would you mind citing the source and the context?
Spanking Lowers IQ Points
- Thread starter Orleander
- Start date
would you mind citing the source and the context?
It is 100% true John .
I saw it in the news in August 2009 .
well then i cannot say it is 100% true.
i can see the overall significance of it though. those who use spanking as a form of discipline or teaching are reinforcing or wiring children to learn that is how you deal with problems. it's not creative, treats them the person as an object and oftentimes illogically misplaced in terms of teaching or learning. it's much like treating children as dumb animals you whip when they get out of line. they just adjust thier behavior in fear rather than learning what it is they did incorrect and learning how to correct it and why. discipline is definitely needed, sometimes very firm, but not spanking.
Practice makes ... better?
I'll hypothesize causation, but I'm not yet sure how to test it:
CutsieMarie89 said:
I'll hypothesize causation, but I'm not yet sure how to test it:
• Children who are spanked learn to conform through instinct—e.g., fear—while children who are not learn to conform logically, which improves their cognitive skills through practice.
That might be why. Fear of being smacked around is hardly conducive to learning well.
Get real. And stop these stupid threads about spanking. Spanking is how spanking does.
What disciplinary method doesn't involve use of fear to change behavior? People don't change their behavior if they aren't afraid of the consequences. I hypothesize that children who are spanked (often and/or severely) probably have quite different home lives and situations than those who are not. Aren't there also studies that say less intelligent parents are more likely to spank their children? Other studies have shown that intelligence does seem to have a genetic component, so parents with lower IQ spank their children who also have a lower IQ because they inherited it from their parents. I say bring out the identical twins, and rule out or rule in all of the extra variables floating around.
Edit: even the researcher agrees with me
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
Being raised for a short time in the South, it was part of the culture to beat the shit out of your children. I've seen many of my friends get their asses whipped with a belt for doing something immature. My father use to give me some ferocious whippings when I did something wrong too. All of the kids in my extended family received the same treatment when they fucked up. Till this day we're all somewhat scared from it. That's why none of the kids who went through that whip their kids today. I don't know if it lowered our IQ points any but it definitely had a lasting effect on us.
That seems the only justification that spanking would cause such a thing. However, though excessive punishment may cause excessive stress, a few spanks is not excessive punishment. Why do we always concentrate on physical punishment and not other forms?
I have spanked both my kids only 2 maybe three times in their lives when they were much younger. They learned very quickly that I meant business and there was no need to spank them anymore the point got across very effectively.
Do I consider that abuse, assaulting them ?
Not even close!I hate when every topic similar to this one comes up, the word spanking automatically gets changed to ASSAULT by Orleander.
:thumbsup:
Supremacism vs. Conditioning
Which part? I just read through the article again and I'm still not seeing the part that says it can't be the results of operant conditioning and must necessarily be genetic superiority.
Twins? Throw in adopted kids, too. For instance, my own adoption is strange insofar as I don't believe the story. I mean, okay, so it was privately arranged beforehand with the result that I was home four days after I was born; that much I can believe. But apparently we know some things about the mother, and that's where the story gets difficult. I don't believe the stories because when I was sixteen or seventeen, a certain realization hit me (I share certain traits with a man of certain proximity to me), and that's when the story changed. Before that, my mother had been my Japanese part. Now, she's my white part, which conveniently rules out the natural paternity of the white man, who was a high school teacher in the area at the time. My mother was fifteen, and here's where it all gets strange from the outset: she's a Jane Doe to us, apparently according to the terms of the adoption, yet my parents made a number of agreements, including that I was supposed to be raised as a Christian. We also "know" that she, too, was an adopted child (reason unknown). We "know" that her mother was a nurse at the hospital where I was born. Yet we don't "know" her name. A little strange, its seems. To the other, if genes have anything to do with it, does it make sense, then, that my daughter is at least the third generation in my line to result from unintended pregnancy? And her mother was adopted, too, but I don't know what came before that. Yet I would suggest even still that unintended pregnancies are not the results of genetics, but rather conditioning insofar as a generational pattern might be concerned.
At any rate, while we cannot necessarily conclude that accidental teenage pregnancy must necessarily indicate lower IQ, there is absolutely no basis for suggesting that it indicates higher IQ.
And we already know that in more severe cases, operant conditioning trumps inherent intelligence every time.
I don't doubt that genetics is a vital component of the outcome. But compared to what is observable about operant conditioning, I would suggest the rush to declare genetic superiority—while perhaps an attractive, gratifying suggestion for people who weren't spanked and think themselves smart—is not only dubious, but also a bit irresponsible.
I think that if and when we finally identify the "intelligence gene" (likely a complex arrangement of traits instead of one on/off switch), you'll find it distributed too widely in the population for genetic superiority to be the answer.
Violence as operant conditioning is abuse of a human being. That doesn't change just because the human being abused is a child.
CutsieMarie89 said:
Which part? I just read through the article again and I'm still not seeing the part that says it can't be the results of operant conditioning and must necessarily be genetic superiority.
