The anti-spanking initiative is r-selected

Disclaimer: I came into this topic with an open mind and I was shocked by what I found.

Before we begin: We all know social science is indoctrinated by liberal bias (9/10 hiring decisions come on), so any parenting finding they present as untouchable requires as much doubt as global warming.

Before someone goes there, I hate to say it, but I doubt Stefan Molyneux knows psych data better than a guy who worked at the APA. Having data doesn’t mean shit, it’s the quality of the data. He keeps going on about this topic in a smug self-satisfied way with reference to simplistic philosophy over the scientific method as it applies here (they do differ substantially as we’ll see) and it irritated my amygdala enough to play Devil’s Advocate and see where the data took me.

I mean, if you watch that video I linked he even committed an ad hominem attack to anyone who disagrees and the psychogenetic fallacy, as well as the fallacy of dismissal and others. You’d be triggered too.

“In a meta-analysis of 26 studies, Larzelere and a colleague found that an approach they described as “conditional spanking” led to greater reductions in child defiance or anti-social behavior than 10 of 13 alternative discipline techniques, including reasoning, removal of privileges and time out
from http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/spanking.aspx

ummmm drinking oh dear no uh oh tyrion game of thrones drinking

THE FORBIDDEN FINDING. I could just leave it there, tbh. It’s tempting.

They refuse to control the data (confounds) properly because it would prove them wrong, that’s why the methods are dodgy. If you look at plenty of pro-liberal social studies (at least 90% of them presumably, going by hiring for research posts), the statistics are distorted to match public policy recommendations, making the studies themselves post-hoc and invalid. It’s justification for social engineering, not real science.

As in many areas of science, some researchers disagree about the validity of the studies on physical punishment. Robert Larzelere, PhD, an Oklahoma State University professor who studies parental discipline, was a member of the APA task force who issued his own minority report because he disagreed with the scientific basis of the task force recommendations. While he agrees that parents should reduce their use of physical punishment, he says most of the cited studies are correlational and don’t show a causal link between physical punishment and long-term negative effects for children.

Translation: he thinks they’re filthy liars so he showed them up with a real study (hence the meta-analysis method, the gold standard) and they have no genuine reply to this, it’s hilarious. He went on to explain their flaws too, because he’s savage.

Little known fact: You do have to prove causation. Before you start lecturing people. They cannot. What does that say? Well, what does proof involves? Statistical control of confounds, which they refuse to do for some strange reason. The same way behaviourists refuse to control for genetics in their studies, while saying out the other side of their mouths that it wouldn’t change their significant findings if they did….

This is why social science isn’t yet a real science. These people. Who ‘can’t’ do maths.

“The studies do not discriminate well between non-abusive and overly severe types of corporal punishment,” Larzelere says. “You get worse outcomes from corporal punishment than from alternative disciplinary techniques only when it is used more severely or as the primary discipline tactic.”

Such obscurity is always deliberate. Part of p-hacking. Heard of that reproducibility crisis?
Liberals see all forms of physical punishment as ‘too much’. To them, it’s all ‘abusive’, like disagreeing with a black guy is ‘racist’ or a gay man refusing to shag a woman is ‘sexist’. Well technically, theoretically speaking, but really no. Not in the real world. Where the data lives.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15898303

This meta-analysis investigates differences between the effect sizes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics for child outcomes in 26 qualifying studies. Analyzing differences in effect sizes reduces systematic biases and emphasizes direct comparisons between the disciplinary tactics that parents have to select among. The results indicated that effect sizes significantly favored conditional spanking over 10 of 13 alternative disciplinary tactics for reducing child noncompliance or antisocial behavior. Customary physical punishment yielded effect sizes equal to alternative tactics, except for one large study favoring physical punishment. Only overly severe or predominant use of physical punishment compared unfavorably with alternative disciplinary tactics. The discussion highlights the need for better discriminations between effective and counterproductive use of disciplinary punishment in general.

But the other researchers don’t want the truth. They can’t handle the truth. It’s black and white thinking from them on this subject. All bad, or all good, unlike literally any other human behaviour known to mankind. Did I mention another reason for its hot-potato status is racial differences?

