Why people have so many children?

[leroyjenkens]

Thank you. Twice you have agreed that there currently is no quantifiable way to measure these things.

Just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't exist.

That is not your call. It is entirely a matter of the parents feeling that they are spiritually-enhanced by their children.

Just because they feel that way, doesn't mean it's actually happening. Some may feel that god answers their prayers, but just because that's the way they feel, doesn't mean that he actually does.

I suppose that is true, but I don't think it follows that because a parent says one thing they necessarily mean something different.

I'm saying they're not different. I'm saying they're the same thing.

 

[DaveC426913]

Just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't exist.

The proof will have to be in the pudding.

I am claiming we cannot quantify personal worth or the benefits of children. As it stands, that is the way it is.

If you think it's possible. Theoretically. Some day in the future. If someone takes it on. And they succeed.

Well, one can say the same thing about teleporting to other planets. But the proof will be in the pudding.

Till then, there's nothing to debate. These things are not quantifiable.


I wonder, maybe you think what I'm saying is that they can never be quantifable, even in principle. I am not saying that.

Just because they feel that way, doesn't mean it's actually happening. Some may feel that god answers their prayers, but just because that's the way they feel, doesn't mean that he actually does.

God has nothing to do with it. You have a very narrow definition of spirituality. Spirituality does not necessarily have anything to do with the supernatural.

If it would help you, substitute the following words: identity, moral compass, emotional well-being, compassion, love of thy neighbour, philanthropy, philosophy, etc.

 

[Jack21222]

No. Your viewpoint is far too black and white.

Just because a parent regrets what they did to their child, does not mean it was not abusive.

Examples:
- a parent might use excessive corporal punishment, such as using a strap or belt, for a particularly bad transgression. The parent may feel this is necessary, may even dislike it, but that does not mean they are not being abusive. Nor does it mean they don't love them (flawed as it may be).
- a parent may lash out at a child with a slap in anger or weakness (say, they were lacking sleep or had been drinking). It is abuse, but it does not mean they don't love their child (again, no argiung that these people need help to deal with their issues).

Nor are these simply "mistakes". This behaviour may be institutionalized, meaning, within the family, it is considered "normal".


Whether you disagree the above (or think it should be stopped or think the authorities should step in) is irrelevent; it is de facto. It is what it is. Some parents do love and abuse their children.

I have been slapped for inadequate reasons on several occasions as a child, however, I do not feel that I was "abused." We're using different definitions of the word.

 

[leroyjenkens]

The proof will have to be in the pudding.

I am claiming we cannot quantify personal worth or the benefits of children. As it stands, that is the way it is.

If you think it's possible. Theoretically. Some day in the future. If someone takes it on. And they succeed.

Well, one can say the same thing about teleporting to other planets. But the proof will be in the pudding.

Teleporting to other planets isn't a comparable analogy. We haven't done anything close to that yet, yet we've done something close to putting human worth into numbers. For that to be a comparable analogy, you would have to accept that putting human worth into numbers is as far off as teleporting people to other planets.
Not only can we not do anything like that, we don't even know if it will ever be possible.
On the other hand, I could create a system right now for assigning numbers to human worth.

God has nothing to do with it. You have a very narrow definition of spirituality. Spirituality does not necessarily have anything to do with the supernatural.

If it would help you, substitute the following words: identity, moral compass, emotional well-being, compassion, love of thy neighbour, philanthropy, philosophy, etc.

Why are any of those intrinsically incapable of being quantified?
Credibility has been assigned a numerical quantity, proving that similar ideas can be quantified. Your argument is that because they haven't, no one knows if they could be.

 

[DaveC426913]

On the other hand, I could create a system right now for assigning numbers to human worth.

By the same argument I could assign a colour to human worth. But how does one judge if it has any meaning?

You claiming you could invent a system for assigning a number to human worth is an empty claim.

And, getting back to the initial argument, let's remember why we're talking about this. You are effectively criticizing parents for describing their joy of having children without giving quantitative values. Yet there is no such system. You are criticzing them for not using something that does not exist.

Why are any of those intrinsically incapable of being quantified?

I didn't say anything about that. I simply said you don't know what spirituality usually means.

If you have a specious concept of spirituality, who's to say you don't have a specious concept of the joys of parenthood?

 

[Zantra]

It's always amusing to hear people who are single comment on how becoming a parent is a mistake. Children are like ciggarrettes. If you haven't had one, you just don't get it. It's like a smoker being told by non-smokers how easy it is to quit smoking.

Ego

Having chidlren is all about ego. We are genetically predisposed to love our children through 10,000 years of evolution biased towards procreation. We are taught to always love ourselves, and children, by association, are an extension of ourselves. So to reject them is to reject ourselves. To hate them is to hate ourselves. Your child is a direct reflection of you, and in most cases, their development and growth is a direct reflections of your efforts (or lack thereof). The individual they will one day become is a direct result of your influence, and most parents come to realize this.

That said, not everyone should be a parent. Some people have children by mistake, and not every human being has the necessary nuturing skills, or capability of being a parent. Some people are just irresponsible and incapable of caring about someone more than they care about themselves. When those kinds of people have children, the result is bad parenting.

You should only have as many children as you can sustain without significantly reducing your lifestyle. When you do that you are affecting your whole family, not just yourselves. You have made a decision that having a 3rd child is more important than your first 2 children attending a private school, or being able to attend an ivy league school one day (insert your own ideals here). My point being that having more children than you can realistically support (19 children? really?) is a mistake that your whole family has to live with.

Philosophy of Parenting

First rule: there are not absolutes, correct?

I see all these examples of parents who are resentful, disciplinarian, abusive, irresponsible, etc. The bottom line is that AGAIN, not everyone should be a parent. if 99.999 % of parents are good parents who do a socially acceptable job parenting, I call that a statistical certainty, but we never deal in absolutes.

