too common. I knew a lot of kids whose parents were in the 5-15% of parents at the lower end.

I don't see where you have backed up your statements on percentages and facts, is this all just supposition on your part or are they hard facts, because no one holds the key to child rearing that's why there are so many child psychologist out there. All children are different and have to be handled differently. Except for schools, corporal punishment keeps the masses in check. The focus was not just on very young children if you had read some of the postings, but children are ingrained at a very early age. Do you know where the true goal is or should be in a better understanding of causality? Do you know what the scientific method is? I didn't read where you wrote that. You inumerated some of your thoughts, but based on what? Are you a psycologist? So from your anecdotal exsperience with the kids across the street from you growing up, the ones who didn't get spanked they grew up to be o.k. people because they were not spanked and the other families kids that got smacked, ended up horrably, therefore don't spank your kids? I get it.

Also keep in mind that most psychologists choose that profession after having been rejected by Law Schools, Engineering schools, Business Schools, Art Schools, Music Schools, Underwater-Basket-Weaving Schools, Median-Pan-Handling Schools and McDonald's "You Want Fries With That?" Management School.

Wendy's won't even answer their calls.

I am not anti-spanking.

As I said up fron in my post...my opinion. Therefore, I did not attempt to back up my statements. I am not a psychologist, but have 5 children (2 are steps), 4 grandchildren, am from a large family that persists as an ever-expanding large family with a healty growth rate. I think my statements made it pretty clear that it is a complex topic and I never said that there was any one right answer. Thus, I described my comments as "extremely abbreviated, simplified opinions." I should have added that they were also highly generalized. Also, my percentages were preceded by teh word "perhaps." I do know what the scientific method is and my whole point has been to point out that the reported studies identified a correlation of data that suggests a reasonable topic for scientific investigation.

It is only my guess that a throrough scientific investigation, which yielded valid, repreatable results, would demonstrate child-rearing methods without spanking which were superior, on average, to methods which employ spanking.

Outside the schools, there are too many masses, "kept in check" to too many varying degrees, in too many different circumstances to state that "they" are "kept in check" BY corporal punishment.

No, you don't get what I intended. I did not mention the stories from my neighborhood as proof of the relative merits of a child rearing method. I did not say those children turned out o.k. BECAUSE they were not spanked, nor did I say the other 2 turned out bad BECAUSE they were. Real life is seldom nearly that simple. They were, however, anecdotal examples just as valid for anecdotal purposes, as any of the others offered by the other posters. I chose them because they were counterexamples to the overly simplistic spare-the-rod-spoil-the-child anecdotes offered by others as PROOF.

As I stated in my first post, I occasionally spank my children. I do not do it because I think or assume it is absolutely required for them to grow up o.k. I do not do it because I think it is absolutely the best thing for them. I do not do it because I have the backing of some preacher or holy book. I do not do it because I have the backing of some child phychologist or author. I do not do it because I like to hit them. I do it because it is a familiar response, because negative reinforcement seems to be a logical means of correcting/punishing misbehavior, because the short-term goal is more clearly defined than any potential long-term harm, and because I lack reliable information to the contrary or an obviously superior alternative. I am not married to it. If rigorous scientific examination points to a superior alternative that I could grasp and implement, I'd have no problem never spanking a child again.

And there's the rub with banishing corporal punishment: You try reasoning, cajoling, encouraging; and still the bad behavior persists in your child. As a parent you cannot let such behavior grow into adulthood, because you love and care for your children too much. So you use corporal punishment; for reformation of the child not retribution for the act. And lo and behold, the change takes. Interesting! As a parent I have two children who have hardly ever been spanked, and one who has been spanked more. Because he is stubborn, strong-willed, and selfish. But I love him too much to leave him there - wanting rather to transform the string-will to good purposes, instead of selfish aims.

"So you use corporal punishment...And lo and behold, the change takes."

But try as it might, Science Almighty is apparently helpless to establish any meaningful correlation between the two even though the correlation is patently obvious and has been so for all of recorded history.

Science Almighty keeps tripping over its own hidden agendas and prays no one is looking.

Blippitty bleepitty what what? Where in an observation that something works somewhat is there proof that nothing works better? Whatever is patently obvious is a good subject for science. Science is, of course, beset with agendas, personalities, and many of the other foibles of humanity. Still, as a method of human enquiry, it has proven of great utility at discerning the mechanisms which underly phenomena.