Our results indicate that adolescents who perceive that their parents use an authoritative parenting style, regardless of their race, are less likely to engage in health-risk behaviors than adolescents who perceive that their parents use an authoritarian, permissive, or uninvolved parenting style. Conversely, in this study adolescents of all races who characterize their parents as uninvolved are more vulnerable to engaging in health-risk behaviors. The effects of the authoritarian and permissive parenting styles differ by race. In relation to the other parenting styles, the authoritarian style is more protective for Black adolescents than it is for White adolescents; while, the permissive style is more protective for White adolescents than it is for Black adolescents. The permissive parenting style and the authoritarian parenting style appear to have an equal effect on health-risk behaviors in Hispanic teens. source

TLDR: So being anti-authoritarian is actually racist.

hmm uhuh o rlly really ah sure thing

Don’t expect them to crack it anytime soon. Money’s on it being mediated by MAO genes. And if personality is innate after a certain point and we should accept this and tolerate differences, is it reasonable to ask people to change? Weren’t they Born This Way?

This whole debate, all this is a ruse that relates back to Authoritarianism, also called a parenting style but actually a political invention by Adorno, a personality metric to call conservatives mentally ill. It’s basically a medical label of prejudice. Adorno was an avowed Communist who worked as part of the Frankfurt School. Seriously, look it up.

No literally, he tried to make up a hodge-podge theory calling conservatives mentally ill. It’s quite funny how overtly biased he was.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/personality-theories.html#adorno

Case studies, e.g. Nazis

They piloted and developed a questionnaire, which they called the F-scale (F for fascism).

Those with an authoritarian personality tended to be:

• Hostile to those who are of inferior status, but obedient of people with high status [DS: hierarchical]

• Fairly rigid in their opinions and beliefs [DS: aka closed to manipulation attempts]

• Conventional, upholding traditional values

Liberals did political psychology before we did. They started it.

laughing rdj crack up

Despite how;

Still, the authors concluded that the authoritative parenting style is protective in regards to adolescent drug use, both concurrently and longitudinally (Adalbjarnardottir & Hafsteinsson, 2001). source

So it works. Literally, it works. The majority of their argument against is futile.

The whole idea of parenting styles is a joke. You know what the data shows? The still-conservative one called authoritative is the best for life outcomes. Do they follow outcomes for types of discipline? No, not really, and especially not the least-popular parenting ‘style’, permissive (lazy). Why wouldn’t liberals want to study that?

Little mentioned is the damage of the permissive (liberal) parenting style. Why? Well, it’s hardly ever researched and commented upon.

Parental permissiveness or indulgence was also associated with increased adolescent alcohol and tobacco use(22,23,27). source

Adolescents who described their mother as using a permissive parenting style were more likely to demonstrate a tendency to anticipate a more violent response to the hypothetical situation. [same source]

Sounds healthy. Mentally.

Parenting style is like learning style, it pathologizes natural differences for political gain around a kernel of truth. Mental illness is not a political pawn, nor should it be used as one. But again, which wing started that?

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/mental-illness-is-not-a-political-issue/17600#.VqR5n_mLTZ4

There is also a big difference between genuinely seeking to end unjust discrimination against those who suffer from severe mental-health issues, and making out that we’re all secretly a little bit mentally ill.

Is it to help people, as best as we can, to live normal lives? Or is it an attempt to medicalise further normal aspects of everyday life?

Casually diagnosing a misbehaving child with mental problems, such as anxiety or depression, is the equivalent of a get-out clause.

Girl crush.

We all know overdiagnosis is a problem, mathematically, as the majority (mentally healthy) cannot be the minority (mentally unhealthy) in a Medical Model. What type of person over-diagnoses or self-diagnoses?

