How Children REALLY React To Control

"Chris" wrote in message
...

I fail to see how you can blithely assert that punitive control "by
and large works well" when every single child subjected to it exhibits at
least several of the undesirable side effects on the list.

"Well" is not the same thing as "perfectly," and "by and large" indicates
that there are exceptions. The fact is that those symptoms do not stop most
people from becoming honest, productive citizens who are generally inclined
to respect the rights of others. Whatever the faults of current parenting
methods, they haven't stopped us from building the wealthiest, most
technologically advanced society in the history of mankind.

Could we do better? Definitely. In spite of our disagreements regarding
how far it probably makes sense to go in eliminating punishment, we both
agree that society would be better off if more parents relied less on
punishment and more on positive techniques.

On the other hand, have you compared typical American parenting among those
who make use of punishment with how ancient Sparta treated its sons?

If win/win
cooperative methods of discipline resulted in such a list of side effects,
with at least some of them manifesting in every single child raised in
this manner, surely you would never accept the assertion that "by and
large" win/win methods work well, nor should you.

Whether or not I would accept the assertion would depend on how common and
serious the side effects were, and on how well the children tended to
function as adults. And if the wealthiest, most technologically advanced
society on the planet had been using mostly such techniques from its
inception, I would have a hard time arguing that such techniques were
failing miserably, whatever my thoughts about the possibility of doing
better.

My response to your recent posts boils down to two main points. The
first is the above point that punitive control carries a host of
undesirable side effects and hence does not "by and large work well."
The second is that you fail to acknowledge that the disruption of the
harmony of the parent/child relationship which is a natural consequence of
a child failing to live up to agreements they have made, constitutes a
"consequence" in its own right.

On the contrary, I have acknowledged that it is a consequence. What you
refuse to acknowledge is even the slightest possibility that children's
desire to violate an agreement might sometimes outweigh their desire to
avoid that consequence.

By ignoring this fact you then leave the
way open to arguing that there has to be a "consequence" and that only
punishment will suffice. Your reasoning is sound, but follows from a
faulty assumption.

Quoting from what I wrote in an earlier message (with a slight correction in
wording): "With negotiated settlements, the child does have to give up
something he or she didn't want to, so whether or not a possibility of
punishment is needed depends on whether or not the child is willing to abide
by the agreement without that possibility. [i]f the child abides by the
agreement strictly on his or her own, or if just reminding the child of the
agreement and of why keeping the agreement is important is enough, there is
no need to bring up the issue of punishment. But if the child is not
willing to abide by the agreement voluntarily, punishment may be necessary."

In other words, parents can start off assuming that the child will keep his
or her agreements without the need to bring up a possibility of punishment.
If that works out, wonderful. But if violations of agreements become a
significant problem, some kind of additional consequence is needed if the
agreements are to work. (Steve, what do you think about the relationship
between this issue and Breach of Contract in adult law?)

Doan wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On 10 Jun 2004, Kane wrote:

Chris has been running away from me since the Straus et al (1997) debacle.
----------------
No, we simply stand back when you ****, and you **** everywhere
we take you, like a baby with projectile diarrhea.

The only "****" on this newsgroup I see is
-------------
You. Go the **** away, or grow a brain and use it.
Steve

LOL! Speaking like a "never-spanked" kid with a "****" coming out of his
mouth. Tell me, do all "never-spanked" grow up to be like you?

Doan
-----------------
You're the only one with mouth-****.
Steve

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

(And before you talk about how
wonderfully children who are raised with freedom will invariably treat
others,
--------------------------
They will treat others as those others deserve to be treated.

Look at where treating each other the way you think the other deserves to be
treated is taking you and Doan. A society where everyone took that kind of
view would almost certainly self-destruct through a cycle of treating each
other worse and worse. Being able to disagree with people but still treat
them in a civil way is an extremely important skill in preserving
civilization.

look at how you're treating me. That alone proves that it doesn't
always work.)
------------------------------
Don't posture and pretend like a little manipulative ****.
Disagreeing with you isn't any "crime"!!

I've committed no crime against you,

That's my point. There is more to maintaining a civilized society than just
not committing crimes against each other.

I have told you the Truth, just
one you simply don't like, and I have told you what I think of you,
nothing more.

Nothing more? How many times did you tell me what you think of me? Just
enough for me to know, or do you keep making an ongoing effort to be
insulting?

Trying to hurt people with words is not something that we generally consider
serious enough to constitute a crime, but it is nonetheless a way of hurting
people. In my view, the difference between what you are doing and assault
and battery is far more a matter of degree than a matter of basic kind.

Perhaps more importantly, what would you think of a parent who told his
child what he thinks of him in the manner you're telling me what you think
of me? If your standard for how adults should treat children is that it
should be the same as how adults are expected to treat each other, consider
the implications of how you are treatimg me in that context.

As for whether or not what you've told me is Truth, you believe that it is
and I believe that most of it is not. Unfortunately, you seem to be missing
another useful skill in maintaining civilization, the skill of
distingusihing between personal beliefs and that which can be clearly
proven.

(By
"unacceptable," I am referring to matters serious enough that
the parents believe they ought to be non-negotiable or negotiable
only within certain boundaries, not just to actions parents would
prefer not to accept.)
--------------------
If you cannot convince your children of that by reason and logic,
then you're merely wrong in your beliefs.

