Discipline

[Хahar 🤔]

When did I say my argument was logical?

You're a good guy, Xahar, but you confuse me

Don't worry. I confuse myself more often than not.

[A18]

So far as I can tell, your link only shows my skepticism to be warranted. "The meta-analyses described above," the author tells us, "confirm that parental corporal punishment and certain child behaviors and experiences are significantly associated, yet because most of the included studies are correlational, the meta-analyses cannot confirm whether corporal punishment definitively causes the child constructs." (p. 551)

Presumably, the severity of discipline is causally related to the degree of misbehavior. That misbehavior and the psychological issues we're dealing with may have a common cause. There is also the concern ilikeverin raised: perhaps "spankers produce problem children than spanking produces problem children." Or perhaps the correlation is pure coincidence.

There is more. Suppose that spanking does cause psychological harm, but only in conjunction with other factors. Suppose that these factors are present with respect to 5 percent of all children; and suppose further that spanking has non-dramatic but real short-term benefits. Ought the practice be categorically denounced? And if so, why?

[Alcon]

Respectfully, I don't understand why you're arguing for potential caveats that I've already conceded are included in the rest of my argument.  I also think that it answers to your closing question.  I'm not interpreting the study any differently than you are.

It could also be pure coincidence, although a meta-analysis of such wide range reaching statistical significance out of pure coincidence (as opposed to incidental relationships) seems...unlikely.

[A18]

Right. But the "caveats" make the findings meaningless.

Statistical significance doesn't get to the issue of causation.

[Alcon]

Right. But the "caveats" make the findings meaningless.

Well, meaningless, no -- They represent a causal effect associated with the actions involved in corporal punishment.  Something that correlates at higher levels on a continuum is more likely to correlate on lower levels, too, to whatever degree, than something with no higher-level correlation whatsoever.

I agree there is no real way to stratify very reliably, but attempts at stratifications have found a causal relationship -- even one polluted by the incidentals you mentioned.  This contributes to my conclusion that there should be an extra element of caution here relative to a case in which this was not true.  Why?  Because I have a reasonable hypothesis (I believe) on why it may correlate on lower levels, there's no indication that it doesn't, and unless there's some kind of quota at which it begins to correlate (feasible but only feasible), it logically would correlate down the continuum.

Basically, I don't think that difficulties with contamination that cause near-impossibly to definitively test means we should ignore a concept altogether when those contaminations are quite possibly (likely?) and inappropriate underestimation of the positioning on subjects on the severity-of-corporal-punishment continuum.  I think it's wrong to take a nihilistic view toward causality in any situation with polluting variables, and then pretend the problem doesn't exist.  That very ambiguity of causality is a problem in itself.

That's not an unreasonable conclusion, and is something (even if that something is just a sub-component of my argument.)

Statistical significance doesn't get to the issue of causation.

I didn't say it did.  You said that the statistical significance could be coincidental.  I suppose it depends what you meant by coincidence; if you meant coincidence of correlation, fair point (but I think we were addressing that already.)  If you meant "statistical noise" coincidence, no, that's virtually impossible.

[A18]

As context and the accompanying link demonstrate, I was not talking about statistical noise.

The point is that the findings do not demonstrate "a causal effect associated with the actions involved in corporal punishment." They merely represent a correlation. To repeat:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I see nothing in your post that addresses my concerns. Indeed, the great bulk of it deals with stratification, which is in fact a minor part of my argument. Our disagreement centers on (a) interpretation of correlation; and (b) whether it would be fair to universalize a finding of causality.

Even as to stratification, notice what does all of the work:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, if there's not "some kind of quota at which it begins to correlate," then "it logically would correlate down the continuum." But the "if" just assumes away the issue.

I do agree that your hypothesis is reasonable.

[Alcon]

I apologize.  I should have said they represent a correlation, not a causal effect.  In fact, that was kind of the point of my post, so that was a really stupid error to have made.  Sorry.

I've conceded that a causal effect cannot be determined, nor can a correlary one at lower stratas, from this "top-level" data.  "If" does not assume away the issue.  "If" assumes the potential existence of the issue.  Potentiality of harm is worth considering, too.  This is especially true when an actual correlation can't be proven, but the most stringent attempt to demonstrates a correlation.

I think you know that, I just wanted to reiterate my argument in a way that wasn't six trillion paragraphs long.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Of those listed, I only approve of spanking and then only to a moderate level.  The reason is, spanking alone doesn't do any lasting physical damage.  The marks are usually gone within an hour or two at the very most.  Washing a kids mouth out with soap, to me, is just inviting the germs that have accumulated on that soap to seep into the kids body and potentially cause more harm than its worth.  Other physical or verbal abuse should not be permitted.  Remember, these are kids, and they are still sensitive.  Their bodies cannot take too severe of a punishment (including severe spanking), and their fragile minds cannot take severe verbal abuse lest they turn and verbally or physically abuse their children.

The Bible says "spare not the rod" in the book of Proverbs, but that does not mean severly spank the child where the marks and the pain last more than, say, a half hour to an hour.

The method of punishment I prefer that I will use on my kids (when I have them) more often will be grounding.  That is a physically painless, yet still very effective punishment on most kids.  I would take away their TV, their computer, their cell phone, and make it to where the funnest thing they can do is sleep.

[Alcon]

Of those listed, I only approve of spanking and then only to a moderate level.  The reason is, spanking alone doesn't do any lasting physical damage.  The marks are usually gone within an hour or two at the very most.  Washing a kids mouth out with soap, to me, is just inviting the germs that have accumulated on that soap to seep into the kids body and potentially cause more harm than its worth.  Other physical or verbal abuse should not be permitted.  Remember, these are kids, and they are still sensitive.  Their bodies cannot take too severe of a punishment (including severe spanking), and their fragile minds cannot take severe verbal abuse lest they turn and verbally or physically abuse their children.

Well, I won't get off on a tangent about the function of soap, but anyway...

I don't think anyone here is arguing there is permanent physical damage, just that the risk of permanent emotional damage/lack of efficacy/moral qualms outweigh the immediate effectiveness of spanking.

That's my argument, at least.

The Bible says "spare not the rod" in the book of Proverbs, but that does not mean severly spank the child where the marks and the pain last more than, say, a half hour to an hour.

I've been told there are alternative interpretations of that; in fact, "rod" is used figuratively for "authority" throughout the Bible.  Some others posit that it references to work.  Similarly, Proverbs 22:15 references a "rod of correction," in the sense of a the rod that is correction, not a rod that corrects.

A shepherd also uses a rod to prod (not spank or beat) sheep, which would seem to fit into the theme.  It could even reference work ethnic (although I doubt it.)

The method of punishment I prefer that I will use on my kids (when I have them) more often will be grounding.  That is a physically painless, yet still very effective punishment on most kids.  I would take away their TV, their computer, their cell phone, and make it to where the funnest thing they can do is sleep.

Always has seemed just as effective to me, and without the other issues involved.