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1566&context=lcp

Corporal punishment is usually correlated with behavior problems such as antisocial behavior and aggression.24 But correlation does not equal causation. What is open to dispute are the causal influences that explain those correlations. Making valid causal conclusions from correlations involving corrective actions is especially problematic, for correlations are biased against corrective actions, a problem known as the intervention selection bias.25 This selection bias occurs because of the poorer prognosis of those selected for the corrective action compared to the better prognosis of those not needing the corrective action.

aka Stefan is wrong.
And bad kids get disciplined more, they were bad to begin with. I love how nobody asks about psychopaths either. Like evil people pop into existence at age 18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

However, all kinds of nonphysical punishment also predicted higher antisocial behavior with the same controls.

Woops. That’s not to suppose to happen, is it, Stefan?

all predicted significantly higher subsequent hyperactivity, whereas physical punishment did not, β = .03, n.s. Therefore, the strongest causal evidence against customary spanking is not unique to spanking, but applies as much to most corrective actions, including most corrective disciplinary actions by parents and corrective interventions by psychotherapists.

That’s the sound of a hypothesis dying. Like a whale.
I don’t blame him for being a pacifist though. Being Canadian.
If the therapists are harming children, where’s your moral beacon?

In sum, the strongest causally relevant evidence against customary spanking yields small, apparently detrimental effects that can easily be due to a combination of several substantive and methodological factors that bias the results. Consistent with this, the first studies to use the same research methods for alternative disciplinary tactics showed similar results for corrective actions by both parents and professionals. In evaluating corrective actions by clinical psychologists, this type of evidence would not even be considered and would definitely not override the causally conclusive evidence that spanking can be effective for enforcing nonphysical disciplinary tactics, even in the most clinically defiant two- to six-year-olds.154

*crickets*

Under Conclusion.

Spanking must be understood in the broader context of the appropriate exercise of parental authority. Numerous studies have shown the superior effectiveness of authoritative parenting, especially compared with the extremes of authoritarian and permissive parenting.174 We have recently extended that evidence by documenting that ten-year child outcomes vary greatly by these preschool parenting patterns.175

Calling a parent a Nazi is pretty extreme, yes.

The use of normative spanking did not distinguish authoritative parents from other parenting patterns, although it was used more by authoritarian parents than by permissive parents. We think that authoritative parenting can be implemented by some parents without the use of any spanking, but we have no evidence of that from our study, as all authoritative parents used spanking at least occasionally.

As this alludes, hippies still spank their kids, they just lie about it. Getting the child to lie for them could be considered a form of abuse too, if you want to play that game.

There’s a load of duh conservative wisdom too before I move on.

Spanking should never be used in an infant’s first twelve months of life and rarely, if at all, before eighteen months of age. Parents should make sure their children know that any corrective discipline, including spanking, is motivated by love and concern for them. Parents must also be certain not to administer punishment too severely, whether physical or nonphysical. Finally, all punishment should be used in such a way that reduces the need to use it in the future. Every child is different, so not all disciplinary tactics will work as well with every child—or for every situation with the same child.

Parental authority figure. Authoritative role assumption. Duh?

Authoritarian should actually be called Tyrant. If the labelling system were culturally honest and followed, I dunno, the definition of English words?
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english-thesaurus/authoritarian

I was doing some pondering over this topic and the neurobiology that must be involved and came up with a pie-in-the-sky opinion theory. Since I’ve already established the direction the empirical evidence has headed, I wanna freestyle it to finish.

Wall of text incoming.