Let me get this straight. If parents and children disagree, it is
automatically the parents, the people who have lived more than twice as
long and generally have a significantly higher level of maturity, that
are
wrong? I don't see that as making any sense at all.
----------------------------------
If you and the person you're pushing around and bullying disagree,
then yes, it is your fault because YOU'RE pushing them around.

Re-read what you wrote earlier: "If you cannot convince your children of
that by reason and logic, then you're merely wrong in your beliefs." That
is a very different thing from saying that parents are wrong in making and
enforcing rules based on their beliefs.

People who care about each other want each one of them to all
get what they each separately and differently want,

In general, that is true. But when you love someone, and that person
wants something that you know will be bad for them, you will generally
hope that they do NOT get what they want. For example, if your children
would decide that they wanted to take a dangerous illegal drug, would
you
want for them to get the drug or want for them not to get it? If you
would
want them to get it, I have the same contempt for you that you have
toward parents who spank.
--------------------------
If your "children" are sufficiently able to research, inquire, and
obtain a drug against your desires, then no coercion of any kind
is likely to do more than endanger you if you try to get in their
way physically. It isn't likely to be a situation in which they
are unaware of your opinion. The most constuctive thing you can
do is to maintain civility with them so that you have their ear
and then you can tell them of your worries, and any information
about the drug that you might give them. Still, if you DID have
a friendship relationship with them, one devoid of any coercion,
ONLY THEN would you even be LIKELY to know of their drug use
ANYWAY! Any coercive relatiionship you have with them will serve
to prevent you even being ALLOWED by them to know of their drug
use. As a parent *I* would rather be uncoercive and KNOW what my
kids were interested in, and be able to speak with them without
being ignored and dismissed, than to coerce them and lose that
knowledge entirely!!

First of all, you completely missed the fact that I was using a fairly
extreme situation to provide a clear counterexample against your claim that
if parents love their children, they will want for their children to get
what the children want. I was illustrating an entire category of situations
that you had been ignoring, and wasn't really trying to find one of the
cases from that category where coercion would be most effective.

I'm curious: when you were a child, how much did you tell your parents about
things you did that you knew they wouldn't approve of? And to your
knowledge, how much did your own children tell you about it when they did
things they they knew you wouldn't approve of? The idea that non-coercive
parents will know more about what's going on sounds good in theory, but if
children's desire to avoid parental disapproval shuts down communication
anyhow, the choice you are presenting is a false one.

Again, respect and pragmatism is the watchword.
Coercion never works, it only blinds you and separates you
from them as their enemy.

You keep using the word "pragmatism," but in situations where parents expect
coercion to work, coercion is in fact pragmatic.

Unfortunately, your model of human relationships seems to allow only for
the type of love that gives people what they want without regard to
whether or not it is good for them, not for the type of love that causes
parents to want to make sure their children will NOT get what they want
if it is bad for them.
-----------------------------
Our kids were raised without coercion, and they never did anything
without talking to us about it. If we had been coercive, they would
have gone into secrecy and we'd have been shut out. And since they
had no worry that we'd act to stop them, they ALSO TOOK OUR ADVICE,
JUST AS IF THEY WERE ADULT FRIENDS OF OURS!! They had no impression
that we were simply dishonoring them and attempting to control them,
so they trusted us!!

You make it sound as if your children always did what you thought they
should in every single instance.

but I don't view it as
realistic to expect all relationships to consistently measure up
to that ideal.) If the parents generally give in first, the result
is
in the direction of the stereotypical spoiled brat who knows
that if he or she doesn't cooperate, harmony will still probably
come when the parents give up.
----------------
A child wanting what they want for themselves is NOT a "spoiled"
or any kind of "brat"

Who ever said that merely wanting something makes a child a a brat?
---------------
You did. Above. You implied that demanding one's own freedom made
a child a "spiled brat" merely because that demand disturbed your
high-handed notion of harmony!

I implied that creating disharmony and making it impossible for parents to
get harmony back without giving in to the child's desires makes a child
something in the direction of a spoiled brat. That involves more than
merely "wanting something."

There
are two basic categories of behavior that I associate with the
"spoiled brat" stereotype. One is the use of tantrums or similar
types of psychological coercion to get what they want. (I see
nothing inherently wrong with, "Please, please, please can I have
that?" although it can become psychologically coercive if a child
persists after being told no in the hope that a parent will agree
just so the child will stop asking.)
------------------
Children only throw tantrums when they believe that you're not on
THEIR side. If they believe you would get something for them if you
could, because you showed interest in what they wanted, then they
would never get that frustrated. You just have to prove to them
that you are as much on their side as on your own.

I won't try to quote your explanation about what you did in your family, but
I'm always impressed by that kind of example of parental creativity. It's
the sort of way of heading off problems that I wholeheartedly approve of,
assuming parents are willing to invest the time and effort required. And I
absolutely love the way it helped the kids get what they wanted and taught
them about managing money wisely at the same time.

On the other hand, I'm less convinced that expecting all parents to live up
to the standard of alertness, creativity, and energy you set would be
reasonable or realistic. In an essentially symmetric relationship of
adults, the time and money people spend helping each other is likely to more
or less balance out. But in a parent-child relationship, especially with
young children, parents have to provide far more help in satisfying the
children's needs and desires than the children could possibly provide in
satisfying the parents' needs and desires. The asymmetric nature of the
situation makes it a good bit harder for parents to come up with the time
and energy to do things for their children than it would be if the children
could give the parents a comparable amount of help in return.

