Originally posted by Inzra

You don't need to be a genius to see that spanking is hurtful, wether it affects the intelligence I don't know, but it doesn not teach children to respect people, just fear or hate them.

Corporal punishment is never needed to discipline children. If the parents take some time to research they'll find there are ways to be in charge without hurting your child. So there's no excuse. 

It;s not always about punishment, smacking a 4 year old on the butt when they keep reaching for the boiling water pot is probably more effective than trying to explain to them or letting them pull the boiling water on themselves.

Originally posted by Praetoriani

 

I excelled at statistics but honestly, I suck at the rest of mathematics. How is this relevant to the topic?  Did something related to mathematics I said earlier not fit?

Or do you wonder why they give out Bachelor of Science degrees for a field like psychology, instead of BAs? To tell you the truth; I don't understand either. That said, it's not an art. It tries very hard to be a science. Not to worry; the current field I study in IS a BA course (archaeology and ancient history). Funnily enough, it's in some ways more scientific (especially the archaeology part) than psychology is.

   You said that performance on an IQ test implies achievements in fields that imply intelligence, yet psychologists barely take any math and the very basis of their field (the central limit theorem) requires all of the analysis courses a BS in math and PhD in math would have had to take to understand properly. Mathematicians don't make the IQ tests, psychologists do and they generally don't even know what they're doing beyond hypothesis testing, which is why it's hard for me to swallow that an IQ test measures anything other than how much you think like a psychologist.

Originally posted by Inzra

You don't need to be a genius to see that spanking is hurtful, wether it affects the intelligence I don't know, but it doesn not teach children to respect people, just fear or hate them.

 

Damn you're right, everyone that gets spanked fears and hates their parents.  And there is a big difference between spanking and hurting a child.  A swat to the ass that stings for 15 seconds isn't hurting the child.  People like you need to get off the high horse you preach from and let people raise their own children.  The fact that there are millions upon millions of people that turned out perfectly fine even though they were spanked just debunks your opinion.  Then there's the millions upon millions of parents who lack the ability to discipline their children using "your" suggested solution.  The fact that you think DHS should take children from their parents for spanking disgusts and amuses me at the same time.  Go back to San Francisco and love the smell of your own farts while the rest of society doesn't view life through the lens of a bleeding heart liberal.

Originally posted by Laiina

Originally posted by Inzra

You don't need to be a genius to see that spanking is hurtful, wether it affects the intelligence I don't know, but it doesn not teach children to respect people, just fear or hate them.

Corporal punishment is never needed to discipline children. If the parents take some time to research they'll find there are ways to be in charge without hurting your child. So there's no excuse. 

 

It;s not always about punishment, smacking a 4 year old on the butt when they keep reaching for the boiling water pot is probably more effective than trying to explain to them or letting them pull the boiling water on themselves.

Sounds more like laziness to take the time to explain to that four year old, and taking the necessary steps to prevent the pot from being out of reach from the child.

There is NEVER any need for physical punishment towards a child, just parents who want to have it all without effort.

Originally posted by modjoe86

Originally posted by Inzra

You don't need to be a genius to see that spanking is hurtful, wether it affects the intelligence I don't know, but it doesn not teach children to respect people, just fear or hate them.

 

 

Damn you're right, everyone that gets spanked fears and hates their parents.  And there is a big difference between spanking and hurting a child.  A swat to the ass that stings for 15 seconds isn't hurting the child.  People like you need to get off the high horse you preach from and let people raise their own children.  The fact that there are millions upon millions of people that turned out perfectly fine even though they were spanked just debunks your opinion.  Then there's the millions upon millions of parents who lack the ability to discipline their children using "your" suggested solution.  The fact that you think DHS should take children from their parents for spanking disgusts and amuses me at the same time.  Go back to San Francisco and love the smell of your own farts while the rest of society doesn't view life through the lens of a bleeding heart liberal.

If I spat in your face it probably wouldn't hurt you, though it might have some consequences still that I might have to pay for.