I was reading about the findings on spanking, and it seems to be r-types self-selecting for narcissism. As in, they don’t develop empathy, which is based on pain (all kinds) and physically structured by mirror neurons. For an example of how this pertains to modern issues, such impaired ‘theory of mind’ (low empathy) is implicated in Borderline Personality. From what I know of the brain, spanking would actively change the child’s personality (an unstudied effect, a remarkable gap in the research despite the known origin of spanking research -parenting style- being based in the personality of the parents) and this change would aim to make the child more socially humble and deferential, respecting of hierarchy, such as parental authority, (like the spanking parents themselves, making spanking a cultural meme and untouchable by liberals on this basis) and such traits are something we know to be actively K-selected. I even thought of a mechanism, most parents who spank only start once the child is of around pre-school age, wandering curious age, at the exact time of great neural pruning. What most people don’t know is that neural pruning can be triggered and directed by experiences of pain, and once those connections are gone, they’re dead forever. Pruning is vital for healthy brain development, and may be a hidden environmental factor (really epigenetic) in childhood development.
By refusing to admit any positive effects from spanking whatsoever (impossible in social science), they admit their bias, because at that exact time biologically in the child’s development, mild physical pain, no different morally than controlled exposure hand-ice studies conducted by psychologists themselves, would cause neural pruning of the decisive connections which led to that antisocial behaviour. It causes a rewiring of the brain for prosociality during the ‘window of opportunity’.
In the ‘social science’, they’ve tried to argue that spanking causes sociopathy but the genetics show there is a predisposition, so what, pray tell geniuses, is a parent supposed to do if they find their kid lighting fires? How are they supposed to discipline the child they found torturing cats or trying to kill their little sister by pushing her down the stairs? They have no answer for this, because their entire anti-scientific premise rests on All Child Are Innocent Angels Incapable of Wrongdoing, something any parent will tell you is BS. The number of abusive children is rising.
What is the social engineer’s answer to this? Does the parent require less protection, when the child is often below the age of criminal responsibility? One of the expert-given causes for such abuse is “lack of consequences for bad behavior”, what do you think that might mean? As for solutions: “There are no agencies or programs that protect parents from abusive children, adolescents or teenagers other than giving up their Parental Rights to the state they live in.” So it seems the case that if the parents refuse to use physical force altogether, the child might take the newly imbalanced power dynamic (game theory) as carte blanche and abuse the parent. Such sunny optimism as you see with the anti-spanking witch hunts fail to recognize this, despite their supposed stance against all abuse and violence. It irritates their amygdala, you see, making them ignore it. Like a child screaming in a supermarket. They’re That Parent.
If a parenting style fails to apply to all children (and you don’t know who’s pathological until they’ve killed the family cat), it fails and one cannot advise parents to undertake it in good conscience. Children are capable of great evil and not just the sociopathic ones (from ignorance, bad peer influence, genetic bequeath or sheer stupidity). If you ask real parents anecdotally, (bear in mind liberals avoid having children making their opinion dubious since they admit to hating kids in general) they’ll draw a connection between late Gen Y/ early Gen Z and NARCISSISM. Aka part of the Dark Triad. Why weren’t those connections pruned, compared to earlier generations? Many parents would say the anti-spanking initiative, and wouldn’t you know it, that generation is coincidentally the most heavily liberal known to mankind. They respect nothing and feel invincible, literally as if nothing could really harm them? ‘Import rapists? Sure! They would never hurt me!’ It would be a like a cultural version of Toxoplasmosis infection, because they speak from ignorance. Their brains are immature, but that isn’t an excuse, they aren’t insane and know logically right from wrong, and arguably that makes it worse. They follow their feelings knowing it’s wrong, the polar opposite of what the advocates of prohibition say should happen!

It’s widely recognized the rise in child narcissism is due to the Self Esteem Movement, but what caused the SEM? What new behaviours from parents, since it’s novel in children? Non-parenting parents. Genetic parents, who fail to take up the social role.

nonparents

Source: The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement

I’ll just paste this off wikipedia because I’m lazy.

A study conducted by Jean Decety and colleagues at the University of Chicago demonstrated that subjects with aggressive conduct disorder elicit atypical empathic responses to viewing others in pain.[89] Subjects with conduct disorder were at least as responsive as controls to the pain of others, but unlike controls, subjects with conduct disorder showed strong and specific activation of the amygdala and ventral striatum (areas that enable a general arousing effect of reward), yet impaired activation of the neural regions involved in self-regulation and metacognition (including moral reasoning), in addition to diminished processing between the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex.[89]

Absence of punishment rewards bad behaviour. They don’t learn to control themselves and cannot morally reason, the thing the anti-spanking people rely on as the bulk of their proposition.