Which means that you have a technique that worked well for you, and could
presumably work similarly well for other parents who are willing to put in
the time and effort (give or take a bit, depending on the children's
personalities and how good the parents are at implementing the technique),
but that is no more than a partial solution for those who aren't willing or
able to invest as much effort in satisfying their children's desires.

And I might add that if parents make a habit of giving in to children's
desires before they start throwing a tantrum, they are spoiling thier kids
just as much as they would if they waited for their child to throw the
tantrum. In essence, the risk of a tantrum coerces parents into acceding to
their children's wishes whether the parents want to do so or not. If the
parents don't mind having that happen, and view the risk of possible future
adjustment problems if the kids have a harder time getting what they want
later in life as acceptable, that's not a problem. But I see no basis for
creating a legal or moral requirement for parents to give children what they
want or find a suitable substitute in order to avert tantrums.

You indulge
in paranoid fantasy that children don't WANT you to be happy

On the contrary, I made it very clear to Chris that that was NOT my
assumption. Suppose a child would like to make his parents happy, but
to
do so would require not doing something that the child believes (not
necessarily correctly) will make him happy. Further suppose the parents
have a good reason not to want the child to do what the child thinks
will
make him happy - whether because they expect the long-term negative
impact to outweigh the short-term happiness benefit, or because of a
danger involved, or because of harm it would cause someone else
(albeit not to a point of criminal behavior). That is the type of
situation
I'm trying to address.
------------------------------------------
This all sounds like blabber. Why not give an example and I'll tell
you how a sensible parent SHOULD behave?

Suppose a four-year-old needs to go to daycare so his parents can go to
work, but the child refuses to go?

This is as it should be, because actually, in real human life, you
cannot control any other living person but YOURSELF, and
pretending that you can or should, and that others should obey
you, is LUNACY!!!

Perfect, total, complete control over another human being is impossible.
-------------------
No. You absolutely REQUIRE another's assent and cooperation or else
you are achieving nothing. NO "control" of another is possible, as
you cannot control their body.

You can play word games all you want, but from a practical perspective, if
one human being could not achieve significant control over another, slavery
would never have existed.

But in situations where a person knows that misbehavior will be caught
and punished (for example, if a parent counts to three to get a child to
do something or stop doing something), the level of control can be quite
high. Obviously, as the risk of a child's getting caught and punished
declines, so does the amount of control that can be exerted through
punitive techniques.
----------------------------
That sort of attitude of high-handed mind-control toward a child
is nothing but a desperate mental illness, a perversion, a sickness!

You make me want to vomit.

That violates even the Geneva Convention for the Treatment of
Prisoners. If you treat a child that way you are systematically
creating nothing but a bullying monster with demons inside.

If the Geneva Convention allows a prison guard to punish a prisoner for
refusing to cooperate in a particular situation, or for refusing to stop an
impermissible action, I don't see how it could possibly violate the
Convention for a guard to count to three to give the prisoner a chance to
reconsider instead of punishing the prisoner immediately.

But your attitude, if I understand it correctly,
seems to be that children are entitled to those things for free with
absolutely no return obligations whatsoever to their parents, and
that parents must go beyond those things if they want to offer their
children something in negotiations.
------------------------
Precisely, a parent can do a great number of extra things for and
with a child to help them in their numerous quests. These are the
things that FRIENDS do for one another, even if one owes the other
some money.

This interpretation distorts the balance of power very heavily in favor of
the children compared with the normal balance of power in relationships
between adults. With adult roommates, behaving in a way that does not
bother your roommate too much (for example, not playing the stereo too loud
and not making too much of a mess in shared areas) is part of the basic
deal. So is doing one's share of the chores, in whatever manner they are
divided. A roommate that does not do his part to make the relationship work
can be thrown out, or can have his roommate leave him to pay the rent and
bills himself.

But your philosophy tells children that they should be able to expect
something in return for even those kinds of basics. That creates an
asymmetric relationship, not a symmetric one.

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On 10 Jun 2004, Kane wrote:

Chris has been running away from me since the Straus et al (1997) debacle.
----------------
No, we simply stand back when you ****, and you **** everywhere
we take you, like a baby with projectile diarrhea.

The only "****" on this newsgroup I see is
-------------
You. Go the **** away, or grow a brain and use it.
Steve

LOL! Speaking like a "never-spanked" kid with a "****" coming out of his
mouth. Tell me, do all "never-spanked" grow up to be like you?

Doan
-----------------
You're the only one with mouth-****.
Steve

You didn't answer my question! You spewed more "****", instead! ;-)

Doan

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

When nearly all of these "religion" things almost invariably try to
subvert freedom and Majority Democratic government, not to mention
individual rights, there simply needs to be NO "freedom" to do THAT!

Neither side has a monopoly on trying to interfere in the other's lives.
---------------------
The reaction against religion is only in self-defense.

If a religion keeps to its own and doesn't poison young children's
minds involuntarily, and doesn't interfere withs secular liberty
or government, then I don't give a crap WHAT it does.


For example, consider the Cleveland, Ohio voucher case in which ---------------------------------
We refuse to support religion with public funds, that's sensible.
We don't have to accept bribes from religion, nor give them welfare.
Kids deserve a secular education, because a non-secular "education"
ISN'T an education, it is abusive brainwashing of a captive audience.

Education is the transmission of publically decided Truth, and that
Truth is Science. What is non- or anti-Sience cannot *BE* "education"!!


From my
perspective, it is your belief that God does not exist that is the
"lie."
------------------------
That isn't my belief.