Spanking a child is showing disrespect for the child - that can't physically defend themselves against a grownup, and perhaps don't know how to get help if they get spanked.

People like you need to understand that having children is not a divine right you have.

And I don't see millions and millions of people turning out fine as you say, they just think they did.

I haven't suggested any specific solution, but I've seen there are ways of guiding and disciplining your child without having to hit them, and spanking is still hitting.

People using spanking as an excuse because they are too lazy to raise kids in a loving and caring way disgusts me, and it doesn't amuse me at all.

There is NO WAY I will ever change my view to saying that corporal punishment is allright for a child. if you can't handle rasing children in a civilized way, you shouldn't have children in the first place.

If there weren't any other way to have children behave, I would have agreed, but threre are ways of raising children without spanking them, so there really is no excuse.

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Supposedly

Adults who are spanked have more fun.

Definitely

Rofl. Common sense > IQ   Spanking fortifies common sense and teaches consequences to actions. Fact. Those that are not spanked end up in jail or have a high rate of rebellion against authority in which usually their life is a wreck.

Maybe they're looking at this all the wrong way.  Perhaps instead of the spanking lowering their IQ's, it's the other way around.  The lower IQ kids are getting spanked.

When I was a kid I got spanked because I acted stupid.  My dad didn't come spank me because I was acting smart.  And him negotiating with me, well...  that never worked.  As soon as he left the room I was thinking in my head, "what a pussy to think I'm going to fall for that b.s.".  The spanking however made a lasting impression on my little brain that was lacking all inhibition.

Then there was my little bro.  Hardly ever got in trouble.  Much smarter than me even to this day.  He just had more self control and was smart enough to keep himself out of things.  I used to get so mad at him.  But only because he had it all figured out.  It took me a while longer.

hahahahahaha

I love people who say something is wrong becuase they have anecdotal evidence that's irrelivant.

What they are saying is.
"The study, involving hundreds of U.S. children, showed the more a child was spanked the lower his or her IQ compared with others."

So unless you can somehow prove that you're IQ wasn't higher before you were spanked, you're stories of being smart and spanked mean absolutly nothing in the argument.

Further down it goes down to explain how else this could be caused aside from the physical trauma of spanking.
As well it brings up the age old strong correlation between intelligence and socioeconomic status.

Its very unfortunate that most people will cast this aside for the simple reason of justifying their parents choice to spank.

Originally posted by gnomexxx

Maybe they're looking at this all the wrong way.  Perhaps instead of the spanking lowering their IQ's, it's the other way around.  The lower IQ kids are getting spanked.

When I was a kid I got spanked because I acted stupid.  My dad didn't come spank me because I was acting smart.  And him negotiating with me, well...  that never worked.  As soon as he left the room I was thinking in my head, "what a pussy to think I'm going to fall for that b.s.".  The spanking however made a lasting impression on my little brain that was lacking all inhibition.

Then there was my little bro.  Hardly ever got in trouble.  Much smarter than me even to this day.  He just had more self control and was smart enough to keep himself out of things.  I used to get so mad at him.  But only because he had it all figured out.  It took me a while longer.

^this

i was a bit of a brat as a youngster and tbh i agree that any kind of negotiation didnt work. Although when i got spanked enough times after doing something bad or stupid, i learned eventually to ..... not do it..... Negotiating with children has given us this new batch of children who are idiots and assholes. Albeit there may be some cases where kids were changed with negotiation but tbh i dont see it.

Originally posted by modjoe86

Originally posted by Inzra

You don't need to be a genius to see that spanking is hurtful, wether it affects the intelligence I don't know, but it doesn not teach children to respect people, just fear or hate them.