Parenting is a series of snapshots in time. Anger, joy, amusement, rage, love, resentment,contempt, stoicism, disgust, chaos.. you will experience all of those emotions within the first year of having a child. Once you do, you understand what it is to be a parent, and that while it may not be black and white, the pros DO outweigh the cons. YOu'll also realize that a parent regretting their choice one day may have a different outlook the next.

And love is not quantifiable. Especially the love for a child. When you put more value on your child's life than your own, how do you quantify a negative number? Maybe we start asking how many other innocent children you would kill to save your own child's life?

 

[DaveC426913]

I have been slapped for inadequate reasons on several occasions as a child, however, I do not feel that I was "abused."

I concur. That's not abuse.

But there is a wide grey area between that and parents who, say, deliberately lock their children in the basement for years, or burn them with cigarettes. I think that's the kind of thing you're thinking of.

Your black and white definition runs the risk of ignoring all the children who fall in that grey area.

 

[leroyjenkens]

By the same argument I could assign a colour to human worth. But how does one judge if it has any meaning?

You decide how it's judged. Numbers are used to make a quantification for something and you're able to read it as a scale from worst to best. You could use colors as well, but you'd have to define the meaning and make a legend people could refer to. If you create the system, you make all the rules.

You claiming you could invent a system for assigning a number to human worth is an empty claim.

I don't see why you have trouble believing I could do it. You could do it. A child could do it. It's as difficult as assigning numbers to every good and bad thing a person does, add them up, and you have a credit score for human worth.

And, getting back to the initial argument, let's remember why we're talking about this. You are effectively criticizing parents for describing their joy of having children without giving quantitative values. Yet there is no such system. You are criticzing them for not using something that does not exist.

Are these people in a debate about it or are they just at a dinner party and casually talking? I wouldn't ask them to invent a system that doesn't exist, I'd just need elaboration on pros they want to list in contrast to the cons, if they list pros like "a blessing" or "a miracle".
But I've already said that and you've responded by saying they don't need to elaborate on that because they're not in a debate. I'm saying that it needs elaboration if they're in a debate about it. I didn't say anyone here said that, I just used those fictional people as an example of what isn't acceptable in a debate.
Do I decide what is acceptable in a debate? No, but I think I have a good understanding of what should be allowed in a debate.
If you're listing pros and cons and you're allowed to list "a blessing" or "a miracle" as pros, then where does it end? I could just as easily make up words to use as cons; "an aloe", "a glove", "a fruit explosion". Those "cons" that I listed don't make any sense until elaborated on.

I didn't say anything about that. I simply said you don't know what spirituality usually means.

I presume that would vary from person to person. But as far as I know, spirituality usually refers to the supernatural, since the root word "spirit" is usually a supernatural concept.

If you have a specious concept of spirituality, who's to say you don't have a specious concept of the joys of parenthood?

As far as I know, we haven't concluded I do in fact have a specious concept of spirituality. Maybe you're the one who does.
I know there are joys of parenthood. I was just arguing that I think the sorrows offset the joys. It may not be true and it could vary from person to person, so I don't think either of us is necessarily wrong.

 

[Evo]

You should only have as many children as you can sustain without significantly reducing your lifestyle. When you do that you are affecting your whole family, not just yourselves. You have made a decision that having a 3rd child is more important than your first 2 children attending a private school, or being able to attend an ivy league school one day (insert your own ideals here). My point being that having more children than you can realistically support (19 children? really?) is a mistake that your whole family has to live with.

Not to mention that in very large families, the older children are often delegated to take over the care and parenting of their younger siblings, stripping them of their chance to be children themselves.

 

[rewebster]

I've known women that enjoy being pregnant to women that have a fear of it (and to intimacy) ---and that's just the woman's side.

 

[Zantra]

I concur. That's not abuse.

But there is a wide grey area between that and parents who, say, deliberately lock their children in the basement for years, or burn them with cigarettes. I think that's the kind of thing you're thinking of.

Your black and white definition runs the risk of ignoring all the children who fall in that grey area.

I think that's the whole point. There's this grey area that most parents live in, and society doesen't know how to handle it, so they create this rigid line that says on one side you're properly disciplining your child, and on the other half you're an abuser and you're going to jail. And that creates an atmosphere of reluctance from the parents afraid to discipline their children, and children who abuse the system by running to the authorities and exaggerating because they are mad at the parents for punishing them, not understanding the implications of tattling. And thiat creates this generation of kids who leverage an over reaching mandate to misbehave and act out.

At some point the line between abusive and parenting was moved in the conservative direction, and the atmosphere it creates leads to a generation of children who act without fear of reprisal, and who don't understand respect or sound judgement. When I was a kid if I talked to my my parents they way I see some kids these days talk to their parents, I'd have been knocked out cold, no questions asked. As a youth I once swore in front of my mom. After I picked myself up off the ground, I never did it again. There's an acceptable middle ground here, but I don't think we've found it yet.

That's my soapbox for the day

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't see why you have trouble believing I could do it. You could do it. A child could do it. It's as difficult as assigning numbers to every good and bad thing a person does, add them up, and you have a credit score for human worth.

I could not do it. You could not do it. A child could not do it. None of us could even do it for our own lives, let alone someone elses.


That being said, you are experiencing tunnel vision. You are belabouring a tangential point and have lost track of the thread topic.

It was your claim that the parents are saying nothing about how great it is to have children because they are not quantifying it. Yet there exists no system for quantifying it.

Let's get back on track: provide a method by which parents can succeed at what you require (the quantification of the improvement of their lives).

 

[leroyjenkens]

I could not do it. You could not do it. A child could not do it. None of us could even do it for our own lives, let alone someone elses.

Why? I've explained how it could easily be done, but you haven't explained why you think it's impossible.

That being said, you are experiencing tunnel vision. You are belabouring a tangential point and have lost track of the thread topic.

That's because you keep asking me about it.

It was your claim that the parents are saying nothing about how great it is to have children because they are not quantifying it. Yet there exists no system for quantifying it.

