Hitting your kids

[Logic]

You have a population of 1.9 billion kids or so, according to Ghast. 700 children represents a very, very small portion of that population. Now, certainly, a sample of that size may be used to say something about the population within error, to the point where you can theorise about the population. However, that's only one sample. ONE sample. In statistics, one sample is not hard evidence or proof - it is simply a representation of the population at the particular point in which the sample was taken. You cannot possibly make the sample 100% random, which means in order for the data to mean anything, either a larger sample size proportional to the population size, or more importantly, multiple different samples from all over the place at different times and under different conditions need to be taken.

For example, recently in a laboratory I was testing quality of various thermocouples in aqueous conditions - I took multiple samples both under same and under different conditions and every sample yielded SIGNIFICANTLY different results.

700 people is a perfectly good sample size. 1 sample is not enough samples. Therefore that statistical information is not enough to form any conclusions about the majority of the population. Having said all of this, I didn't actually read the paper mentioned - I'm just going of what the posts were saying - so if I've mistaken something about the data then please feel free to say so.

Just some info from the website:

IQ and Spanking Worldwide
Straus also found a lower national average IQ in nations in which spanking was more prevalent. His analysis indicates the strongest link between corporal punishment and IQ was for those whose parents continued to use corporal punishment even when they were teenagers.

Straus and colleagues in 32 nations used data on corporal punishment experienced by 17,404 university students when they were children.

 

Kids who get spanked but still have respect and love for their parents perhaps would've just answered no to avoid making their parents look bad. That's a factor that isn't accounted for.


My guess is that there are two situations where spanking will occur (generally speaking):

1. Kids who were abused/hit almost instantly with no warning
2. Kids who were spanked occasionally and/or as a last resort

Kid 1 probably wont have any time invested in his or her education and learning by their parents since time was not invested in discipline and therefore this affects their IQ.

However, factors like how much time was spent on said kid's education isn't quantifiable or taken in to account when it easily could affect their IQ.


The age the kid was when the spanking was a punishment isn't taken in to account when it would maybe have a worse effect on a child who doesn't understand why what they did was wrong.

The amount of spanking isn't taken in to account when it could be a factor. Occasionally being spanked wouldn't have the same affect as, for example, a kid who was abused for the slightest thing.


I could go on.

 

[Logic]

Kids who get spanked but still have respect and love for their parents perhaps would've just answered no to avoid making their parents look bad. That's a factor that isn't accounted for.


My guess is that there are two situations where spanking will occur (generally speaking):

1. Kids who were abused/hit almost instantly with no warning
2. Kids who were spanked occasionally and/or as a last resort

Kid 1 probably wont have any time invested in his or her education and learning by their parents since time was not invested in discipline and therefore this affects their IQ.

However, factors like how much time was spent on said kid's education isn't quantifiable or taken in to account when it easily could affect their IQ.


The age the kid was when the spanking was a punishment isn't taken in to account when it would maybe have a worse effect on a child who doesn't understand why what they did was wrong.

The amount of spanking isn't taken in to account when it could be a factor. Occasionally being spanked wouldn't have the same affect as, for example, a kid who was abused for the slightest thing.


I could go on.

Correct me if I'm wrong but if there is already a general tendency (statistically important) that spanking lowers IQ then wouldn't factoring out a group only proove it further for that specific group (for example: those who were hit 4 times a week) or infact proove that no group is different from the others. I don't see how factoring out a group would make the whole argument of "spanking lowers IQ" invalid. Or are you trying to imply that there is another variable that might have cause the decreased IQ that isn't related to being hit?

Based on the current data we can say that spanking lowers a person's IQ but we can't say that if you get hit 6 times a day instead of 1 time a month then you'd have a lower IQ compaired to the one who is getting hit once a month. It might be that the person getting hit more has a even lower IQ but I bet they tested for it (I sure would have) and it wasn't statistically important. I honestly doubt a university professor would release a paper where he only tested for 1 thing and then said "yolo, we are printing this". If you are willing to pay the 45$ to get the full paper then I'm willing to read it and see if that's the case.

 

The latter

 

[Logic]

The latter

What might it be then, a variable that affects 700 childen aswell as 17k university students? If you come up with it then be sure to let us know, in the meanwhile it looks like being spanked would take the spot for that variable. All you have said is that there might be something other, but havn't really said what and that isn't science

 

[Swan]

Correct me if I'm wrong but if there is already a general tendency (statistically important) that spanking lowers IQ then wouldn't factoring out a group only proove it further for that specific group (for example: those who were hit 4 times a week) or infact proove that no group is different from the others. I don't see how factoring out a group would make the whole argument of "spanking lowers IQ" invalid. Or are you trying to imply that there is another variable that might have cause the decreased IQ that isn't related to being hit?