 

 

Damn you're right, everyone that gets spanked fears and hates their parents.  And there is a big difference between spanking and hurting a child.  A swat to the ass that stings for 15 seconds isn't hurting the child.  People like you need to get off the high horse you preach from and let people raise their own children.  The fact that there are millions upon millions of people that turned out perfectly fine even though they were spanked just debunks your opinion.  Then there's the millions upon millions of parents who lack the ability to discipline their children using "your" suggested solution.  The fact that you think DHS should take children from their parents for spanking disgusts and amuses me at the same time.  Go back to San Francisco and love the smell of your own farts while the rest of society doesn't view life through the lens of a bleeding heart liberal.

What makes you think those people are perfectly fine? Nobody said they would turn into batshit crazy people if they were hurt by their parents (Yes, something that "stings for 15 seconds" does hurt the child no matter how much you try to twist it around to justify hitting a child), what people did have suggest is that hurting your child might have consequences both through child hood and as an adult.

 Well stupid people punish their children physically, stupid people get stupid offsprings in most cases - there are ofcourse exceptions.

There are other means of "punishment" rather than raising your hand and swinging it.

I've never really bought in to the concept of an IQ. There are so many different types of intelligence, how can you measure them? One person might be focused on logic, while others may possess more creativity, wisdom, common sense, empathy, memory etc.

People have strengths and weaknesses in all areas of intelligence. Additionally, personal experience and knowledge play a large part in determining how you use your mind. Spanking would fall into this "personal experience" category. I think the idea  that spanking can lower a child's intelligence is too broad a claim to make.

Looking at animals, almost all cases of discipline are physical. I'm not suggesting you should beat your kids, but humans are mammals. It makes sense that physical discipline would be both effective and harmless.

IQ is a test; with puzzles and questions.
People who do better at it, tend to be smarter in terms of things like logic. I agree you can't make the leap to saying your more practically useful in "intelligent" situations, but if you were to give me 100 people and I wanted the smartest 50, there probably isn't many (if any) measures better than just snagging the top half of the IQ scores.

In terms of putting a number to a persons relative intelligence, I can't honestly think of a better system that we have at this point.

Originally posted by Munki

IQ is a test; with puzzles and questions.
People who do better at it, tend to be smarter in terms of things like logic. I agree you can't make the leap to saying your more practically useful in "intelligent" situations, but if you were to give me 100 people and I wanted the smartest 50, there probably isn't many (if any) measures better than just snagging the top half of the IQ scores.

In terms of putting a number to a persons relative intelligence, I can't honestly think of a better system that we have at this point.

See, the irony is that psychologists don't take formal logic either, so how can they properly test it? 

To get to the point: How is it that the field that requires little intelligence gets to create the test that measures it? 

Originally posted by //\\//\\oo

Originally posted by Munki

IQ is a test; with puzzles and questions.
People who do better at it, tend to be smarter in terms of things like logic. I agree you can't make the leap to saying your more practically useful in "intelligent" situations, but if you were to give me 100 people and I wanted the smartest 50, there probably isn't many (if any) measures better than just snagging the top half of the IQ scores.

In terms of putting a number to a persons relative intelligence, I can't honestly think of a better system that we have at this point.

 See, the irony is that psychologists don't take formal logic either, so how can they properly test it? 

To get to the point: How is it that the field that requires little intelligence gets to create the test that measures it?  

Not quite sure what you're getting at here... When it comes to psychology or the brain, I think the guys who devote their lives to it are probably the best ones to make tests about it.

Originally posted by Munki

Not quite sure what you're getting at here... When it comes to psychology or the brain, I think the guys who devote their lives to it are probably the best ones to make tests about it.

 

   Really? That's funny, because they don't use much of their own: How are they supposed to test intellectual faculties when they don't even use many in their field? 

   The thing is that they have a very limited knowledge of physics and mathematics, so how could they even begin to understand the brain in all of it's complexity when results obtained from neurologists are complex enough to be used for mathematical optimization and applications in physics (i.e. neural networks)? 

   All of their "science" consists of vapid empirical observation that could be done by any kid in elementary school; the actual science behind their field consists of "testing" their observations by using statistics (see central limit theorem), yet they don't even have sufficient training to derive where that kind of reasoning came from.