Not for quantifying "blessing" and "miracle". But on a list of pros and cons, what you list can be quantified, if what you list has an explicit meaning. If this wasn't true, a list of pros and cons is always meaningless, since you can't quantify which one is greater.

Let's get back on track: provide a method by which parents can succeed at what you require (the quantification of the improvement of their lives).

Not using vague terms like "blessing" and "miracle", which is all that I required from the beginning. It's not a lot to ask that someone elaborate on what they consider a plus for having a child.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why? I've explained how it could easily be done, but you haven't explained why you think it's impossible.

You would have to be omniscient and/or omnipresent. It is not practically possible.

It's not a lot to ask that someone elaborate on what they consider a plus for having a child.

And did you ask?

cuz I still think you're confusing a lack of communication with a lack of a valid argument.

 

[DaveC426913]

If one can have the Ability to reproduce a child, then he/she must assure his life to be good. its not us or anyone else would share or tolaerate the sufferings
That means also I dn't favor policies over election of those who are married or unmarried for any partiular purposes or advantadges.
You know what, I am a jenitor in a hospital- birth delivering department now, I see it all every single day. Just every 5-10 minutes all day and night there will be a baby to be born. There are cases of abortion by young, very young couple. They cry on bed in pain to get rid of the baby but I wonder if they cry like that when they are on bed with their boyfriends.
in the US, scenes of pregnant teens coming to schools are normal,but to all/most of nations in Asian, it is clearly the morality is seriously deteriorating, degraded. To me its disgusting and TOOO TOOOO TOOOOO stupid, i certainly have no respect at all for them and their parents

Who exactly would you appoint to enforce free citizens not being allowed to have children? It is a basic human right. Who can take that away?

While our world may not be perfect, do you have an alternative?

 

[Char. Limit]

I think that's the whole point. There's this grey area that most parents live in, and society doesen't know how to handle it, so they create this rigid line that says on one side you're properly disciplining your child, and on the other half you're an abuser and you're going to jail. And that creates an atmosphere of reluctance from the parents afraid to discipline their children, and children who abuse the system by running to the authorities and exaggerating because they are mad at the parents for punishing them, not understanding the implications of tattling. And that creates this generation of kids who leverage an over reaching mandate to misbehave and act out.

At some point the line between abusive and parenting was moved in the conservative direction, and the atmosphere it creates leads to a generation of children who act without fear of reprisal, and who don't understand respect or sound judgment. When I was a kid if I talked to my my parents they way I see some kids these days talk to their parents, I'd have been knocked out cold, no questions asked. As a youth I once swore in front of my mom. After I picked myself up off the ground, I never did it again. There's an acceptable middle ground here, but I don't think we've found it yet.

That's my soapbox for the day

I wouldn't say that this holds true, at least not as much as you seem to say it does. I and many of the people I know (the generation of children who "don't understand respect or sound judgment") still respect our parents, and I've sworn in front of them less than you have. This also holds true for many of the people I know. Some people hear children not calling their father "sir" and assume that the child is disrespectful. Now, I'm not saying you're one of those people, but it is still a bad idea to just assume disrespect. It's also a bad idea to generalize about the generation that is going to come into power soon.

Especially me, because I'm planning to do a Napoleon. Just as a hobby.

 

[leroyjenkens]

You would have to be omniscient and/or omnipresent. It is not practically possible.

It would be based on how much they help and hurt society and all of that is pretty well documented.

And did you ask?

cuz I still think you're confusing a lack of communication with a lack of a valid argument.

Yes, I did. Someone here said "best" for a decision to have children, then I asked for elaboration and gave examples of what people normally say in reference to having children that also needs to be elaborated on.
For another example, people say children bring joy. Joy in what way? You just get a feeling of inexplicable joy from the child being in proximity to you? Children emit joy particles that bind to neurotransmitters in your brain and cause joy?

Who exactly would you appoint to enforce free citizens not being allowed to have children? It is a basic human right. Who can take that away?

There's lots of "rights" that we should have, but we don't. We should be allowed to walk around naked, but we can't. What do you define as a human right? A right bestowed by a higher power? The only "rights" we have are the rights that society allows us to have.

 

[DaveC426913]

It would be based on how much they help and hurt society and all of that is pretty well documented..

Please quantify "help". Please quantify "hurt".

Yes, I did. Someone here said "best" for a decision to have children,

No, did you ask these parents that you are holding up as your examples. You listed a scenario about people who say these things, and dismiss their claims because it is not quantifiable enough for you. Did you check that they had answers before you dismissed them?

The only "rights" we have are the rights that society allows us to have.

And society allows us the right to bear children, whether others think we're up to the task or not.

Lifesimbol makes a classic mistake of thinking the world should magically work the way he thinks it should, but does not consider what it would mean to actually implement, to wit: passing laws that disqualify certain couples from having children based on their fitness.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Those laws seem to be harmful when instituted as well, if China is a fair example. People will fight for few things as they will for food, sex, shelter, and procreation. We will find a technological solution or nature will sort us out, forgone conclusion I think.

 

[GeorginaS]

Who exactly would you appoint to enforce [snip] citizens not being allowed to have children? It is a basic human right. Who can take that away?

The Chinese government?

 

[IcedEcliptic]

The Chinese government?

A very strong government, but they don't succeed even then.

 

[GeorginaS]

A very strong government, but they don't succeed even then.

Well Dave didn't specify that they had to succeed.

 

[DaveC426913]

The Chinese government?

Yeah. But note: they are not disallowing citizens to have children. They are merely imposing an upper limit.

And they are not pointing their finger at specific people and judging them unfit to be parents (which is what LifeSimbol's idea was heading toward); they are unilaterally imposing the limit for good of the country.

Very different ball of worms.

 

[GeorginaS]

Yeah. But note: they are not pointing their finger at specific people and judging them unfit to be parents (which is what LifeSimbol's idea was heading toward); they are unilaterally imposing a rule (nay not even a hard rule, merely an upper limit) for the sake of the greater good of their people.

Very different ball of worms.