I might well believe in a Divinity of sorts, but just NOT YOURS!
And that galls you.

And that makes it any better? To someone who's studied history, mixtures of
the "My religion is true and yours is a lie" attitude and public policy
appear more than a little dangerous.
-------------------------------
Supposed Revealed Religion is what is dangerous!

The belief in what is written in a book whose real origin nobody
knows except to claim in its text that it is right about itself
and wasn't polluted with people's agendas along the way, is totally
unbelievable!! There isn't even any evidence in the bible
that the writers knew the world was a sphere!!


exist, nor will I convince you of anything if I use reasoning that
hinges on the existence of God for its validity.
---------------------------------
I don't have any reason to do that, but I have EVERY reason to make
sure that the "Gawd" you believe in isn't telling you to commit
criminal conspriracies against the rest of us, and against our secular
rights and freedoms FROM religion.

Just so long as you don't interpret your right to "freedom from religion" as
a right to suppress other people's religous activities and choices.
-------------------------------
If a religion tries to interfere with secular freedom in any way,
the Majority has the right, and even a Minority has the right, to
rise up and KILL IT!

If a religion even wants to brainwash their children with their
falsehoods, we then have cause to stop them and even destroy their
religion in protection of the State's youngest citizens who have
been, in effect, abused!


As I told you, I'm NOT an atheist, I just don't believe in YOUR stupid
"Gawd"!

I stand corrected. On the other hand, I'm curious as to how your belief in
a supernatural force of some kind fits
[]
cause and effect.
-------------------
You know how physics has gotten stranger and stranger? Extrapolate
that trend over the next 500 years. Physics will look to you like
mysticism by then, but it will work in the real world.


our lives for us - which sounds a lot like certain elements of old-fashioned
Calvinist Christian theology, now that I think about it.
---------------------
The Multiverse has a destiny for each of us, we come without choosing,
the universe functions without our effort or wants, and when we leave
is also not our choice. Something left us here and is coming back for
us. It is Infinite, it does EVERYTHING that CAN HAPEN! The chances of
it being anything like your pitiful monarch in the sky is minimal.


in your efforts to psychoanalyze me HIGHLY offensive.
---------------------------------------
Tough ****.
You religious crazies always think that psychologists are wrong,
which is why you often have to be court-ordered to obtain treatment
for your mental disorders.

"You religious crazies"? So anyone who is a Christian and doesn't agree
with you regarding the best way of rearing children must be a "religious
crazy"? How open-minded of you.
----------------------
Anybody who doesn't agree with truth is crazy, if it's due to
religion it makes them a "religious" crazy, thus the term.


I know my own reservations about psychologists come
[]
my innate desire for privacy.
-------------------
There is no such thing. You have been taught it by religion that
knows to protect itself from the "Truth Squad" it can't withstand!


Second, I'm skeptical about how much the profession really
knows what it's doing.
-----------------------
It is undoubtedly better than blind faith in an antique book.


And third, if I could not find a psychologist who I trusted to have beliefs
and values fairly close to my own,
------------------------
When you need someone to correct your beliefs, you don't need someone
with the same beliefs, in fact that's absurd. Your Xtianity is a
twisted sickness that needs treating.


Huh??? The process of picking axioms is, by definition, not a product (or
at least not solely a product) of deductive reasoning, since if it were,
they wouldn't be axioms.
------------------
And yet we come up with them. Consider how we do this.
Then you'll understand.


But I don't see what that has to do with your
assertions regarding there being other forms of logic.
-------------------
You obviously have never taken a logic course.


Inductive reasoning is a form of reasoning that is independent of
axioms.
However, it is also seriously vulnerable to error.
-------------------
It CAN be, but as I said above, it isn't when we use it together
in good faith.

What does people's using something together in good faith have to do with
its accuracy? Groups working together are quite capable of being wrong.
-----------------
Groups are only wrong when they set out to be, and to call it right.

When the recognized peer-reviewers of science look at something, they
use the principles of science, which prevent such bias.


For example, the
Pythagoreans
------------------------
Having a degree in physics I don't need your tutlelage.
They had no reason to expect this.


I would also point out that peer review processes are inherently incestuous
in nature. The peers doing the reviewing are in the same field as those who
are doing the original research and writing. Therefore, reviewers have a
strong incentive to avoid applying stricter standards of review to the
research of others than they want to see applied to their own research.
---------------
Cute, but no cigar. Every other source of peer review is MORE biased.


Further, if a few reviewers here and there do try to apply significantly
stricter standards, journals are under no obligation to continue useing
those people as reviewers. (Keep in mind that journals need to have
articles.) In effect, there is an implicit agreement, "We'll accept these
standards because if we got much stricter, it would be too hard for any of
us to publish much of anything."
---------------------------
Sometimes they don't, and that independence is intentional.


What concerns me about your claims of relying on "meta-tool logic" is
that
it may, in practice, merely be a smokescreen by which to claim a mantle
of
logic for whatever you happen to want to believe.
------------------------
We can always discuss it, and that puts it to task.
But the superstitious don't WANT to discuss THEIR presumptions
and the possibility of them being wrong!

I don't want to get into a big theological debate because I don't have time
for one.
------------------
Then why are you here?


But I'm willing enough to discuss the practical reasons behind my
"presumptions."
------------------------
Then you had better get on with it, you're long-windedly saying nothing
so far.