   If IQ tests measure intelligence, then how is it that people can practice and actually score higher? Did they magically improve their faculties, or is an IQ test nothing more than a test made by psychologists? 

  The very scoring of an IQ test is extremely simple: It's nothing more than a distribution, much like all of their "science"...

  So it's not surprising that people who don't engage in much intellectual activity can still have high IQ scores; you could argue that they are merely geniuses who choose not to use their talents, but you are still making the assumption that IQ tests measure intelligence.

  There is no PROOF that IQ tests measure intelligence: Hypothesis testing is not PROOF (and in many cases it even fails when it comes to many assertions made by psychologists).

Originally posted by //\\//\\oo

Originally posted by Munki

Not quite sure what you're getting at here... When it comes to psychology or the brain, I think the guys who devote their lives to it are probably the best ones to make tests about it.

 

   Really? That's funny, because they don't use much of their own: How are they supposed to test intellectual faculties when they don't even use many in their field? 

   The thing is that they have a very limited knowledge of physics and mathematics, so how could they even begin to understand the brain in all of it's complexity when results obtained from neurologists are complex enough to be used for mathematical optimization and applications in physics (i.e. neural networks)? 

   All of their "science" consists of vapid empirical observation that could be done by any kid in elementary school; the actual science behind their field consists of "testing" their observations by using statistics (see central limit theorem), yet they don't even have sufficient training to derive where that kind of reasoning came from.

   If IQ tests measure intelligence, then how is it that people can practice and actually score higher? Did they magically improve their faculties, or is an IQ test nothing more than a test made by psychologists? 

  The very scoring of an IQ test is extremely simple: It's nothing more than a distribution, much like all of their "science"...

  So it's not surprising that people who don't engage in much intellectual activity can still have high IQ scores; you could argue that they are merely geniuses who choose not to use their talents, but you are still making the assumption that IQ tests measure intelligence.

  There is no PROOF that IQ tests measure intelligence: Hypothesis testing is not PROOF (and in many cases it even fails when it comes to many assertions made by psychologists). 

lol, so your a troll.. I get it now.
Its almost impossible to determine causation in human test subjects because of all the confounding variables... Thats painfully obvious; nobody is going to try to argue that with you.
But saying you need a sound argument or your wrong is naive.
It is impossible in most cases to have a sound argument in fields like psychology. PHD's put forth very convincing strong inductive arguments why we have measures like IQ, and there is nothing better for measuring intelligence currently.

You may not like it, but to be blunt you're a random guy on the internet; anybody with basic reasoning skills should be able to put 2 and 2 together and realize if you're not an expert yourself its probably better to place some value in the logic and findings of people in that respective field. Espeically if its an idea that has been accepted for a long time and is simply being used as a relative measure.

Originally posted by Munki

lol, so your a troll.. I get it now.
Its almost impossible to determine causation in human test subjects because of all the confounding variables... Thats painfully obvious; nobody is going to try to argue that with you.
But saying you need a sound argument or your wrong is naive.
It is impossible in most cases to have a sound argument in fields like psychology. PHD's put forth very convincing strong inductive arguments why we have measures like IQ, and there is nothing better for measuring intelligence currently.

You may not like it, but to be blunt you're a random guy on the internet; anybody with basic reasoning skills should be able to put 2 and 2 together and realize if you're not an expert yourself its probably better to place some value in the logic and findings of people in that respective field. Espeically if its an idea that has been accepted for a long time and is simply being used as a relative measure.

  You misunderstand what I had pointed out: I was discrediting their method of "proof" entirely, since it encompasses their field and doesn't imply causation. It's very trivial to take samples and test them with assumed distributions; they don't do any quantitative modeling by themselves in any form, so how exactly can their field accommodate a sophisticated model of cognition? It can't, which is why it "borrows" results from other fields and applies them to it's own.