Oh sure, be all wormy. Fine, I'll stay out it, then.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Yeah. But note: they are not disallowing citizens to have children. They are merely imposing an upper limit.

And they are not pointing their finger at specific people and judging them unfit to be parents (which is what LifeSimbol's idea was heading toward); they are unilaterally imposing the limit for good of the country.

Very different ball of worms.

Still their policy is not working, and is causing a gender imbalance from cultural stresses as well. Larry Niven believed in a lottery in some of his books, but in real life what will it take for people to agree to such strictures? I think we will see war and disease before sudden enlightenment, or successful control of birth rates by a centralized government.

 

[Zantra]

I think that's the whole point. There's this grey area that most parents live in, and society doesen't know how to handle it, so they create this rigid line that says on one side you're properly disciplining your child, and on the other half you're an abuser and you're going to jail. And that creates an atmosphere of reluctance from the parents afraid to discipline their children, and children who abuse the system by running to the authorities and exaggerating because they are mad at the parents for punishing them, not understanding the implications of tattling. And that creates this generation of kids who leverage an over reaching mandate to misbehave and act out.

At some point the line between abusive and parenting was moved in the conservative direction, and the atmosphere it creates leads to a generation of children who act without fear of reprisal, and who don't understand respect or sound judgment. When I was a kid if I talked to my my parents they way I see some kids these days talk to their parents, I'd have been knocked out cold, no questions asked. As a youth I once swore in front of my mom. After I picked myself up off the ground, I never did it again. There's an acceptable middle ground here, but I don't think we've found it yet.

That's my soapbox for the day

I wouldn't say that this holds true, at least not as much as you seem to say it does. I and many of the people I know (the generation of children who "don't understand respect or sound judgment") still respect our parents, and I've sworn in front of them less than you have. This also holds true for many of the people I know. Some people hear children not calling their father "sir" and assume that the child is disrespectful. Now, I'm not saying you're one of those people, but it is still a bad idea to just assume disrespect. It's also a bad idea to generalize about the generation that is going to come into power soon.

Especially me, because I'm planning to do a Napoleon. Just as a hobby.

As I mentioned earlier there are no absolutes, and I'm not saying that every single child is rude disrespectful and evil. I'm saying when you see a pattern you have to look at it as such.

SOME parents spoil their children unnecessarily in an effort to buy their children's love and respect. They try to be their "friend" when what the child needs is a mom and a dad. You cannot be both all the time.

And for the record I've never made my child call me "SIR" nor would I ever expect her to. However she's never sworn in front of me, and she knows what would happen if she did. She also knows "please", "thank you" and humility. These are some traits that everyone should know and learn, and most people feel the same way.

I see lots of kids screaming at their parents, swearing at them, arguing, calling them names. even hitting them. And it's not the child's fault. It's always the parent.

Anyways, these are all generalizations but the bottom line is that discipline to some degree is necessary as a teaching method. IMHO, Spanking is a valuable method for helping a child understand right from wrong, when done appropriately in a non-abusive manner. However, some parents go far beyond a normal spanking which leads to overprotective abuse laws that overcompensate for bad parenting.

Making it illegal to discipline your children past a certain point results in dimishing returns which end up causing more problems then they solve. More involvement by CPS and other agencies is the way to combat actual child abuse.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

As I mentioned earlier there are no absolutes, and I'm not saying that every single child is rude disrespectful and evil. I'm saying when you see a pattern you have to look at it as such.

SOME parents spoil their children unnecessarily in an effort to buy their children's love and respect. They try to be their "friend" when what the child needs is a mom and a dad. You cannot be both all the time.

And for the record I've never made my child call me "SIR" nor would I ever expect her to. However she's never sworn in front of me, and she knows what would happen if she did. She also knows "please", "thank you" and humility. These are some traits that everyone should know and learn, and most people feel the same way.

I see lots of kids screaming at their parents, swearing at them, arguing, calling them names. even hitting them. And it's not the child's fault. It's always the parent.

Anyways, these are all generalizations but the bottom line is that discipline to some degree is necessary as a teaching method. IMHO, Spanking is a valuable method for helping a child understand right from wrong, when done appropriately in a non-abusive manner. However, some parents go far beyond a normal spanking which leads to overprotective abuse laws that overcompensate for bad parenting.

Making it illegal to discipline your children past a certain point results in dimishing returns which end up causing more problems then they solve. More involvement by CPS and other agencies is the way to combat actual child abuse.

The most recent study of spanking that is peer reviewed which I have read concludes that even mild spanking of toddlers leads to negative outcome. http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100412/hl_time/08599198101900

This is not surprising, that a child learns the lesson that a parent cannot discipline without striking their child. Bad parenting is more often neglect than spoiling, and why should parents be allowed to hit their children when Independent research continually shows it is harmful in the long run? You ignore temperament, and generalize, which is spanking in a nutshell, yes?

 

[leroyjenkens]

Please quantify "help". Please quantify "hurt".

For example, something like the holocaust would hurt more than robbing an old lady. It would warrant a higher numerical value if you were to put it in numbers so it can be ranked.

No, did you ask these parents that you are holding up as your examples. You listed a scenario about people who say these things, and dismiss their claims because it is not quantifiable enough for you. Did you check that they had answers before you dismissed them?

Unless we were debating it, I would just accept "a blessing" as one of the best things to ever happen to this person. In a debate, I would need elaboration. They're not in the debate, so I just use them as an example of some things people say in normal speech that shouldn't be allowed in a debate.

 

[Zantra]

The most recent study of spanking that is peer reviewed which I have read concludes that even mild spanking of toddlers leads to negative outcome. http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100412/hl_time/08599198101900

This is not surprising, that a child learns the lesson that a parent cannot discipline without striking their child. Bad parenting is more often neglect than spoiling, and why should parents be allowed to hit their children when Independent research continually shows it is harmful in the long run? You ignore temperament, and generalize, which is spanking in a nutshell, yes?