If a method of so-called
logic has no rigor to it, there is no way of testing a person's claim
that what he says is logical to determine whether it is in fact logical.
--------------------
Rigor is fine INSIDE the province of any one tool, or if we developed
a persuasive unified theory. But absenting that, there is no such
requirement, except that we continue the process and all decide pro
tempore if we must do so at all at any point.

I'm wondering whether the point you're making here is really all that
different from the point I was making about the role of axioms. In the
areas where rigor cannot be applied, we believe we are correct, and we can
try to persuade each other regarding why we think we are, but we have no way
of proving our correctness objectively.


term "meta-tool logic" or "metatool logic" in a Google web search.)
------------------------------------
My term, there are others. Peer review mostly functions to question
assumptions that cannot be easily defended reasonably, and to suggest
better limits to the process, or what meets more people's criteria
of reasonableness.

More precisely, peer review is supposed to do two things. First, it is
supposed to verify that people's methodology is sound. And second, it is
supposed to verify whether conclusions that people claim are supported by
their research actually are supported by the research. (Researchers may
also express opinions regarding what they consider likely while making it
clear that those opinions go beyond what the research supports.)
--------------------------------
Yes. There can be problems of implication as well, wherein the reviewer
expresses reservations not based on rigor, but instead based on the
rules of scientific implication and the history of science.


A large part of your problem of trying to tell me how I felt as a
child
has to do with the fact that your axioms are so different from those
that I held as a child.
--------------
No problem, for someone perceptive they are eminently discussable.
That is called psychology.

It is called malpractice, if you were a psychologist and I were your
patient.
-------------------------------------
No. You're merely posturing disingenuously.

If a Christian went to a professional psychologist, and the psychologist
tried to tell him that he was delusional because God does not exist and his
parents lied to him when they told him that God does exist, would that not
be a violation of professional standards?
-------------------
Some Xtian might well think he had indeed been told that, when what
the professional told him is that he may have conflicts regarding the
acceptance of such harsh and inherently contradictory standards that
his parents imparted to him in the form of religion. Many Xtians have
indeed been told that their unhappiness may well revolve around their
religion, AS THEY EXPLAINED IT TO THE PROFESSIONAL. There are numerous
dances to do to avoid admitting that the religion is the target and
the culprit in emotional complexes. And yet, it is the culprit, but
sidestepping the bull of the client's reactive nature is important to
achieve proper transference. so, no, it need not be any specifically
be against supposedly professional standards. In fact, there are also
advocate groups of psychologists that are not specifically excluded
from psychology, but who are looked down upon in the field as so-called
creationists as in paleoanthropology.


That is the basis for my arguing
that your efforts to psychoanalyze my reactions to my parents were, in
essence, malpractice.
-----------------------
And it is nonsense.


If parents adopt a "because I said so" parenting style and refuse to
listen to their children, the lines of communication go down. In my
family, the lines of communication stayed generally strong because
my parents explained the reasons for the rules they made and were
willing to listen - and, at times, to change their minds.
--------------------
Such one-sided authority and high-handedness is illegitimate, and
inherently abusive. However compelled a dictator might feel he is
to explain his abuse, it is still abuse.

So you say, but you keep treating the issue as something self-evident rather
than as something that you have to provide evidence or supporting arguments
for.
---------------
Anyone comtemplating themselves as victim of such KNOWS that it is
abuse, so I don't know what you're posturing about here. In other words,
it *IS* self-evident, and it is your denial that is specious and should
require greater demonstration.


I will readily agree that such one-sided authority can easily be
misused.
------------------
I am saying that ALL such one-sided authority *IS* ABUSE, and that this
*IS* so, IN AND OF ITS VERY NATURE!! Anyone contemplating being treated
that way can detect that!!


But is the problem inherent in the authority itself, or is the
problem in the misuse of it?
-----------------------
ALL such "authority" is it's OWN misuse. NO such REAL "authority" EVEN
EXISTS as any form of social good! ANY authority that violates
a child's human rights *IS* INHERENTLY ILLEGITIMATE!!


Even when I didn't agree with my parents, I
trusted that they were doing what they believed was best for me in the
long
term. Why? Because my parents acted in a way that earned that trust.
-----------------------------------
Brainwashed. Stockholm Syndrome.

Do you have any idea how unscientific you are being here? What you've done
is find a way to pretend that any evidence that conflicts with your view
cannot possibly be valid. That makes it impossible for you to consider the
issue from anything even halfway resembling a genuinely scientific
perspective.
-----------------------------
No one merely "trusts" their parennts over and against their own
rationale, unless they HAVE NO rationale on a topic at ALL!! When
ANYONE HAS an opinion, and has the right to their opinion AND TO LIVE
their opinion, they don't magically defer to their parents without
being forced and that force incurring resentment and hatred!!


I've considered the Stockholm Syndrome possibility, but it simply does not
fit. I have no more of a personal stake in believing that my parents made
good choices than you do in believing that your parents made good choices.
--------------------
Nonsense, your very self-esteem relies on believing that what your
parents did was correct, or else you'd have to accept that you were
not as loved, and consequently, that your parents did not find you
lovable.


My parents taught me what they believe but never forced me to profess belief
in something I did not believe, and I imagine yours did much the same with
you.
-------------------------
Then you are as exceptional as I, but that is aside the issue of
any and all coercion and force.


If the way I was taught religion constitutes brainwashing, then the
way I was taught English, Science, and Math constitutes essentially the same
form of brainwashing.
-------------------
It can be, which accounts for the failure of some varieties of it.