  "Impossible to have a sound argument in fields like psychology" is indeed correct, since it is all based on conjecture from observation and nothing more. PhD's in what? Mathematics? Physics? What about neurologists? None of the above is the correct answer.

 Ah, ad hominem. Well done. Let me apply it to you as well: "You're just a random person on the internet who doesn't know anything and a troll." 

Originally posted by //\\//\\oo

Originally posted by Munki

lol, so your a troll.. I get it now.
Its almost impossible to determine causation in human test subjects because of all the confounding variables... Thats painfully obvious; nobody is going to try to argue that with you.
But saying you need a sound argument or your wrong is naive.
It is impossible in most cases to have a sound argument in fields like psychology. PHD's put forth very convincing strong inductive arguments why we have measures like IQ, and there is nothing better for measuring intelligence currently.

You may not like it, but to be blunt you're a random guy on the internet; anybody with basic reasoning skills should be able to put 2 and 2 together and realize if you're not an expert yourself its probably better to place some value in the logic and findings of people in that respective field. Espeically if its an idea that has been accepted for a long time and is simply being used as a relative measure.

  You misunderstand what I had pointed out: I was discrediting their method of "proof" entirely, since it encompasses their field and doesn't imply causation. It's very trivial to take samples and test them with assumed distributions; they don't do any quantitative modeling by themselves in any form, so how exactly can their field accommodate a sophisticated model of cognition? It can't, which is why it "borrows" results from other fields and applies them to it's own.

  "Impossible to have a sound argument in fields like psychology" is indeed correct, since it is all based on conjecture from observation and nothing more. PhD's in what? Mathematics? Physics? What about neurologists? None of the above is the correct answer.

 Ah, ad hominem. Well done. Let me apply it to you as well: "You're just a random person on the internet who doesn't know anything and a troll."  

You missed the part where I had a logical argument, so regardless of my status as a troll, president or boat captain; my argument remains just as valid.
You really over using "ad hominem"; or mis-using in this case.

As for this whole argument, its becoming a rediculous pissing contest of who can whip out more vocabulary from a first year course in logic.
What I've been saying is its used as a relative measure of intelligence and is currently the best model we have. If you can do better by all means enlighten us; While you're at it you might as well publish a paper and reap the fame that would undoubtably follow such a useful system of measurement.

Originally posted by Munki

You missed the part where I had a logical argument, so regardless of my status as a troll, president or boat captain; my argument remains just as valid.
You really over using "ad hominem"; or mis-using in this case.

As for this whole argument, its becoming a rediculous pissing contest of who can whip out more vocabulary from a first year course in logic.
What I've been saying is its used as a relative measure of intelligence and is currently the best model we have. If you can do better by all means enlighten us; While you're at it you might as well publish a paper and reap the fame that would undoubtably follow such a useful system of measurement.

     Nope. I'm using ad hominem properly: Your argument is that my point isn't valid, since you think I'm a troll and know nothing of the subject; you don't actually prove me wrong, but claim that I'm wrong through character assault. That is, by definition, an ad hominem argument.

    Here is another example: You spelled ridiculous wrong, so your pathetic first grade spelling implies that your point is invalid.

    You keep saying that it's the "best model we have", yet you don't support it with anything other than "PhD's in psychology said so, so it must be true"....

     I suggest you think for yourself and google "Central Limit Theorem", then try and verify for yourself when you come upon a study that all of the necessary hypotheses are satisfied (of the central limit theorem); should everything actually converge to a normal distribution the question of causation still lingers and maybe then you'll realize that constructive, rigorous and consistent disciplines have much better things to do than try and quantify something without a complete understanding of the physical apparatus behind it.

Originally posted by //\\//\\oo

Originally posted by Munki

You missed the part where I had a logical argument, so regardless of my status as a troll, president or boat captain; my argument remains just as valid.
You really over using "ad hominem"; or mis-using in this case.