A child at the ages of 2-5 only understands black and white. They don't yet posess the reasoning capacity to comprehend why their behaviors are good or bad. Spanking is a tool that when used properly, in limited amounts, services as a course correction when a child gets off course. Unfortunately it's often not used that way.

as many parents can attest, few responses bring about the immediate interruption of a full-blown tantrum like a swift whack to the bottom

That's from your article. And here's an article refuting yours:

http://www.newsmax.com/US/spanking-studies-children-spock/2010/01/07/id/345669

those who were physically disciplined performed better than those who weren’t in a whole series of categories, including school grades, an optimistic outlook on life, the willingness to perform volunteer work, and the ambition to attend college, Gunnoe found. And they performed no worse than those who weren’t spanked in areas like early sexual activity, getting into fights, and becoming depressed. She found little difference between the sexes or races.

I do agree that using spanking as a tool has a limited effectiveness and should be used sparingly, but how do you communicate to a toddler why their behavior is wrong? They only understand vagauge positive and negatives for the most part. You cannot sit a 2 year old down and have a conversation with them. at least not one that has words bigger than one syllable :)

 

[IcedEcliptic]

A child at the ages of 2-5 only understands black and white. They don't yet posess the reasoning capacity to comprehend why their behaviors are good or bad. Spanking is a tool that when used properly, in limited amounts, services as a course correction when a child gets off course. Unfortunately it's often not used that way.



That's from your article. And here's an article refuting yours:

http://www.newsmax.com/US/spanking-studies-children-spock/2010/01/07/id/345669



I do agree that using spanking as a tool has a limited effectiveness and should be used sparingly, but how do you communicate to a toddler why their behavior is wrong? They only understand vagauge positive and negatives for the most part. You cannot sit a 2 year old down and have a conversation with them. at least not one that has words bigger than one syllable :)

Yes, children lack the ability to reflect on their actions, so they simply learn by what you do. Your article is just that, an article. I gave you an article linking to a recent peer reviewed study by an Independent source. You have refuted nothing. For the rest, your understanding of the cognition of children is simplistic, but easy to correct. Research this topic beyond opinion pieces, and you won't find a single clear answer, but the bulk of research indicates that children fare better with other forms of discipline. Spanking reflects badly on the parent, who after all, can think in more than black and white. There is something between a peaceful chat, and hitting, it just takes more effort and is not cathartic.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Yes, children lack the ability to reflect on their actions, so they simply learn by what you do. Your article is just that, an article. I gave you an article linking to a recent peer reviewed study by an Independent source. You have refuted nothing. For the rest, your understanding of the cognition of children is simplistic, but easy to correct. Research this topic beyond opinion pieces, and you won't find a single clear answer, but the bulk of research indicates that children fare better with other forms of discipline. Spanking reflects badly on the parent, who after all, can think in more than black and white. There is something between a peaceful chat, and hitting, it just takes more effort and is not cathartic.

I don't see how you can raise a child without spanking. They seem to only respond to pain.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I don't see how you can raise a child without spanking. They seem to only respond to pain.

Of all my childhood friends, only two were spanked. One was always impossible, and his parents were out of control. He's in jail, but to be fair he would have been in any case I think. The other is completely normal by any standard. For myself and siblings, and others, we were never struck in any way, but our parents stuck to their punishments. Children respond to limits, positive and negative reinforcement, and the emotional state of the parent. Hell man, I've trained a lot of dogs in my time, and positive reinforcement almost always works best, and faster. You think a dog understands more than a 2-5 year old kid?

 

[Kerrie]

I don't see how you can raise a child without spanking. They seem to only respond to pain.

Not all children are alike in their response to punishment. Some children laugh at a spanking, but will be shocked into behaving when they are separated from the rest of the family for a time out.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Children respond to limits, positive and negative reinforcement, and the emotional state of the parent.

Depends on the child. Some just don't respond to anything but pain.

You think a dog understands more than a 2-5 year old kid?

No, they're just different than human children. Children will sometimes deliberately misbehave just to get a response, or to push you as far as they can get away with. Dogs won't do that. Dogs and children don't think alike.

Not all children are alike in their response to punishment. Some children laugh at a spanking, but will be shocked into behaving when they are separated from the rest of the family for a time out.

They may laugh at a spanking that, for whatever reason, didn't hurt. I've never seen a child laugh at pain.
And time outs are a nice hypothetical idea, but how do you keep them there? Strap them down? They're not motivated by anything to remain in the time out spot.

 

[George Jones]

A child at the ages of 2-5 only understands black and white.

My daughter is three years, eight moths old, and, for many months, she has understood why many of her actions are right and wrong. This doesn't always stop her from doing something bad, but when she does something bad, she understands that she has done something bad, and why it is bad. This, of course, means that is always asking for explanations from us. Lately, I have played the following "game" with her.

George: "When you get big like Mama and me, you might have your own little kid."

Pareesa: "Yes."

George: "What would you do if your kid does what you just did?"

She usually doesn't have an answer, but I can see that she thinks about it, and that she understands the conversation.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

My daughter is three years, eight moths old, and, for many months, she has understood why many of her actions are right and wrong. This doesn't always stop her from doing something bad, but when she does something bad, she understands that she has done something bad, and why it is bad. This, of course, means that is always asking for explanations from us. Lately, I have played the following "game" with her.

George: "When you get big like Mama and me, you might have your own little kid."

Pareesa: "Yes."

George: "What would you do if your kid does what you just did?"

She usually doesn't have an answer, but I can see that she thinks about it, and that she understands the conversation.

A voice of reason ,thanks to god.

 

[Evo]

My oldest daughter at three knew what she was not allowed to do and she knew the punishment. For example like drawing life size murals on the walls. When she finished, she would come to me for her punishment. She decided that expressing herself artistically was worth the punishment. Her constant drawing on anything she could find was the only thing she ever did "wrong"

 

[George Jones]

My oldest daughter at three knew what she was not allowed to do and she knew the punishment. For example like drawing life size murals on the walls. When she finished, she would come to me for her punishment. She decided that expressing herself artistically was worth the punishment. Her constant drawing on anything she could find was the only thing she ever did "wrong"

My daughter does lots of "wrong" things knowing full well that she may later have to deal with the consequences. My daughter is very willful; I already feel sorry for her poor husband (if she marries).