What appears to be pathological altruism is in fact a weakened threat recognition system, and surely it’s better to teach a child the meaning of pain and suffering in a controlled environment than wait for it to metastasize in a potentially lethal way? None of the studies, though persuasive, account for these factors. Reasoning with a bad child doesn’t work. Some children are bad, where do they think bad adults come from? They pop into existence at age 18? Why even have clinical child psychology if no intervention could ever have changed them? What are good parents of a bad egg supposed to do? Pray? Cos that’s about as reasonable as ‘reasoning’ with them – humans are not logical animals. If it won’t work on adults (Israel/Palestine, anyone?) it certainly won’t work on a toddler. We have to teach classical logic and formal laws of maths when they’re at school, far too late, the superego/conscience is already formed, so expecting them to get it earlier on or as a baby is frankly retarded. So while I hate to say it, I’m forced to conclude that spanking is justifiable in certain conditions of very bad behaviour (especially criminal) and during the window of life phase time (childhood stage) it might be corrected for. A little bad does us good, in the long term? This is the low time preference view, which is, wouldn’t you know it, the preserve of conservatives. I call it the Eustress Hypothesis.

TLDR: Fear is something you learn and liberals haven’t.

Also, I find it funny liberals don’t believe in IQ unless they’re citing spanking studies, then negligible IQ drops are totally a real thing and a huge deal (unlike IQ drops from smoking pot, which are rounding errors apparently). 5 points of difference for example could be caused by anything, it was raining today so when the kid took the IQ test again he was sad? Education boosts IQ far more than spanking supposedly drops it, so what’s the problem? If we’re playing the IQ maths game? Does it take pointing out the obvious by twisting it the other way to make the faulty reasoning clear? Did they control for parental investment (extraneous variable) or what? No, they did not. This includes reading to them and other at-home education (itself a sign of parental IQ – another confound!). The IQ difference within this study doesn’t even remain over time, in the older age group, the difference is a stonking 2.8 IQ points! Wow! At which point they stopped measuring or failed to report on the data, which isn’t odd… To clue you in on how valid this widely cited dataset is, the guy who conducted it is a sociologist. Not even a child psychologist or anything psychologist (they tend to use different methodologies, different assumptions and much weaker statistics).

According to PC dogma, even yelling isn’t allowed now. So no form of discipline is acceptable to them, the r-types. Why yelling? It causes shame and apparently no child should ever feel shame for anything. http://jezebel.com/if-yelling-at-kids-is-as-harmful-as-spanking-what-the-1455310255

Gee, which political wing hates being ‘shamed’?

Different from guilt, which is too generic and makes them neurotic and indecisive as adults. Like Catholics.

I don’t expect liberals to avoid confirmation bias, we wouldn’t want them to be triggered by facts, would we? However, I expect better from the Alt Right. Quit taking tips on aggression from a non-scientist Canadian philosopher. Quit bothering me with assumptions that his proofs are correct when the internet is right there and you should use it. Topic covered? Can we drop it now?

I don't have anything funny to say about this

8 responses to “The anti-spanking initiative is r-selected

  1. aka Stefan is wrong.

    Yes. And frankly, it is a difficult claim to substantiate (but you have done so very nicely).

    This is one of the few subjects that I have disagreed with him on for a long time (and have said so in his comments section). I base this upon myself growing up and my brothers and sisters (also my own daughter, who has only been spanked with my hand once in her life, which was enough for her to understand the outcome of such behavior… she had hit her mother). I am no professional, so… grain of salt.

    Actually, Stefan has been on a string of subjects where he differs in opinion than I, the most recent on the Stephen Avery rant (especially with that scatterbrain, Lionel). And what bothers me is that he can ALWAYS find some way to make it about his pet subject matter (telling me that some of his shtick is ideologically based… not so much science based).

    All in all, he does a decent job so throwing out the baby with the bath water may not be entirely necessary. I tend to pick out the diamonds from the cat litter.