Whatever fear or resentment I might have felt in
connection with my parents' making and enforcing rules, I never regarded my
parents' rules as being as arbitrary as the 55 MPH speed limit was, and any fear and resentment I felt were of much the same
nature as with the speed limit.
-------------------------
Rules are inherently abusive, if they violate human rights, period.
A child has the same human rights as an adult, so extrapolate.


So I see no basis for believing that I am
suffering from anything resembling Stockholm Syndrome.
---------------------------
If you experienced force or coercion, the enforcement of illicit rules,
then you are merely in denial.


That doesn't mean there weren't conflicts. Nor does it mean that my
general trust in them invariably outweighed my desire to do something
I enjoyed. But it was a major reason why I maintained a generally
strong
relationship with my parents both through my childhood and ever since,
and why I take their opinions seriously today.
-----------------------------------
And Cognitive Dissonance.

You have provided no evidence to support that view beyond your own
assumptions and prejudices.
-----------------------------
The logic is unassailable, if a child has human rights, and indeed they
feel they do just as adults do, which is the only relevant criteria,
then they can feel abused and feel hatred and resentment and desire
revenge. If they do that, then the formation of all other similar
psychological phenomena associated with abuse are INDEED extent. It
matters not if they are beaten, or only threatened and bullied.


Trust must still be evalauated by
one indulging in it, it still cannot be blind trust. Parental
assertion that they "know better" than he does when there
is no logical reason to believe that registers as a deception
in the child's mind, and poisons the adult-child relationship.

No logical reason? How about the fact that the parents have lived so
much longer and have so much more experience?
------------------------------
Experience is conveyed as requested advice, or at most, offered without
being asked, but NOT coercion.

Certainly, coercion cannot convey experience. Coercion can, however, limit
children's opportunities to act in ways that parents' knowledge and
experience indicates are likely to harm them.
--------------
No. The revenge formation and defiance it produces makes them
irrationally MORE likely to do those activities, AND to do them
outside of adult view and consequently adult protection, and thus
endangering themselves, so force then, makes a child MORE endangered
than if the parent had restricted their efforts to communication and
discussion with the child, and declined any opportunity to coerce.
The more effective parental action, then, is to eschew all force and
coercion.


Explanation and persuasion
are much better tools if they work, but that does not invalidate the idea
that coercion can be beneficial if explanation and persuasion fail.
------------------------
The point is ALWAYS that force causes the explanation to be ignored
because of its inherent insult and the sure formation of defiance and
revenge in the victim. If you apply force, you obviate the rationale
you're trying to convey and replacing the field of effort with a field
of contest instead, a battle of wills. The child wishes to prove that
they were right and you wrong, to prove that your insulting them was
in error, and thus that they did not deserve insult, that are not
dishonorable as the insult implied


Or they can attempt foolishly and destructively to try to live a life
that is NOT THEIRS TO LIVE!

You are refusing to acknowledge that there is a middle ground between
parents' not enforcing any limits except where criminal matters are
concerned and parents' trying to live their children's entire lives for
them.
-----------------------
There is no such thing as a "middle ground", it is like saying: "Gee,
you mean parents cannot be insulting and offensive AT ALL, GEEE!"


The one area where children clearly do know more than their parents (and in
which children know beyond a doubt that they know more) is the children's
own interests and desires.
--------------
But this extends to each and every choice and preference the child
makes.


But making and enforcing a few rules about what a child has to do or cannot
do in situations where more than just the child's current desires is at
stake is not the same thing as trying to take over a child's entire life.
---------------
ANY illicit rule DOES EXACTLY THAT! Just as one case of abuse by police
does so.


You [] make it sound as if
any interference in the child's life were an attempt to take over the
child's entire life.
---------------------
See above, example of police abuse of power. It is indeed!
There is no excuse for the LEAST abuse of power.


But if parents develop a track record of making decisions that have good
reasons behind them (even if the children are not always happy with the
decisions),
----------------
If not, then they are NOT "good" decisions, by definition!

Only by your definition.
--------------
No, by the victims of that abuse of power, THEY decide, NOT the perps!


Trying to prove something by defining it as true
is about the weakest form of argument possible.
---------------
That's EXACTLY like saying that police would be justified in abuse
of power, "if they just don't do it about everything".

Nonsense!!


Garbage, you're blathering around to try to sound reasonable, but
everything you're saying could be used to defend ANY petty venal
tyranny!! it is NOT compelling!

Oh? Try using my argument to defend a mother who stays home full time, yet
expects her children to do all of the work around the house.
------------------------------
Her status is irrelevant to any abuse.


to pay the rent, or like taking someone's keys so he won't drive while
intoxicated.
-------------------
People living their own lives are not "intoxicated", and one's own
opinion for their own life is no "drug". People who take their friend's
keys will lose that person as a friend if they don't appreciate it
in the morning. That person will toss them out of their life if it
is not so, and their usefulness to the other person's life will be
forever damaged beyond repair.

You're oversimplifying slightly. There are actually three basic
possibilities, with all sorts of shades in between. The person whose keys
were taken might, looking back, agree that taking his keys was the right
thing to do.
------------
He well might, but I am not discussing that situation. You're
pretending that situation is all situations, when it isn't.


He might not actally agree that it was the right thing to do,
but still recognize that the other person meant well and not hold it against
him.
---------------
He might forgive an abuse if they apologized, but be annoyed.


Or he might be offended, which would harm or possibly destroy the
relationship.
----------------
Which is the case with force and coercion.


