| Author |
Message |
Lilfair
Member
07-09-2003
| Saturday, September 12, 2015 - 8:25 pm 
It's unlikely that they changed up their discipline techniques depending on the child or the age. The rod was the physical punishment of choice they used to force obedience. We all like rose colored glasses at times. But I don't wear mine wear this family is concerned.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, September 12, 2015 - 8:39 pm
Who's talking about rose-colored glasses?
I'm simply stating the difference between what is known (facts) and what is opinion (guessing).
It has nothing to do with ignoring anything or whitewashing anything, as the phrase rose-colored glasses implies.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, September 12, 2015 - 8:44 pm
I agree that we don't know for a fact. We don't know lots of things for a fact. I don't know for a fact that the sun won't explode tomorrow. However, based on available evidence that doesn't seem likely. Same with the Duggars. Sooner or later some things become evident. But yes we have no clear evidence that they used physical force on their children before they were a certain age.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, September 12, 2015 - 9:34 pm
Well the sun isn't something or someone that you judge either. It's not a Human being.
And the sun's behavior isn't as complex And variable as human behavior either... So I don't think it's a good analogy.
|
Sadiesmom
Member
03-13-2002
| Saturday, September 12, 2015 - 11:50 pm
I am the poster who said that about blanket training, no matter what you do with kisses or hitting, restraining n infant to a blanket still breaks their spirit and their desire to learn about the world about them, that has pretty much be said by the psychologists, maybe I shouldn't have said beaten, but still kills the spirit.
I also believe you can never know anyone or anything about someone else for sure unless you have experienced it with them, but you can deduce things by the people they admire. A lot of the people they said they admire believe in corporal punishment.
But I can't talk, mea culpa my sister never forgave me for hitting her 5 year old son on the butt - my excuse was we two were in the subway and he decided he wanted to catch a the train as it was running through the station, I grabbed him away and he kept wriggling away from me to stand on the edge of the platform. with hi hands out as trains approached. I needed to get his attention so I swatted him on his butt, and he was shocked, shocked I say - didn't hurt him but no one had ever hit him before. So then he spent the rest of the time yelling at me and forgot about catching trains. I got him upstairs and we took taxis the rest of the time.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Sunday, September 13, 2015 - 6:12 am
Poor analogy or not, I agree that we don't know for a fact. However, that is true about a lot of things that we discuss here at TVCH. 
|
Lilfair
Member
07-09-2003
| Sunday, September 13, 2015 - 7:24 am
Common sense comes into play when it comes to this family. Their compound is smoking. The molestation, their anti basic human rights advocacy, hitting their children is just what has been exposed. Smoke and fire often burn slow. I understand they have their fans and from what I see of their fans they seem to be the low information folk. They grasp onto straws.
|
Sadiesmom
Member
03-13-2002
| Sunday, September 13, 2015 - 8:19 am
disclaimer: what I say is my opinion, I have no training in any of this, just grew up with a mother who was beaten regularly as a child and grew up ans the one sister who would not hit her children. She was very into "not breaking our spirit". guess is made some of us opinionated fools, heh.
But if you need some dated pension advice, that I have training in.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Sunday, September 13, 2015 - 10:25 am
Sadies, no one has ever suggested that infants be confined to a blanket ALL the time. And you are wrong about psychologists saying that it breaks their spirit. In fact, child psychologists agree that it is extremely beneficial for children to learn to play by themselves at times. The question is age-appropriateness and how you do that - in a loving, supportive way, or in a fearful way.
Jimmer, I have said repeatedly that *opinions* are fine. From the beginning I have said that my beef was that some things were being stated as fact, such as they did blanket training which means they beat the spirit out of their kids.
We don't know that. It's possible. But we don't have evidence that is how they conducted their version of blanket training. In fact, as I've noted, Michelle makes no note of hitting the child in any way in her description of it.
The overarching point is that people are complex. They are not rational and often don't follow what you think is the logical conclusion. I've seen this too many times to assume anything.
|
Ophiliasgrandma
Member
09-04-2001
| Sunday, September 13, 2015 - 10:53 am
Kar, what is the scientific definition of 'beating the spirit' out of a child?
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Sunday, September 13, 2015 - 11:45 am
OG - well, of course there isn't a specific definition.
But when I was in grad school, we talked a lot about soul murder... in terms of abusive parenting. That's kind of old school these days now. We talk more about outcomes, resiliency, and even more recently the effects of corporal punishment on grey matter.
In fact, research shows that corporal punishment is highly correlated with deficits in the prefrontal cortex, the very same area where deficits lead to depression and poor impulse control.
It also leads to something called 'hostile attribution bias' which means that those who were subjected to continuing corporal punishment tend to see the world as hostile and react in hostile ways (unempathic) ways to others. I see this A LOT in the kids I work with.
However, the thing we also see is that this is *aggregate* data. As I've noted repeatedly, in any individual or family unit, outcomes vary wildly depending on a whole host of factors. So, in some kids who were "beaten" regularly, I can sometimes see the kindest, most empathic souls.
That's why it's very important to never assume one behavior from another. Homes with rigid thinking can often have very illogical, and even contradictory rules. That's why we don't jump to conclusions. We may be suspicious, but that's only an indication that we need to get more information. Not assume that we know.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Sunday, September 13, 2015 - 12:31 pm
So is it reasonable to conclude that the Duggar's are wrong to use corporal punishment?