    • Thanks. It’s a hard topic to address since conservatives naturally want to protect children, leading to silence on topics that might cause active harm (and yet vocal opposition to abortion, which the liberals don’t see as violating the Non-Aggression Principle, oddly). The NAP is actually a relative philosophical idea with limited applications, yet he applies it all the damn time and yes, I admit it frustrated me. NAP is based on the theology of the Golden Rule, and I’ve refuted that elsewhere on this site too. Game theory and all other such mathematical modelling shows it up to be naive and such gross ignorance of true human nature (non-theoretical, Ivory Tower) is unacceptable for people who take such a huge portion of responsibility for future generations unto themselves.
      He tries to position his personal opinion as the absolute standard of Goodness, that’s the posturing liberals do. I think of it as Claiming the High Horse. I wonder, if we asked him “have you ever spanked your children?” whether he would answer honestly. Nor does he mention how this moral reasoning is supposed to work on a child with/out language comprehension, he doesn’t actually suggest a solution but a generic “reason with them” as if all adults are ogres with a sadistic streak. Irritating dodge.
      Previously, I was generally against spanking as a rule, conceptualizing it as abusive (I bought into the Narrative), but the evidence has actually changed my mind. I don’t like it, but I think it’s necessary. For people who don’t believe in the Devil, these prohibitionists sure go on a lot about ‘evil’.

      • I know what you mean about being generally against spanking. So am I to this day. My daughter is 11 and I am a large guy. The last thing I ever want to do is spank a little girl (its why I didn’t use a paddle or switch or belt… just my hand for three quick spanks on the butt).

        But she has never forgotten (and if you must know, I left the room and this big guy cried). So, I have never forgotten either.

        My hope is that I never have to do anything like that again. But because I love this little girl with all my heart, it is something I would do if necessary.

        Thanks for sharing this.

      • I think it’s important to tell parents the truth. The media coverage portrays parents who spank (- practically all parents) as abusive monsters, when they should be citing the genuine data and when and how much is too much. That would be helpful, as opposed to, I hate to say it, demonizing. Even assault isn’t malum in se legally, it depends on the context. 81% of parents believe it’s sometimes justified and the data supports them, so non-reportage of this information is unethical guilt-tripping. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/11/parents-and-spanking
        Despite the prohibitionist propaganda effort for decades, the latest data shows the rate of spanking is unchanged, suggesting something innate at least. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/05/millennials-like-to-spank-their-kids-just-as-much-as-their-parents-did/ Prove me wrong by accounting for the confounds, Stefan!

  2. We can also apply simple logic: what society, before the West circa 1980, has ever refused point-blanc to punish children physically? There are many animals that do not physically harm their infants. These animals tend not to be curious. Humans, being curious, will stick our fingers in electrical sockets and pick up snakes as infants. A slap to a one year old’s hand is a better lesson than death.

  3. You are most likely going to ignore this message, or censor me from your cult members, that is fine. God sees everything.

    “However, all kinds of nonphysical punishment also predicted higher antisocial behavior with the same controls.

    Woops. That’s not to suppose to happen, is it, Stefan?”

    Nice try, but Stefan is right, you are wrong.

    (also that would make stefan is r-selected ? lmfao)

    The article you shared, which referenced a study that found that ‘conditional spanking’ was effective (Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005), appears to have been published prior to Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor’s (2016) meta-analysis. This analysis showed that even after removing studies relying on abusive methods (e.g. hitting with fist or object), spanking was associated with detrimental child outcomes (e.g. more aggression, lower cognitive ability). Larzelere and colleagues (2017) recently published an article critiquing the extant literature on corporal punishment, which Holden and colleagues (2017) responded to. In their article, Holden et al. (2017) addressed Larzelere and Kuhn’s (2005) study , stating:

