Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rIcHrD)
    i think there's 2 parts to this.

    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.
    Well I have to hand it to you, that is a very good argument.

    I must argue do some of the others, however, that there is such a fine line between physical abuse and getting a little smack to tell the child that what they have done is wrong.
    Whether you want to use physical abuse or not, children need strict upbringings. It's the scallies who do drugs and crime who have parents who are completely naive to how much of a mess their children have become, and constantly refer to them as 'darlings' when they are small despite what they do.
    Of course, evidence suggests that children need lots of encouragement as well as punishment. If you do not 'reward' a child when they act in 'good' ways (such as telling the truth and working hard at school) then they are likely to start doing bad things just for some sort of attention, even if it's bad attention.
    Punishments such as grounding can be effective for certain types of children who are very sociable; however, often it's a case of 'go to your room' (where you can watch TV, play on your Playstation and read your comics). Yup, such a deterent.
    I also feel that the cane should be brought back, but only to be used in extreme circumstances (such as scallies who shouldn't even go to school if they're just dossing around all the time).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i tink dat smakin em is te wrong thing to do, if they screw up thier life thats thier problem. being a parent aint eazy, letting the child learn from its own mistakes is ow it would happen in the real world so i say go ahead let them do what they like...........
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    my grandmother used to chase my father around the kitchen with a frying pan when he did something wrong, and he turned out fine!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    gd 4 him!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    there are two kinds of abuse ,physical and mental, some abuse is done by the adult to simply put fear into the child and then there are the adults that abuse to get a satisfying result for themself, you could say they use it to get off on weather it be to feel superior and god like or to get sexual satisfaction,i have been the recipiant of both types of abuse
    but these types of abuse can offen be seen as controlling a child there fore disaplin has been used.
    it is so easy for an adult to over-do-it, for example a slap on the wrist can turn in to a slap around the head causing potential damage such as a burst ear drum or a brocken nose because we dont know our strength and we all know that anger can fuel the violence and the result of that has been known to kill, when we are calm we see what we have done and regret it.

    we have all read about parents going to court and or prison for getting wound up over a what seems to be a silly thing to the reader but was the the tip of the iceberg to them.

    no two people are the same and no one deals with stress in the same way as there partner, suppose this is why single parent familys tend to be seen as the most likely to fail when it comes to disaplin because mum tends to play one part while dad dose the other like the good guy and the bad guy thing as my mother was always loving and forgiving but dad was the one that punished so u never messed with him, it was pure fear that drove me to do well at school and at home but mum would hold me when the punishment had been delt , i needed that, i think i would be dead or something if i did'nt have that soft touch.

    i dont smack my four children and my husband has never laid a finger on them and if he did i would be sure he felt my wrath.
    i have always wanted the best for my kids as most loving parents do, i know that its because of my painful childhood that i cant bring myself to even raise my hand to them anyway my shout is usually enough to make them stop and think, i get mad at those tHAT SAY the abused becomes the abuser!???????? in my experiance no one i know that has been abused wether it be pysical or mental has grown to abuse others, infact they are the most loving people i know .

    In the case of repeated abusers there has been reports of frontal-lobe damage.
    As the brain is damaged while developing, for example a child is punched and slapped around the head on several occasions between ages of 5 to 15 then this has been known to alter the development of the frontal-lobe and this part of the brain is responsable for emotions and reasoning.
    i am sure if you look it up you will see there is alot of information explaining how and why this kind of brain damage can alter a persons perceptions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    as most people know frontal lobe damage numbs the sufferers ability to reason or feel guilt for thier actions, almost asif they are cold blooded.
    ats why these people do that and can live with it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    in general, i wouldn't do any of the options on the poll. to stop someone doing something that is wrong, you have to explain why it is wrong, and make them see that. smacking might stop them in the short term, but they might only stop taking dope to avoid being smacked - remove the stick and they go back.

    loads easier said than done i know, and im sure there are circumstances where smacking might be the only way to get through to someone.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KizzieB)
    there are two kinds of abuse ,physical and mental, some abuse is done by the adult to simply put fear into the child and then there are the adults that abuse to get a satisfying result for themself, you could say they use it to get off on weather it be to feel superior and god like or to get sexual satisfaction,i have been the recipiant of both types of abuse...
    There is an issue I'd like to bring up here that many people seem to be confused about and try to relate to physical punishment.

    Physical punishment has very little to do with discipline. Discipline is teaching by example, i.e. passive teaching where a student/child learns passively by mimicking the teacher.

    It, like most disciplinary options induces fear. However, the fear is a primal one, not on the same level as fear 'I can't play with friends for the next week', but fear of pain, of anguish. As most people are aware, humans in enough pain will seek death. The cause of the fear of physical punishment is related to this instinctive response - the same response you get to torture.