Based on the current data we can say that spanking lowers a person's IQ but we can't say that if you get hit 6 times a day instead of 1 time a month then you'd have a lower IQ compaired to the one who is getting hit once a month. It might be that the person getting hit more has a even lower IQ but I bet they tested for it (I sure would have) and it wasn't statistically important. I honestly doubt a university professor would release a paper where he only tested for 1 thing and then said "yolo, we are printing this". If you are willing to pay the 45$ to get the full paper then I'm willing to read it and see if that's the case.

I don't think you tend to understand the significance of other potential factors; correlation does not imply causation. There's a great little summary of that point here:
http://imgur.com/gallery/Ip0pH

e.g.

For example, this is just a hypothetical situation, but it could be that there is also a correlation between IQ and socioeconomic background. There are any number of potential factors that could play in to it.

And there's no real point acting starstruck toward a professor, as yes, professors literally do tend to publish whatever papers they can. In university research, it's publish or perish - if you don't publish articles in to journals, you lose your job.

 

[ChaotiiiKid]

my parents employed corporal punishment like spanking and not only do I have an above-average IQ (even though intelligence quotient is, generally speaking, an arbitrary measurement) but it toughened me up a good bit

is it a good tactic for every situation/person? no.

did it work out okay for me? yes.

 

[Logic]

I don't think you tend to understand the significance of other potential factors; correlation does not imply causation. There's a great little summary of that point here:
http://imgur.com/gallery/Ip0pH

e.g.

For example, this is just a hypothetical situation, but it could be that there is also a correlation between IQ and socioeconomic background. There are any number of potential factors that could play in to it.

And there's no real point acting starstruck toward a professor, as yes, professors literally do tend to publish whatever papers they can. In university research, it's publish or perish - if you don't publish articles in to journals, you lose your job.

There is huge difference between compairing 2 totali different things Vs the way you raise your child and its effects on the child. You can't really tell me that you think its equal to compairing marrige and the number of people electrocuted. I must add that it was pretty much the 1st thing I learned that just because the calculation says there is a dependence doesn't mean there is one. That's why you also have to know the background of the thing you're investigating and it's safe to say that the professor knows a fair deal about his main field of study.

Imagine it this way. Correlation is a huge circle and dependence is just a small subset of that circle and I never said anything about correlation.

 

[Puppi]

Despite the fervor of anti-spanking experts, the scientific evidence that spanking does cause behavioral trouble later in life is thin. While spanking has been associated with a wide range of negative effects, such as increased aggression, decreased self-control and adolescent depression, the studies can't prove that these effects were caused by spanking. For instance, it may be that aggressive kids with poor self-control get spanked more because their behavior makes their parents angrier. Or it might be that aggressive parents with poor self-control spank more and are also more likely to pass on to their kids genes linked to aggression and poor self-control.

And many of the studies tend not to differentiate between parents who spank frequently and forcefully and those who do so occasionally and moderately. So results get lumped together, with different definitions of "spanking" carrying the same weight.

 

[silver7410]

Hitting is not a good way to teach the children, since it will make them think violence is the best way to dealing with things. And teaching children should begin when they are young.

 

[krutoi]

Hitting is not a good way to teach the children, since it will make them think violence is the best way to dealing with things. And teaching children should begin when they are young.

Sir your post is totally pointless, while I can agree that "violence" isn't the best way to teach someone I do agree that violence is a way to make stop someone or just to shut his mouth because otherwise he will keep and keep trash talking you. You totally misread the post and the clue of it, a spank isn't considered "violence" since you don't hit him to just knock him off or something. You do that to let him know that it's enough or that he needs to stop doing it because he's doing bad stuff. That's all.

 

[freezeangle]

I was spanked as a kid when I would do something really bad , and it thought me that I shouldn't do that ever again.

The things that I've learned as a little kid are still to this day and will stay with me forever .
They will never be forgotten plus they made me a better man and thought me a lesson.

Now you shouldn't beat your kids that's not allowed.
If it's something really small sit down with them and talk about it.
For example I had this sort of fear of my Dad even thought he never touched me but when ever my mother would say "I'm telling dad when he gets home". You get a feeling of fear and that you really really fucked up.
So yeah sometimes a good spanking is ok.

Today's youth needs a good spanking I mean that seriously because you can't even talk to them normally or without them disrespecting you even thought they don't even know who you are.

 

[nodnarbusn]

Despite the fervor of anti-spanking experts, the scientific evidence that spanking does cause behavioral trouble later in life is thin. While spanking has been associated with a wide range of negative effects, such as increased aggression, decreased self-control and adolescent depression, the studies can't prove that these effects were caused by spanking. For instance, it may be that aggressive kids with poor self-control get spanked more because their behavior makes their parents angrier. Or it might be that aggressive parents with poor self-control spank more and are also more likely to pass on to their kids genes linked to aggression and poor self-control.

And many of the studies tend not to differentiate between parents who spank frequently and forcefully and those who do so occasionally and moderately. So results get lumped together, with different definitions of "spanking" carrying the same weight.

For a shitposter (40+ ppd wutup Edit: TFW a ton of them were just deleted lmao) thats a surprisingly well written post.
Combine these factors with small survey groups and you have a bunch of bullshit statistics.