Twins? Throw in adopted kids, too. For instance, my own adoption is strange insofar as I don't believe the story. I mean, okay, so it was privately arranged beforehand with the result that I was home four days after I was born; that much I can believe. But apparently we know some things about the mother, and that's where the story gets difficult. I don't believe the stories because when I was sixteen or seventeen, a certain realization hit me (I share certain traits with a man of certain proximity to me), and that's when the story changed. Before that, my mother had been my Japanese part. Now, she's my white part, which conveniently rules out the natural paternity of the white man, who was a high school teacher in the area at the time. My mother was fifteen, and here's where it all gets strange from the outset: she's a Jane Doe to us, apparently according to the terms of the adoption, yet my parents made a number of agreements, including that I was supposed to be raised as a Christian. We also "know" that she, too, was an adopted child (reason unknown). We "know" that her mother was a nurse at the hospital where I was born. Yet we don't "know" her name. A little strange, its seems. To the other, if genes have anything to do with it, does it make sense, then, that my daughter is at least the third generation in my line to result from unintended pregnancy? And her mother was adopted, too, but I don't know what came before that. Yet I would suggest even still that unintended pregnancies are not the results of genetics, but rather conditioning insofar as a generational pattern might be concerned.
At any rate, while we cannot necessarily conclude that accidental teenage pregnancy must necessarily indicate lower IQ, there is absolutely no basis for suggesting that it indicates higher IQ.
And we already know that in more severe cases, operant conditioning trumps inherent intelligence every time.
I don't doubt that genetics is a vital component of the outcome. But compared to what is observable about operant conditioning, I would suggest the rush to declare genetic superiority—while perhaps an attractive, gratifying suggestion for people who weren't spanked and think themselves smart—is not only dubious, but also a bit irresponsible.
I think that if and when we finally identify the "intelligence gene" (likely a complex arrangement of traits instead of one on/off switch), you'll find it distributed too widely in the population for genetic superiority to be the answer.
• • •
Shorty 37 said:
I have spanked both my kids only 2 maybe three times in their lives when they were much younger. They learned very quickly that I meant business and there was no need to spank them anymore the point got across very effectively.
Do I consider that abuse, assaulting them ?
Violence as operant conditioning is abuse of a human being. That doesn't change just because the human being abused is a child.
She said that they couldn't rule out all of the factors that might contribute to a lowered IQ score.Spanking might be one of them, but it might not be either. That's all I meant.
AtTheZoneDotcom
Registered Member
My kids are pretty smart but they get their butts spanked when they screw up, I see no correlation.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
(Insert Title Here)
Works for me. Thank you.
Oh, one thing I forgot from earlier:
Well, that same researcher said that "discipline should be an opportunity to teach your child something". She also explained:
Which brings us back to my hypothesis. I wasn't pulling it out of thin air.
____________________
Notes:
Gordon, Serena. "Spanking May Lower Kids' IQs". Yahoo! News. September 25, 2009. News.Yahoo.com. September 27, 2009. http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20090925/hl_hsn/spankingmaylowerkidsiqs
CutsieMarie89 said:
Works for me. Thank you.
Oh, one thing I forgot from earlier:
Well, that same researcher said that "discipline should be an opportunity to teach your child something". She also explained:
"If you spank, you teach your child that hitting is the way to deal with a situation," she said. "But if you use other methods of discipline, you can begin teaching your child higher-level cognitive skills, self-control, cause-and-effect and logical thinking."
(Gordon)
(Gordon)
Which brings us back to my hypothesis. I wasn't pulling it out of thin air.
____________________
Notes:
Gordon, Serena. "Spanking May Lower Kids' IQs". Yahoo! News. September 25, 2009. News.Yahoo.com. September 27, 2009. http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20090925/hl_hsn/spankingmaylowerkidsiqs
Aside from not being disciplined and just told to not do it anymore, I don't see how any disciplinary method doesn't use fear of something unpleasant to alter behavior. Like why people don't speed when they see a police officer sitting around. The officer won't spank them, but they are still afraid that they might get a ticket. So they behave. How is it any different with children?
You were instead pulling "your" hypothesis out of outdated psychoanalytic hypotheses, which were not only based on inadequate research and experimentation, but were also unfalsifiable, highlighting their ideological and unscientific nature. Psychoanalysis, an authoritarian and unscientific study of human psychological functioning, began as a Marxist-leaning organization under the guise of science which was absolutely intolerant of dissent and glorified its terribly perverted cult leader.
The Marxist Theodor Adorno and his fellow colleagues used psychoanalysis to study the development of personality and how it related to early childhood experiences. From the outset their ambitions seemed genuine and scientific enough, but a concentrated look at the data and the analysis of said data revealed how the Marxists doing the studies manipulated their data and rationalized many aspects of it in an attempt to convince their audience of their hypothesis. The Authoritarian Personality is one of the most subversive, backward, and unscientific books ever released, and a study of its content reveals how its authors glorified broken homes, apathetic parents, and childhood rebellion, and claimed homes with disciplinary authoritarian yet caring parents and obedient children were actually repressing many frustrations, were pathological, and were ultimately fascist and potential anti-Semitic threats to society as a whole.
The anti-Semitism bit is interesting in that it clearly explains the intentions of the predominately Jewish Marxist authors and why they used an unscientific movement, psychoanalysis, created by the Jewish Sigmund Freud, to subvert the traditional order of Western Christian families.