    Now the perception usually stated is that there is some hypothetical line beyond which this pain is related to torture (referred to as abuse) and before which it has insignificant consequences ('just a smack on the cheeks').

    In analysis it becomes apparent that the position of this threshold has little to do with the amount of pain, but the context of it. If the pain is in a climate of fear and escape from it is not possible as can be generated very easily in a family, then it can very easily translate to the intensity of emotional distress observed in torture.

    If the climate is more pallatable however and importantly, fear is replaced by understanding, then this hypothetical line shifts to the more extreme levels of pain.

    This is related to the fact that in most cases where people know their pain (e.g. from illness) is short term, suicidal tendencies are reduced compared to in terminal illness.

    This is however quite paradoxical. In reality, where there is understanding, physical punishment immediately becomes unnecessary as Pavlovian conditioning is no longer necessary. Yet, for physical punishment to not cause negative psychological effects, understanding is required. Hence physical punishment and understanding are incompatible in socialisation - in other words the primary function of physical punishment in conditioning children is to induce fear.

    From the above analysis, it becomes apparent that negative primal psychological effects are the (almost) inevitable consequence of physical punishment. This differs from other forms of punishment mostly in that psychological effects there are less 'primal' and probably result in a lower degree of negative psychological effect. It's however also quite important that other forms of punishment can, in an atmosphere of fear lead to similar responses.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by innitman_uk)
    in general, i wouldn't do any of the options on the poll. to stop someone doing something that is wrong, you have to explain why it is wrong, and make them see that. smacking might stop them in the short term, but they might only stop taking dope to avoid being smacked - remove the stick and they go back.

    loads easier said than done i know, and im sure there are circumstances where smacking might be the only way to get through to someone.

    It would be easy if all children were the same because to sit them down and explain to them what they had done wrong was always my first and most usefull tool but this particular child appears ammune to all those types of disaplin and has walked away from you as you are talking to her then smashed furniture in her room and screamed bloody murder as if i had beat her with a hot pocker or something, this just angers me even more so i run into her room and tell her to shut it or ill start smashing her room up as well then she calms down and laughs with me and we are able to talk but the next day she dose something else that warrents detention and a letter home from school asking me to go in and be talked at by her head of year so yes it is easer said than done but to stick to a regular predictable punishment just allows the kid to know whats coming and decide on the pros n cons weather the act is worth the punishment because that punishment will be short lived and the fun is another cool thing to tell there mates.
    we were all children once but do you all remember how your mind worked?.
    i try to use my childhood as a tool in bringing up my 4 children, i remember doing naughty stuff and i remember what it felt like but i also remember the upset it caused to my family and i never repeated any one of them so i suppose i can't understand it when this child repeatedly hurts us and continues to preffer the negetive attention her foolishness brings her.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I can't remember being smacked past about 7. I was only ever smacked when I had been putting myself in danger or being continually disobedient. I think people tend to forget that children have not fully developed a moral conscience yet and that they don't have knowledge that parents have.

    I was only ever smacked after being given three warnings - so I was smacked for being persistently disobedient. I would get a count-down and would have free choice to stop what I was doing. I would be sent to my room and my parents would wait 10mintues for me to think about what I had done and so that I knew that they weren't smacking out of anger. They would then come up and smack me and then talk to me and we ALWAYS ended by saying we loved each other and hugging. I knew I had been forgiven but that, as a wilful child, I needed to be punished.

    I have always supported smacking as the final point of a structred, consistent and well-known system of discipline for a child. I sawa programme recently and saw a family who smacked children in one circumstance and then not in another, smacked out of anger (retaliation/frustration). I saw and recognised that that was totally inappropriate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What about if the parent is wrong (they don't know everything you know) and they hit their child for something the child didn't do??? What is that teaching the child other than they are misunderstood????
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DreamON........)
    What about if the parent is wrong (they don't know everything you know) and they hit their child for something the child didn't do??? What is that teaching the child other than they are misunderstood????
    It is teaching the child they have no power over their life, all the power belongs to their parents. So as far as the child is concerned, the parent is always right no matter what they do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Any law to prevent parents from smacking their children is an attempt to control the relationship between parents and their children. The legislation seems to assume that banning smacking will go some way to 'improving' this relationship. The government should consider that it is perhaps not the actual act of smacking a child that can sometimes have negative effects upon them - it's the way it's done and the looks or words that accompany the smack.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    At a certain age I might smack a child, but not at 13. By then they are old enough to reason with, hopefully.

    Before anyone tells me you should reason with all children instead of lashing out I'm only talking about slapping in specific cases.

    For example, a young child starts running across the road without looking. You tell them not to do it and give them a light smack on the hand, which doesn't hurt, reinforces the message and I believe does no damage.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I my parents tried to hit me I would just hit them back. Even if they are bigger and stronger.......................
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.