Late last Saturday afternoon, we were sitting on some rocks at the uptown harbour discussing what to do.

George: "We can either continue walking along Harbour Passage, or we can get in the car and go home."

Pareesa, starting to cry: "No, there are three!"

Shazia: "Three what?!"

George: "Three things that we can do. She wants to go to Saints' Rest Beach."

Pareesa: "Yes!"

Even though Pareesa understood my explanation that we didn't have time to go to Saints' Rest Beach and play before supper, Pareesa was very, very upset.

 

[Evo]

My daughter does lots of "wrong" things knowing full well that she may later have to deal with the consequences. My daughter is very willful; I already feel sorry for her poor husband (if she marries).

Late last Saturday afternoon, we were sitting on some rocks at the uptown harbour discussing what to do.

George: "We can either continue walking along Harbour Passage, or we can get in the car and go home."

Pareesa, starting to cry: "No, there are three!"

Shazia: "Three what?!"

George: "Three things that we can do. She wants to go to Saints' Rest Beach."

Pareesa: "Yes!"

Even though Pareesa understood my explanation that we didn't have time to go to Saints' Rest Beach and play before supper, Pareesa was very, very upset.

Yep, she's going to be handful. My older daughter never got into alcohol or drugs, she didn't rebel as a teen. But she has always had a very strong personality.

 

[DaveC426913]

Depends on the child. Some just don't respond to anything but pain.

This tends to be an indication of a more subtle form of dysfunction in the family.

A family whose control is through negative reinforcement will develop a child that responds to pain. A family that uses positive reinforcement
will more often have a child that does not wish to behave badly, and will more readily return to a positive state with the right encouragement. And this isn't limited to parents; it happens in classrooms as well.

Children learn what they are taught.

No, they're just different than human children. Children will sometimes deliberately misbehave just to get a response, or to push you as far as they can get away with. Dogs won't do that.

What? Dogs do this all the time. Few dog owners will deny that their dog will misbehave to get attention, and will see what tehy can get away with.

They may laugh at a spanking that, for whatever reason, didn't hurt. I've never seen a child laugh at pain.

I have.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

This tends to be an indication of a more subtle form of dysfunction in the family.

A family whose control is through negative reinforcement will develop a child that responds to pain. A family that uses positive reinforcement
will more often have a child that does not wish to behave badly, and will more readily return to a positive state with the right encouragement. And this isn't limited to parents; it happens in classrooms as well.

Children learn what they are taught.What? Dogs do this all the time. Few dog owners will deny that their dog will misbehave to get attention, and will see what tehy can get away with.I have.

Pain is the simplest form of communication, and the crudest. There is a reason that even torture rarely relies on pain. The powerful tools are reason, emotion, and manipulation. If you're incapable of that with a child, then parenting may not be a good thing, I think. I think of the so called "Dog Whisperer" Cesar Milan, who despite a funny nickname is very good at his job! He understands that the issues, as DaveC246913 says, are systemic, not local. Consistency in discipline is the biggest factor, and setting limits you CAN enforce, yes?

So too with children, I believe. Send them to bed early, deny them a toy or restrict their activities. They do learn, barring developmental delay, which is also not good with a violent solution. Why does anyone believe that hitting children does anything, but hurt them? You get immediate cessation, but then they are testing the limits of your violence. Hitting them is not connected to their wrongdoing either, so there is only the pairing of stimuli, shorting the cognitive process. You are also striking a helpless person, much like striking a defenseless animal. Both with eventually resent that, and react to their situation by withdrawing, or acting out.

I am struck by Evo and Dave's stories, which show their children IMMEDIATE consequences of their actions, which they can ponder and learn from. "If I do bad thing Y, I will not get good thing Z!" What does hitting teach except: "If I do bad thing Y,I am struck. I will avoid Y," without a real connection of consequences. Life does not allow people to lash out physically, so it is better to realize that misbehavior leads to the loss of what you want, instead of pain. Bad pet owners and bad parents have more in common than either ever care to admit, this is what I believe.

 

[leroyjenkens]

This tends to be an indication of a more subtle form of dysfunction in the family.

A family whose control is through negative reinforcement will develop a child that responds to pain. A family that uses positive reinforcement
will more often have a child that does not wish to behave badly, and will more readily return to a positive state with the right encouragement. And this isn't limited to parents; it happens in classrooms as well.

Children learn what they are taught.

When I was a child, my worst fear was getting a spanking. If I ever got time out, I felt like I got off easy.

What is positive reinforcement? The child does something bad and what would be the "positive reinforcement" as opposed to spanking?

Children learn what they're taught, but they also learn on their own. Like a child doesn't have to be taught to climb on something they're not supposed to climb on. They'll learn themselves and have to be told not to; at which point you've just made something forbidden, which increases their desire to do it.

What? Dogs do this all the time. Few dog owners will deny that their dog will misbehave to get attention, and will see what tehy can get away with.

Never heard of a dog misbehaving to get attention. Dogs chew up stuff, bite people, pee on the carpet and take food off the table for reasons that have nothing to do with wanting attention. Give me an example of something a dog does to get attention.

I have.

So if they laughed at it, how do you know it was truly painful?
At this point it seems like you're just saying the opposite of everything I say.

There is a reason that even torture rarely relies on pain.

It is? I thought the definition of torture is something painful. Can you name one of the apparently many torture techniques that don't rely on pain?

Why does anyone believe that hitting children does anything, but hurt them? You get immediate cessation, but then they are testing the limits of your violence. Hitting them is not connected to their wrongdoing either, so there is only the pairing of stimuli, shorting the cognitive process.