As for this whole argument, its becoming a rediculous pissing contest of who can whip out more vocabulary from a first year course in logic.
What I've been saying is its used as a relative measure of intelligence and is currently the best model we have. If you can do better by all means enlighten us; While you're at it you might as well publish a paper and reap the fame that would undoubtably follow such a useful system of measurement.

 

     Nope. I'm using ad hominem properly: Your argument is that my point isn't valid, since you think I'm a troll and know nothing of the subject; you don't actually prove me wrong, but claim that I'm wrong through character assault. That is, by definition, an ad hominem argument.

    Here is another example: You spelled ridiculous wrong, so your pathetic first grade spelling implies that your point is invalid.

    You keep saying that it's the "best model we have", yet you don't support it with anything other than "PhD's in psychology said so, so it must be true"....

     I suggest you think for yourself and google "Central Limit Theorem", then try and verify for yourself when you come upon a study that all of the necessary hypotheses are satisfied (of the central limit theorem); should everything actually converge to a normal distribution the question of causation still lingers and maybe then you'll realize that constructive, rigorous and consistent disciplines have much better things to do than try and quantify something without a complete understanding of the physical apparatus behind it.

 

No. My first argument was your a troll.. my evidence was your post.
After that I was making a seperate point which stood on its own.

Again, I've mentioned I understand basic logic and statistics.
And again, you're simply passing aside the work of very talented people.
Its great that you are currently taking/took a hard science like physics or chemistry.
I'm a computer science major with a minor is math. So if you want to have a academic pissing contest feel free to PM me, but for got sakes stop trying to give everyone an abridged version of a first year logic course.

 

Originally posted by Munki

No. My first argument was your a troll.. my evidence was your post.
After that I was making a seperate point which stood on its own.

Again, I've mentioned I understand basic logic and statistics.
And again, you're simply passing aside the work of very talented people.
Its great that you are currently taking/took a hard science like physics or chemistry.
I'm a computer science major with a minor is math. So if you want to have a academic pissing contest feel free to PM me, but for got sakes stop trying to give everyone an abridged version of a first year logic course.

 

 

  Who are these talented people?

Originally posted by Munki

Originally posted by //\\//\\oo

Originally posted by Munki

You missed the part where I had a logical argument, so regardless of my status as a troll, president or boat captain; my argument remains just as valid.
You really over using "ad hominem"; or mis-using in this case.

As for this whole argument, its becoming a rediculous pissing contest of who can whip out more vocabulary from a first year course in logic.
What I've been saying is its used as a relative measure of intelligence and is currently the best model we have. If you can do better by all means enlighten us; While you're at it you might as well publish a paper and reap the fame that would undoubtably follow such a useful system of measurement.

 

     Nope. I'm using ad hominem properly: Your argument is that my point isn't valid, since you think I'm a troll and know nothing of the subject; you don't actually prove me wrong, but claim that I'm wrong through character assault. That is, by definition, an ad hominem argument.

    Here is another example: You spelled ridiculous wrong, so your pathetic first grade spelling implies that your point is invalid.

    You keep saying that it's the "best model we have", yet you don't support it with anything other than "PhD's in psychology said so, so it must be true"....

     I suggest you think for yourself and google "Central Limit Theorem", then try and verify for yourself when you come upon a study that all of the necessary hypotheses are satisfied (of the central limit theorem); should everything actually converge to a normal distribution the question of causation still lingers and maybe then you'll realize that constructive, rigorous and consistent disciplines have much better things to do than try and quantify something without a complete understanding of the physical apparatus behind it.

 

No. My first argument was your a troll.. my evidence was your post.
After that I was making a seperate point which stood on its own.

Again, I've mentioned I understand basic logic and statistics.
And again, you're simply passing aside the work of very talented people.
Its great that you are currently taking/took a hard science like physics or chemistry.
I'm a computer science major with a minor is math. So if you want to have a academic pissing contest feel free to PM me, but for got sakes stop trying to give everyone an abridged version of a first year logic course.

 

 

You two quit fighting or I'll come in there with a belt !