Even Dr. Spock recanted his statement about not spanking your children and said he was wrong in his research.-ShrikeTexas

I note your assertion. First, I invite you to demonstrate that it's correct (because I'm certainly no expert on the life of Dr. Spock). Second, to the extent it might be accurate, I would be interested to hear the circumstances and what his final opinion was on the topic. Third, I'd be interested to hear you describe the weight that Dr. Spock's professional opinions merit, either way. It's always interesting to note how wise a person becomes once his opinions become more popular.

I'm not an expert on Spock's life either, but I do find his observation after taking a stand on not spanking to change after all these years. Personally I put no weight in Spock's opinion, but in years past back in the early 60's and 70's his word was taken as gospel among many groups. As far as research that is what I have read and listened to over the last 30 years. No scientific data here, but there is lots of info out there on him if one found him of interest, personally I don't.

I realize you said it was your opinion, but I beg to differ on your statement you did not enumerate your points and try to play them off as a sud o scientific analogy.

hypothesis: a tentative conjecture based primarily on surmise rather than adequate evidence to explain an observation, phenomenon or scientific problem that can be tested by further observation, investigation and/or experimentation.

My hypothesis was a) a smallish fraction of parents could effectively implement a non spanking style and achieve superior results, b) the great bulk of parents will achieve better results on average with a more traditional style employing some corporal punishment, and c) a smallish fraction of parents will not achieve good results on average, regardless of style, and will employ corporal punishment in an abusive manner to some extent.

You may disagree with a vs. b and/or with my estimates of the fractions...but that disagreement and the fact that it's capable of empirical study makes it an interesting hypothesis for study.

I will sometimes, for my own amusement, go psuedo-scientific (at the risk of losing Dittohead points, I actually try to spell words properly). It humors me. My wife even gave me a t-shirt last Xmas that said "I make stuff up." Even my 7-year-old recognizes most of it and rolls her eyes at me.

O. K. Your cool, I just get all OCD about things. I can't spell worth a crap I truly have dyslexia and made it through college and made great grades except for English, I made C and D's.

Okay let's put the kids first...so the real question is:

Does getting dumb make you "spanked-er"? Or, getting smart?

—another research scientist at another institution

PS: To be most effective that paddle should be drilled in order to obtain maximum velocity with least effort. ...nothing worse than when grunts issuing behind closed door of punishment room (or principal's office) are not drowned out by guilty offenders' moans, screams, and sobs of anguish.

Lots and lots of discussion. Since this is occurring in CR4 I have to assume this concerns "engineering" children.

By the way... my take on socialism: If everyone in our society did their best to live according to what Jesus taught (not what is "believed" about him), and you were to try to characterize that society, you'd probably find it is much closer to socialism than capitalism. (Cf. his teachings about wealth and money.) Socialism looks bad from the frame of reference of "the individual who is pursuing the wealth of this world".)

You are in the wrong blog, get off! this is a study about to spank or not to spank that is the question, so go take your Marxism elsewhere, like Russia or Cuba.

Socialism is bad because it takes the freedom of the individual to feed the hungry maw of the socialist order. Socialism./Communism has proved it's failure through history. That America is heading towards it is proof of that old adage, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." And repeat it we are. People selfishly looking for their part of the government's largess.

Unlike you guest, are you from China, with your choppy sentences? Because you spout the communist party line like your from China. Unlike you we are resilient enough not to need a communist society to take care of our own, unlike your form of government that dictates that you drive a car that only meets your needs. In this country we still have liberties here and don't get shot in the back of the head for disagreeing with our government. We also raise our children how we see fit, unlike you do in China.

I think you are mistaking Jesus' messages. His messages were about individuals making choices, not being forced by their government. If I and my peers are able to, through the power of the government, confiscate your wealth and give it to the poor, that not only robs you of your wealth, but also of the freedom to choose to give to the poor. Giving to the poor should be a personal choice, not forced upon you by someone else. God could force everyone to obey him through his omniscience, but then that free will thing crops up again. You can believe in him, have faith in him or not. Your choice.

It only makes you madder. Of course, for Deutchland researcers to confuse the issue is not unexpected.

Please take the chip off your shoulder for a moment and go hassle another blog