To smack or not to smack what do you thinkWatch
people shouldnt hit their kids. so hypocritical that they argue violence is wrong upon others when parents seem to feel excused to do it themselves
It's a choice, I knew if I got caught I would get my ass smacked for it, I knew it was wrong, but I chose to do it anyway. To be honest grounding had way more effect on my actions than hitting ever did.
Myself and siblings all got spankings when little, I'd say we all turned out alright. I agree with the above in that grounding is more effective, but you can't do that until a bit older. I'll still spank my kids when they're really young and really cross the line, combined with love and support in the meantime so they realize I want the best for them.
my parents hit me like that and im a model citizen!
Hmm, I can see where the parents see smacking as a useful tool, but inr eality, it would make the child bitter and can twist/change the realationship between the child/parent and may cause more grievances.
I think that smacking is effective, to a certain age. After that, the parents should talk to them, and make them see what they did wrong. So, in the scenario the poll is based on, no smacking, because that would be pointless and would just make the kid bitter.
Short, sharp smacks work because it instantly registered with the child that what they did was bad, or their actions will incur more punishment. When kids are young they need this sort of basic classical conditioning.
I don't think the smacking did me any harm at all.
I some times smacked but never very hard , my mothers angry voice was usualy enough to make me do what I was told though.
I don't think the smacking did me any harm at all.
Yes you should smake a child but only up to a certain poin and only for the right reasonsi belive that once a child reaches the age of 12 smaking looses its corrective value and only causes resentment grounding and removal of privallages is then the best option.
its a very simple thing really if a child does something naughty then it dosn't realise this for example biting as a baby children naturally chew thing and when they grow teeth they are more than happy to sink them in to soft warm flesh!!! the child does not realise that this is painfull and so the best way to teach it is to give it a little bite back not enough to really hurt the child just a little nip so the child feels pain after this has happened 4-5 times the baby soon assoiats he/she biting something with a response of pain and will giv up its efforts.
it is the same with bad behaviour if a child throws a wobbly in a shop because you wont buy them a pack of sweets then the best thing to do is a little smack on the wrists again the assoacion of pain and trying to kick and scream to get their own way kicks in and they will soon stop in some cases it is better to tell the child whatr they have done wrong and explain it to them but not untill 6-7 when they can understand you how do you think every other species treats its kids. + if you give into a kids demands at an early age you get oa little spoilt child who belives they can get their own way all the time and they are then more likely to become involved in drugs etc because they feel they can get away with it.
And violence is not a bad thing used in the right place at the right time
i dont think u shud smack any children.. speshly not younger ones cus they learn the wrong things. i dont think u shud take a kid outta school for doin drugs in school anyway. maybe take away any privileges but the kid who bring drugs to school is the one who most needs to be there in the first place.
Ok i respect your point of view on this matter but if your kid was attending a strict and very stuck-up school the last thing they would want is a pupil that they can't control and if the school records are tarnished then it makes the school look bad and in this particular case the child is stubburn and has a history of bad behavior that has stuck with her all through her school life so far , she has had punishments used on her by the school and by both her parents but she has not learned her lesson even when her friends turned against her she continued to do stupid things that she knew would cause upset to her family and school yet she is quite a clever child but chooses to use her abilitys negitivly ,she has had a good childhood with plenty of love and attention and she has never been smacked, she has been warned of the future reputation she is creating for herself, its like talking to a brick wall.
How do you help a child that beleves she is all powerfull and untouchable and beleve me when i tell you we have tried everything you can imagine without making her feel abandoned.
1. what does hitting som1 do?
2. is it necessary for conditioning?
The answer to 1 is debatable, but when reduced to its basics is quite simple. All mammals have a very potent response to pain - they avoid it. Our brains are configured to alter behaviour to minimise pain at all times. This makes evolutionary sense because prolonged pain usually eventually leads to death. It does lead to conditioning, but there's no conclusive evidence to suggest this conditioning is anything more than a survival reflex, i.e. it's origin and effect has little to do with understanding why something is 'inappropriate', but simply to avoid it.
The child in this situation, supposedly unable to understand speech is very unlikely to be able to differentiate between their action and their guardians being the source of pain. There is a significant ability to recall pain as it has significant negative emotional effects which help in ensuring it is remembered. The tendency for the child conditioned in this Pavlovian fashion is to avoid all things related to the pain inducing incident if possible. This leads to confusion, not clarity.
So indeed hitting children helps to condition them, if only for avoidance of pain, related to an intrinsic fear of death. Explanations involving other morally structured mechanisms in which socialisation is learned through this conditioning tend to be tenuous and very fallible.
The likely result of this conditioning, where it doesn't lead to resentment of perpetrators is that many of the lessons supposedly taught by the pain dependent conditioning have to be re-learnt in a different context in a different fashion in order to achieve understanding. Thus the only unique effect of this method (not replaced by other methods) of conditioning is the residual emotional memories of the experience. Whether or not these negative psychological effects are appropriate or justifiable is morally questionable and depends on the answer to 2.
2, the question of necessity is also debatable. Essentially it is true that perceptions on the issue are greatly influenced by one's childhood and tradition, such that children who were hit by their parents are more likely to advocate it than others.
Evidence for the effect of absence of physical punishment on socialisation is limited, but essentially a common argument about how 'physical punishment improves social structure by reducing crime and improving academic success...' is not really supported by evidence. Countries with laws limiting or forbidding physical punishment of children have similar crime rates and education levels to others advocating it.
The result of this is that there is insufficient evidence to show a significant improvement in socialisation in response to physical punishment. Hence in the absence of this, the necessity becomes questionable, especially in light of the myriad of other disciplinary options with less low-level psychological impact when contrasted with the negative effects on the psychology of the recipients of physical punishment.