Those same basic possibilities also exist with the use of parental authority
to control certain aspects of children's lives.
-------------------
No such illicit violations of the child's rights accomplish good
results.


But you refuse to
acknowledge that the result could be anything other than the third
possibility, except maybe as a result of Stockholm Syndrome.
-----------------------------------
The example of police abuse of power is appropriate here.
Where force is used, force was needed, and revenge entails neceesarily.


a smart person will recognize
that it was for the best after all.
----------------------------
No, we''re not having a bit of it. This high-handedness has mostly
caused children to move as far as they can get from their parents
and to never speak to them or let them anywhere NEAR their own
grandchildren! This has become such an issue that the Supreme Court
of the US has said that grandparents have NO right to see their
grandchildren as minors.

I think you're grossly exaggerating. Yes, there are children who react as
you describe,
----------------
As many as half my acquaintances have done so to one degree or another,
spending a large fraction of their lives avoiding contact with their
parents.

especially in cases of abuse or borderline abuse or when
children grow up to adopt values radically different from those of their
parents.
----------------
That isn't the case in most


their parents just because the parents made them do a few things here and
prohibited them from doing a few things there are very rare,
---------------
You are fooling yourself. Clearly you have personal reasons to do so.


That is why a lot of us who were spanked and otherwise punished do
have strong relationships with our parents.
--------------------
No, that is the psychological phenomenon called the Stockholm Syndrome.

To make that claim stick, you would have to define "Stockholm Syndrome" so
loosely as to make the term almost meaningless. Employees who empathize
with bosses who exercise more authority than would be ideal would be
suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, for example.
------------------------------
No. SS is an extreme example of cognitive dissonance, an abused person
denies their abuse at the hands of another by siding with them to save
face.


From doing some poking around on the web, a major element of Stockholm
Syndrome is that the victims feel like their lives (or at least their
safety) hinges on their identifying with their captors.
---------------
No, this is no "tactic" for survival, instead it is an emotional tactic
to preserve their self-esteem by denying they are being abused.
Otherwise they have to accept being humiliated by force and coercion.


If children are
afraid that they will be punished if they do not act like they approve
-----------------------
Even merely denial of love is sufficient in the parental case.
It amounts to intimidation of a child raised to be emotionally weak.


I think you're also confusing Stockholm Syndrome with normal human empathy.
----------
No.


Human beings do not have to be held captive by a person or threatened by the
person to empathize with that person.
------------
There is cause to identify with another's struggle in their own life.
There is absolutely NO reason to identify with their struggle to
interefere with YOUR life. At most children of such parents pity them
for being such an asshole.


of them, we feel like they did a generally good job of looking after our
interests.
-----------------------------
And those for which this isn't true aren't alive, but that doesn't
speak at all to the crimes done to the damaged people who are now
wandering around hurt and confused and the criminals harming others
that these parents produced.

Huh??? Where does the "aren't alive" bit come from?
----------------
The child's interest is primarily survival, so there is an "anthropic
principle" element to this. You have to say, "well they kept me alive,
they must have domne something right, so do I owe them?", and you have
to deal with that in rejecting their abuse. It is a hurdle, but one
that causes EVEN MORE resentment at being played that way.


spanking might have saved his life. So even though the child originally
resented the punishment, it later becomes a reason to view the parent as
wise and someone who looked after his best interests.
--------------------------------------
No, the abuse is still abuse, a crime, and the effect is still
revenge formation. You just don't really seem to GET IT, that
abuse TRUMPS even good sense in producing a desire to kill, to
hurt and to wreak revenge on people that get in the way of this
adult child as whose emotional development has been halted by
abuse.

If you want to convince me, you need to supply evidence,
-------------------------
If you hit me or anyone else, child or adult, I don't need to prove
**** to you to have the right to kill you and take that child out
of a harmful environment. You are the abusive assailant, it is YOU
who must prove your bull**** to US first, and NOT we to YOU!!! This
also applies to lesser abuse of merely the threat of force or
coercion!!
Steve

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"Chris" wrote in message
...

I fail to see how you can blithely assert that punitive control "by
and large works well" when every single child subjected to it exhibits at
least several of the undesirable side effects on the list.

"Well" is not the same thing as "perfectly," and "by and large" indicates
that there are exceptions. The fact is that those symptoms do not stop most
people from becoming honest, productive citizens who are generally inclined
to respect the rights of others. Whatever the faults of current parenting
methods, they haven't stopped us from building the wealthiest, most
technologically advanced society in the history of mankind.
----------------------------
Shows nothing. The more severe the abuse and dishonoring, the worse the
result. This system doesn't work, we have tons of crippled people, and
it can easily be asserted that we'd have done LOTS BETTER as a society
by now if we had abandoned abuse and coercion, since it stands in the
way of creativity in children and the adults they become, and that it
wastes the child's time when they can be focusing on their plans for
their life, instead of battling asshole parents and being delayed in
their own personal sel-regulatory self-organized learning of life skills
for themselves!!

Authoritarianism turns out vengeful reactive kids who waste their
young adulthood reacting to their abuse as if the society had done
it to them!!


Could we do better? Definitely. In spite of our disagreements regarding
how far it probably makes sense to go in eliminating punishment, we both
agree that society would be better off if more parents relied less on
punishment and more on positive techniques.

On the other hand, have you compared typical American parenting among those
who make use of punishment with how ancient Sparta treated its sons?
------------
Worse crimes don't justify these.