If you do something and you feel pain for it afterward, you won't do that in the future. Just like if something feels good, you'll try to do whatever you did to get that feeling. That's millions of years of evolution versus your opinion that it does nothing but hurt.

What does hitting teach except: "If I do bad thing Y,I am struck. I will avoid Y," without a real connection of consequences.

Pain is the consequence. Why is your depriving them a toy necessarily teach them any better? I know as a kid myself, pain was a better deterrent than any deprivation I could receive, unless it was something ridiculous.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

When I was a child, my worst fear was getting a spanking. If I ever got time out, I felt like I got off easy.

What is positive reinforcement? The child does something bad and what would be the "positive reinforcement" as opposed to spanking?

Children learn what they're taught, but they also learn on their own. Like a child doesn't have to be taught to climb on something they're not supposed to climb on. They'll learn themselves and have to be told not to; at which point you've just made something forbidden, which increases their desire to do it.

Never heard of a dog misbehaving to get attention. Dogs chew up stuff, bite people, pee on the carpet and take food off the table for reasons that have nothing to do with wanting attention. Give me an example of something a dog does to get attention.

So if they laughed at it, how do you know it was truly painful?
At this point it seems like you're just saying the opposite of everything I say.

It is? I thought the definition of torture is something painful. Can you name one of the apparently many torture techniques that don't rely on pain?

If you do something and you feel pain for it afterward, you won't do that in the future. Just like if something feels good, you'll try to do whatever you did to get that feeling. That's millions of years of evolution versus your opinion that it does nothing but hurt.

Pain is the consequence. Why is your depriving them a toy necessarily teach them any better? I know as a kid myself, pain was a better deterrent than any deprivation I could receive, unless it was something ridiculous.

Torture usually involves creating fear, uncertainty, and connection with the captor. Sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, circadian rhythm disruption, humiliation, mock execution, and the list goes on. You seem not to understand people very well leroyjenkens, if you believe that pain is some magical motivator. It isn't, it's very ineffective. That you do not know what positive reinforcement is, should say that you have much reading to do on the subject, yes? I do not mean an insult, but positive reinforcement is very basic; dogs are trained so that their "job" is just a game to them. They do the right thing, they get to play with a toy, or petting, or treats. If they do the wrong they, they get nothing.

In the context of torturing, this is still effective. Deprive one of their familiar surroundings, break down their defenses which are usually only geared to fight pain, and then kill them with kindness. If they want a pillow, they have to do something simple, then you lead them further. This is basic for people, and few can resist this given time. Like a horse, you do not leap on it to break it, but you touch it. It, the horse, becomes used to your touch, and then a blanket, and then a saddle, and finally you.

With a child, if they do good things, you give them good things. What child doesn't want a toy, or to play with friends, or watch TV? They get that when they are good, and when they misbehave they lose access to some or all of these things. You say you don't know how to keep a child in a "time out", without hitting them? What child that is not mentally disturbed can resist a grown man or woman to force them to use violence? You cannot do this with other people, not your children, so why do you teach children that violence and pain are these great motivators? I am sorry you were spanked, because the deleterious effects are plain in your responses. I do not mean to be pitying, or disrespectful, I am truly sorry.

 

[DaveC426913]

When I was a child, my worst fear was getting a spanking. If I ever got time out, I felt like I got off easy.

What is positive reinforcement? The child does something bad and what would be the "positive reinforcement" as opposed to spanking?

Wow. Really?

OK. Positive reinforcment is "Cindy-Loo, do you remember that we were going to watch your favourite show before bedtime? If you don't stop screaming we won't be able to."

The key to the positive reinforcement in the above case is that Cindy's life already exists in a framework of positive experiences, experiences she likes, so it is in her best interest to cooperate because she likes her life.

A child who has no such positve framework has no reason to cooperate since they know their life is not really going to improve.

Never heard of a dog misbehaving to get attention. Dogs chew up stuff, bite people, pee on the carpet and take food off the table for reasons that have nothing to do with wanting attention.

The fact that they do lots of stuff that's not for attention does nothing to refute the claim that they do sometimes do things for attention. You do realize that, right?

Give me an example of something a dog does to get attention.

Sometimes animals will chew on their owner's things and pee on them when they are unhappy with their owners. Animals often have a well-developed sense of passive aggression.

Don't take my word for it; ask a few dog owners.

So if they laughed at it, how do you know it was truly painful?

Because she likes to tell the story regularly. And I'm married to her.

At this point it seems like you're just saying the opposite of everything I say.

You say a lot of wrong stuff.

Ita is? I thought the definition of torture is something painful. Can you name one of the apparently many torture techniques that don't rely on pain?

Wow. Really?

Psychological torture? Sleep deprivation? How many examples would you like?

Pain is the consequence. Why is your depriving them a toy necessarily teach them any better? I know as a kid myself, pain was a better deterrent than any deprivation I could receive, unless it was something ridiculous.

OK, well that's really bad. And it would certainly explain the "what is positive reinforcement?" comment earlier.

 

[Evo]

Wow. Really?

OK. Positive reinforcment is "Cindy-Loo, do you remember that we were going to watch your favourite show before bedtime? If you don't stop screaming we won't be able to."

The key to the positive reinforcement in the above case is that Cindy's life already exists in a framework of positive experiences, experiences she likes, so it is in her best interest to cooperate because she likes her life.

A child who has no such positve framework has no reason to cooperate since they know their life is not really going to improve.

Wow, I would absolutely have to disagree here.

I was spanked for punishment. It was the last thing I wanted. Taking priveleges away from me meant nothing, because I knew it was temporary and my life would go on as normal. But all my mother had to do was take her belt out and we'd straighten up.

Timeouts and removing priveleges had no effect on my children either. But telling them about how disapointed I would be if they were as stupid as their friends made them strive to be better. We often talked about how stupid their friends were and that made them realize they didn't want to be stupid.

 

[DaveC426913]

Wow, I would absolutely have to disagree here.