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Sunday, September 13, 2015 - 12:36 pm
Yes, it is. And I have said that all along. 
But not because they are the Duggars. Because the best science shows on an aggregate basis that corporal punishment is bad for kids in many ways, including in developing good decision making and cognitive abilities. And that doesn't matter what your religious beliefs are.
However, it would be wrong in conclude that any particular child has suffered because they were subjected to corporal punishment. You'd have to assess them to make that judgment.
|
Seamonkey
Moderator
09-07-2000
| Sunday, September 13, 2015 - 12:51 pm
In the fifties most people did spank kids but some were consistent and some weren't. My parents were quite consistent in enforcing rules and drawing lines. Some parents I observed would let kids get away with stuff one day and lash out other days.
I assume that helps somewhat, consistency.
Of course I'm not talking about beatings, whippings, and that sort of thing, just a swat or two on a clothed butt.
I DO think if someone is punished in the name of a deity or a religion it could be a factor .. in other words if they are to be deemed evil or breaking the rules of a diety that seems to me to be more negatively impactful than it just being a case of following family rules of discipline.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Sunday, September 13, 2015 - 1:44 pm
The studies don't show that however, Seamonkey. It's about frequency and severity, no correlation to religious beliefs. In fact, consistency in spanking (one time per month or more) was detrimental, no matter how it was done.
The fact is that being physically struck causes biochemical changes in your body, and those changes effect development in young, growing brains.
I imagine that doing things to make your child fearful would also have similar effects, but am not aware of any studies on that - it's difficult because it is harder to quantify.
By the way, in studies of all those people who say they turned out just fine in spite of being spanked, turns out that their brains are not, and they tend to be more fearful and more dogmatic, in *general*. And their brains reflect that.
|
Ophiliasgrandma
Member
09-04-2001
| Sunday, September 13, 2015 - 2:05 pm
My mother was a very consistent 'switcher' The funny thing is every time she switched me she cried and said it was harder on her than on me. As I got older I came to realize it wasn't really very painful at all…just a sting. My mom was one of 3 sisters. If one misbehaved they all got it with 3 switches braided together. At least mine was just one very small switch.
|
Seamonkey
Moderator
09-07-2000
| Sunday, September 13, 2015 - 7:02 pm
I guess any of us who were spanked have no credibility due to our brain damage.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Sunday, September 13, 2015 - 7:36 pm
Well, if you want to take it personally, you can do that. That's on you. But it would be an unfair twisting of what I said.
I have said all along that this is all aggregate data, and you can't use it to judge any *individual*.
But in case others missed it, here it is again:
However, it would be wrong in conclude that any particular child has suffered because they were subjected to corporal punishment. You'd have to assess them to make that judgment.
and....
and they tend to be more fearful and more dogmatic, in *general*.
You see the "in general" actually means "in general". Not in every individual case.
|
Ophiliasgrandma
Member
09-04-2001
| Monday, September 14, 2015 - 6:05 am
To Seamonkey:
Kar, I took Sea's comment as firmly 'tongue in cheek'…that is what made me laugh out loud.
|
Lilfair
Member
07-09-2003
| Monday, September 14, 2015 - 6:17 am
Of course Sea was being funny. What is not funny is that the duggar parents participated in what some might consider perfectly fine parenting tactics while others might consider those tactics to be violent discipline or even child abuse. I'm one that feels these parents are all sorts of dangerous. Their son the molester is en example of how dangerous their parenting is. But also there will always be excuses for hitting kids and excuses of why Josh fondled his sisters vaginas and breasts. The religious right is full of excuses.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Monday, September 14, 2015 - 7:39 am
What is clear is what Kar has been saying all along which is that we can't take general aggregate studies and be certain that they apply in every individual situation. Individuals are individuals.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Monday, September 14, 2015 - 9:58 am
Only Seamonkey can say how she meant it. But I took it seriously.
Lilfair, I agree that some of their parenting tactics are disturbing.
It is interesting to note however that if in fact the Duggars were raised that way themselves, their *brains* may predispose them to follow that same teaching.
So, I guess for some it's fine to think everyone can perfectly choose all their own behavior, when clinicians know that is less true than we would all like to believe.
As Jimmer says, we never can predict in an individual case how much flexibility (resiliency) individual brains have. When we work with people, we assume ultimate flexibility while knowing that may not be possible for some.
|
Roxip
Member
01-29-2004
| Monday, September 14, 2015 - 10:00 am
I know there are instances when I am saying something to reprimand my daughter that I hear my mother's voice in my head clear as a bell!
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Monday, September 14, 2015 - 11:11 am
I also think that when we examine these things using an anecdotal perspective the extremes tend to stand out.
So we remember someone who was able to overcome extremely adverse circumstances and use that person as an example or conversely we remember someone who wasn't able to overcome extremely adverse circumstances and use that person as an example. We rarely hear about or are as aware of the middle group or the less extreme situations.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Monday, September 14, 2015 - 11:57 am
LOL, Roxip... every day I look in the mirror with a bit of horror and think I'm turning into my mother. 
Jimmer, that's exactly right. That's when we hear these stories about someone who lifts themselves out of extreme poverty, people say that early education, racism and poor early nutrition aren't issues. But they seem to forget that person is the exception, not the rule.
We simply know that some kids are more resilient than others to adverse circumstances. We can detect it in reading ability at grade 3, in fact. If they are reading above grade level at that age, they will likely be one of the exceptions. And uh, there are exceptions to that rule too!
|