If win/win
cooperative methods of discipline resulted in such a list of side effects,
with at least some of them manifesting in every single child raised in
this manner, surely you would never accept the assertion that "by and
large" win/win methods work well, nor should you.

Whether or not I would accept the assertion would depend on how common and
serious the side effects were, and on how well the children tended to
function as adults. And if the wealthiest, most technologically advanced
society on the planet had been using mostly such techniques from its
inception, I would have a hard time arguing that such techniques were
failing miserably, whatever my thoughts about the possibility of doing
better.
-------------------
EVERY instance of coercion of kids causes revenge formation and delays
their personal development and makes them antisocial. ALL antisocial
behaviors come from this cause! How HUGE IS THAT????


My response to your recent posts boils down to two main points. The
first is the above point that punitive control carries a host of
undesirable side effects and hence does not "by and large work well."
The second is that you fail to acknowledge that the disruption of the
harmony of the parent/child relationship which is a natural consequence of
a child failing to live up to agreements they have made, constitutes a
"consequence" in its own right.
---------------
THAT failure of "harmony", such a smarmy term, is due ONLY to the
PARENTS' reaction and attitudes, so have PARENTS change THAT!


On the contrary, I have acknowledged that it is a consequence. What you
refuse to acknowledge is even the slightest possibility that children's
desire to violate an agreement might sometimes outweigh their desire to
avoid that consequence.
-----------------------
The child makes no such agreement, except perhaps under duress and
without choice, that asserion is smarmy and fully dishonest on your
part.


wording): "With negotiated settlements, the child does have to give up
something he or she didn't want to, so whether or not a possibility of
punishment is needed depends on whether or not the child is willing to
[]
no need to bring up the issue of punishment. But if the child is not
willing to abide by the agreement voluntarily, punishment may be necessary."
----------------
No actual RIGHT, and kids MUST be understood as feeling they have RIGHTS
and responding PRECISELY as though they do, can be given up
or bargained away, and even trying to do that is illicit under our
Constitution for a REASON!


In other words, parents can start off assuming that the child will keep his
or her agreements without the need to bring up a possibility of punishment.
If that works out, wonderful.
------------------
All you are doing here is complicating abuse with intimidation and
coercion of motive. This is entirely dishonest and illicit in any
relationship that you expect to be viable. Doing any of this with
an adult will get you injured, killed, or arrested, thus it is
altogether illicit with a child or teen.


But if violations of agreements become a
significant problem, some kind of additional consequence is needed if the
agreements are to work. (Steve, what do you think about the relationship
between this issue and Breach of Contract in adult law?)
-------------------
ANY coerced contract IS A NULL contract, LAW 101.
Steve

Chris wrote:

In alt.parenting.spanking R. Steve Walz wrote:

: You need to be professionally tortured till you shut your ****ing
: vicious little ********.

This sort of language is completely uncalled for, Steve.
-------------------
Nonsense, he called for it quite aptly.


Are you *trying* to embarrass the rest of the antispank side with
your rude, obscene messages?
---------------------
If you're embarrassed, then you're overstepping your boundaries.


If not, then please leave the obscene flame posts to those who have
nothing else to offer. Antispankers have the momentum of history on our
side and virtually all of the available science on our side. We don't
need to fling abuse at those who disagree with us, because we have the
stronger position in this debate. Mudslinging is the last resort of those
who have run out of arguments. We haven't, so let's not.
Chris
-----------------------
Of course we do, we need to embarrass, insult, battle, injure, and
kill them. ANYTHING which diminishes them is justified. The danger
is mostly in FAILING to do ANY AND ALL POSSIBLE damage to them, and
to their self-assuredness, their sense of personal safety, their
sense of being accepted, and anyone else's sense of their **** being
acceptible.

You know I disagree with you, so **** off and quit pretending that
antispanking sentiment is a unified monolith, I see YOU as remiss in
your duty and, to a degree, traitorous to "the cause"!!
Steve

Doan wrote:

On 12 Jun 2004, Chris wrote:

In alt.parenting.spanking R. Steve Walz wrote:

: You need to be professionally tortured till you shut your ****ing
: vicious little ********.

Note that verbally abusive Steven is a product of the child discipline
technique which you claim "by and large works well."
---------------
It certainly does, it produces people who will brook NO abuse of ANY
kind without turning and KILLING the perp, which is a quite marked
enhancement of human conscience and freedom-seeking!!
Steve

Doan wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Doan wrote:

On 12 Jun 2004, Chris wrote:

In alt.parenting.spanking R. Steve Walz wrote:

: You need to be professionally tortured till you shut your ****ing
: vicious little ********.

Note that verbally abusive Steven is a product of the child discipline
technique which you claim "by and large works well."

Chris

LOL!

Doan
----------
You incompetent spoofing moron, you left your addy in the post you
falsely attributed to Chris!!
Steve

Doan wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On 10 Jun 2004, Kane wrote:

Chris has been running away from me since the Straus et al (1997) debacle.
----------------
No, we simply stand back when you ****, and you **** everywhere
we take you, like a baby with projectile diarrhea.

The only "****" on this newsgroup I see is
-------------
You. Go the **** away, or grow a brain and use it.
Steve

LOL! Speaking like a "never-spanked" kid with a "****" coming out of his
mouth. Tell me, do all "never-spanked" grow up to be like you?

Doan
-----------------
You're the only one with mouth-****.
Steve

You didn't answer my question! You spewed more "****", instead! ;-)
Doan
-------------
I only pointed out the **** in your mouth.
Steve