    ‘For Larzelere et al. (2017) to be right that spanking causes positive child outcomes, there would have to be a large body of research showing spanking is correlated with positive outcomes. With the exception of a few isolated studies (e.g., Gunnoe, 2013), no such body of research exists. Instead, a series of meta-analyses have each documented that physical punishment is significantly correlated only with negative developmental outcomes (Ferguson, 2013; Gershoff, 2002; Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016; Paolucci & Violato, 2004). Although the magnitude of effect sizes varies, the directionality is consistent. The one exception is a meta-analysis conducted by Larzelere (Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005) that found “customary spanking” to be linked with beneficial outcomes more strongly than other forms of discipline. Yet these findings are difficult to interpret because several analyses included more than one effect size from the same children in the same study, which violates the assumption of independence of effect sizes, and leads to the underestimation of error and the overestimation of effect size precision. Such an approach is not an accepted practice when conducting a meta-analysis (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009). . . In the recent Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor (2016) meta-analytic review of 75 studies, only one out of 111 effect sizes indicated a statistically significant link between “spanking” and a positive outcome for children. In contrast, 71% of effect sizes and 99% of statistically significant effect sizes found it to be linked with negative outcomes. These effect sizes were derived from data representing 160,927 unique children from 13 countries. Given that the 75 studies involved a range of designs, measures, and cultures, the consistency of their findings is remarkable.’ (p. 8-9)

    For more information, I recommend having a look at both Larzelere and colleague’s (2017) article and Holden et al.’s (2017) response.

    References

    Gershoff, E. T., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2016). Spanking and child outcomes: old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of Family Psychology, 1-17. doi:10.1037/fam0000191

    Holden, G. W., Grogan-Kaylor, A., Durrant, J. E., & Gershoff, E. T. (2017). Researchers deserve a better critique: response to Larzelere, Gunnoe, Roberts, and Ferguson (2017). Marriage & Family Review. doi:10.1080/01494929.2017.1308899

    Larzelere, R. E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2005). Comparing child outcomes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics: a meta-analysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8(1), 1-37. doi:10.1007/s10567-005-2340-z

    Larzelere, R. E., Gunnoe, M. L., Roberts, M. W., & Ferguson, C. J. (2017). Children and parents deserve better parental discipline research: critiquing the evidence for exclusively “positive” parenting. Marriage & Family Review, 53, 24–35. doi:10.1080/01494929.2016.1145613

    aka 90% of the research agrees with Stefan.

    You are cherry picking the 10% to justify your subconscious desire to hit brown kids and r-selected kids.

    Try again.

    • Cult? Here?
      The passive aggression in that is priceless, it’s blog post length but you post it here for traffic instead of your own site then drop a link.
      “Try again” nobody qualifies to equalists. 90% of research in a politically biased subject?
      Permissive parenting causes degenerate kids. If you dispute this, ask any girl with tattoos about her parent’s rule-setting.
      Stefan hasn’t had a child psychologist expert in the field on because none would say a parent should just “talk” to their kid, kids ignore. Then they develop behavioural problems from personality disorders to explosive disorders etc. You can’t talk it out with someone whose brain is still developing, they are not an equal.
      You’re cherrypicking with me from google and acting like you’re an authority. Fuck off? Your opinion doesn’t change the fact. This is about covering for lazy parents and punishing traditional ones for using any discipline. They also want to use the academic and legal precedents to defend criminals (again, no discipline, pattern).
      Your reference list is more incestuous than your family tree to think I’d be impressed.
      no such body of research exists.” means you are wrong
      You are arguing from ignorance and so is he. Most researchers are dipshits, I know from experience. Anyone can get published. They won’t do the studies but they’ll pretend the “absence of evidence is evidence of absence”, a form of scientism.
      Maths: “Although the magnitude of effect sizes varies” Mathematically, that shouldn’t happen in a robust meta study. Again, weak hand.
      “Yet these findings are difficult to interpret” he’s lying, dude, it isn’t difficult, he’s making excuses to ignore it, it’s academese aka bullshit
      “Such an approach is not an accepted practice when conducting a meta-analysis” trying to find a loophole, liar
      It was published, so it is accepted practice, actually! That’s what accepted means!
      Two or three guys pushing a narrative in your reference list isn’t gospel. It doesn’t change life outcomes, which they neglect (should include crime).
      “Given that the 75 studies involved a range of designs, measures, and cultures, the consistency of their findings is remarkable.’” How many of those were paid for a particular result, PC, and how many publications also published studies showing the opposite effect, un-PC?
      It’s called liberal privilege and it means you’re wrong.

1. Be civil. 2. Be logical or fair. 3. Do not bore me.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s