(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-28 03:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kierthos.livejournal.com
I was thinking "Correlation is not causation" myself.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-28 04:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] spawnofweevil.livejournal.com
If you smack your children all the time, they will not learn as effectively as they would if you actually explained to them *why* not to do that? Dumb parents smack, smart parents communicate?

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-28 05:42 pm (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-28 06:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] larabeaton.livejournal.com
Also, the data is based on children who are smacked at least 3 times a week. That's just bad parenting.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-28 08:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] peristaltor.livejournal.com
Yeah, that's the data point that smacked interested me.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-28 04:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] reyl.livejournal.com
While not an advocate of smacking, Sydney psychologist Dr Judith Kennedy said parents who gave an occasional tap on the bottom should not fear damaging their child.


Thanks doctor for completely softening your hard research that says smacking is bad by telling parents that smacking is really okay.

The first part of the research is on 2-4 year olds. I think people who smack 2-4 year olds should have their hands cut off and their children taken away. There are many ways to discipline that teach your children right from wrong and correct social behaviour. Smacking them teaches them to fear you, and to get things they want with violence. And then to lie to avoid getting caught and smacked.

Seriously, parenting is not frikken rocket science.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-28 04:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] miz-geek.livejournal.com
The study was done by someone else - Murray Straus. Don't know who Judith Kennedy is - probably a local person called by the reporter to give her opinion of it.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-28 04:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
I just found the conclusion, and the possible alternate conclusion, hilarious

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-28 05:56 pm (UTC)
ext_8707: Taken in front of Carnegie Hall (scohol)
From: [identity profile] ronebofh.livejournal.com
Yeah, rocket science is a lot simpler.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-28 11:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sebkha.livejournal.com
If you get rocket science wrong, everyone dies in a huge explosion...?

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-28 11:21 pm (UTC)
ext_8707: Taken in front of Carnegie Hall (imminent destruction)
From: [identity profile] ronebofh.livejournal.com
And if you get parenting wrong, you can ruin lives for a couple of generations.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-28 11:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sebkha.livejournal.com
Very appropriate icon. :)

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-29 12:18 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lafinjack.livejournal.com
If you get parenting wrong, everyone dies in a hail of bullets.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-28 04:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chaosrah.livejournal.com
I agree with this comment: "the real question behind this all is who funded his research and what is their agenda"

Always ask this question when it comes to "scientific studies."

Marijuana studies, anyone?

I'm all for science, but just sayin'. I got spankings a few times as a kid and I'm pretty sure it didn't do anything to me. I had a high enough IQ to be in the "gifted" program.. And honestly, wtf difference does 5 pts on an IQ test make?

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-28 04:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chaosrah.livejournal.com
also, i meant to say, lmao at your alternate interpretation

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-28 04:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jsbowden.livejournal.com
I saw a headline about this elsewhere this morning, and my thought was that the people most likely to hit their children with any frequency tend to be lower down on the socioeconomic scale, which implies that correlation is not necessarily causation.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-28 04:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] miz-geek.livejournal.com
If you look at the actual study, they mention that as a possibility. They tried to control for it by measuring the change in cognitive ability from age 2 to age 4. Those test scores are all relative, based on what other kids their age are doing. So, a kid who's dumb at the start, relative to other 2-year olds, ought to be as dumb, compared to other 4-year olds, at the end of the study. But instead, kids who were dumb at the start (or who weren't dumb) and were spanked a lot fell behind their peers who weren't spanked at all. They didn't get dumber overall, but compared to other 4-year olds they were losing ground.

Sorry for raining on the funny :)

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-28 07:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] faeriemuriel.livejournal.com
I still think this is connected to socioeconomic or other factors. They fall behind because maybe their parent doesn't focus on educational activities--maybe they park them in front of the TV, for instance.

Now, if this is meant to be an introductory study that can be explored further later, awesome.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-28 05:10 pm (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-28 05:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cmpriest.livejournal.com
No. You were not the only one to think it :)

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-28 05:54 pm (UTC)
ext_8707: Taken in front of Carnegie Hall (brock)
From: [identity profile] ronebofh.livejournal.com
s/need/require/ but yes, you weren't the only one. It's a dumb study.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-28 07:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] larabeaton.livejournal.com
Or "smart kids don't get caught as often"

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-28 08:18 pm (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-29 03:59 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dscotton.livejournal.com
How about: dumb parents are more likely to smack their children, and also more likely to have dumber children.

Profile

theweaselking: (Default)theweaselking
Page generated Feb. 6th, 2026 06:20 am