I was spanked for punishment. It was the last thing I wanted. Taking priveleges away from me meant nothing, because I knew it was temporary and my life would go on as normal. But all my mother had to do was take her belt out and we'd straighten up.

Timeouts and removing priveleges had no effect on my children either. But telling them about how disapointed I would be if they were as stupid as their friends made them strive to be better. We often talked about how stupid their friends were and that made them realize they didn't want to be stupid.

None of this is exclusive of what I said.

I was not talking about removing privileges (negative reinforcement), I was talking about encouraging positve behaviour.

There is a difference between "if you don't stop screaming I'll take way your TV time"
and "Hey, you enjoy our time together, let's do that."

Maybe I didn't make it clear. The first sets up the parent as an adversary forcing choices on the child, whereas second sets up the parent as more of an ally, choosing positive behaviour with the child.

I'm not suggesting this works all the time, I'm suggesting that success will come faster and more frequently when the relationship is founded on positive reinforcement.

 

[Evo]

I'm not suggesting this works all the time, I'm suggesting that success will come faster and more frequently when the relationship is founded on positive reinforcement.

You said

Positive reinforcment is "Cindy-Loo, do you remember that we were going to watch your favourite show before bedtime? If you don't stop screaming we won't be able to."

That's a threat. That's not positive reinforcement.

Positive reinforcement is - You did a great job cleaning the table, how about we go see that movie you want to see tomorrow?

But I see that as a bribe.

I think making your kids understand what behaviour is acceptable to you and makes you happy will work if your kids have a brain. If they don't have a brain, you're in trouble.

 

[DaveC426913]

You said That's a threat. That's not positive reinforcement.

OK, I didn't choose my words well. You're picking up on the wrong parts.

"Cindy Loo, if you don't want to help me with dinner...", (because she's lying on the floor crying), "...then dinner will be late, and we might miss our show."

You see, it can be done in such a way as to cause the child to prefer to and choose to behave. Daily life really is generally positive, and the child really would rather life go back to the way it was before the screaming began.

It's not a threat, because it is based on logical consequences. It is the child's action that is jeopardizing TV time, not the parent's.

And it is not a bribe because the positive reward was already in place as part of the routine.

 

[turbo]

Why do people have so many children? When I was in my mid-twenties and had been married for a few years, a "girl" that had been a clingy pest showed up for a wedding. She had built her own house in a pretty exotic setting, on a shoestring. She was the youngest of 18, whittled down to 14 due to 3 early deaths and a brother killed in Viet-Nam.

French-Catholic families around here tended to have lots of kids not just when they were in farming, but later. It would seem counter-productive not to limit family size when the man was the primary wage earner with a fixed income and having more kids could not improve the economic outlook of the family, but perhaps tradition prevailed.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Torture usually involves creating fear, uncertainty, and connection with the captor. Sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, circadian rhythm disruption, humiliation, mock execution, and the list goes on.

What gives you the idea that that's what torture usually involves? I've seen many torture devices in my life and barely any, if any, don't cause pain.

You seem not to understand people very well leroyjenkens, if you believe that pain is some magical motivator. It isn't, it's very ineffective.

You're being dishonest by calling it "magic". You know it's not magic. We've evolved a system where we feel pain to motivate us. If it's so ineffective, why was it evolved and not a different system. Every animal that I know of can feel pain, so there must be a reason for that.

That you do not know what positive reinforcement is, should say that you have much reading to do on the subject, yes? I do not mean an insult, but positive reinforcement is very basic; dogs are trained so that their "job" is just a game to them. They do the right thing, they get to play with a toy, or petting, or treats. If they do the wrong they, they get nothing.

If I knew it was rewarding good behavior, I could have figured it out. I was under the impression that it was a discipline for bad behavior.

With a child, if they do good things, you give them good things. What child doesn't want a toy, or to play with friends, or watch TV? They get that when they are good, and when they misbehave they lose access to some or all of these things. You say you don't know how to keep a child in a "time out", without hitting them? What child that is not mentally disturbed can resist a grown man or woman to force them to use violence? You cannot do this with other people, not your children, so why do you teach children that violence and pain are these great motivators? I am sorry you were spanked, because the deleterious effects are plain in your responses. I do not mean to be pitying, or disrespectful, I am truly sorry.

And those deleterious effects on me were what? It created a person who doesn't know how depriving a child of pleasures can make them behave? I understand how it can possibly motivate some kids, but I also realize on some kids it doesn't work. I'm saying some kids only respond to pain; you're saying all kids will respond to the way you would discipline them. That's arrogant.

Wow. Really?

OK. Positive reinforcment is "Cindy-Loo, do you remember that we were going to watch your favourite show before bedtime? If you don't stop screaming we won't be able to."

The key to the positive reinforcement in the above case is that Cindy's life already exists in a framework of positive experiences, experiences she likes, so it is in her best interest to cooperate because she likes her life.

That doesn't sound like positive reinforcement.

A child who has no such positve framework has no reason to cooperate since they know their life is not really going to improve.

So a child who gets spanked for misbehaving is a child who has nothing positive in their life?

Sometimes animals will chew on their owner's things and pee on them when they are unhappy with their owners. Animals often have a well-developed sense of passive aggression.

Don't take my word for it; ask a few dog owners.

I've had a few dogs and have been around dogs all my life. The problem isn't how the dog thinks, it's how the owner thinks. If a dog chews up a prized possession, the owner suddenly thinks the dog is being spiteful, purposely going after that one item. But they ignore the fact the dog chews up a lot of things and it was a matter of time before he got ahold of something important.

You say a lot of wrong stuff.

This is the kind of mind I'm dealing with. You don't just disagree with what I say; what I say is "wrong".

Wow. Really?

Psychological torture? Sleep deprivation? How many examples would you like?

More examples than I can name of tortures that do involve pain. Since non-pain related torture is apparently way more common.

OK, well that's really bad. And it would certainly explain the "what is positive reinforcement?" comment earlier.

After reading what Evo said, apparently you got it wrong too.