--- On Mon, 12/8/08, Gilbert Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Threat of Punishment Works, Study Suggests > http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20081204/sc_livescience/threatofpunishmentworksstudysuggests > > Is this not commonly called "Spare the rod and spoil the child"? In the > > 17th century was this not called The Inquisition? > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 07:47:27 -0800 (PST) From: Santosh Helekar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > If one reads this report carefully and tries to understand what it says, > it becomes obvious that neither the silly title of this thread nor the > frivolous generalizations in the form of rhetorical questions below, are > warranted by any stretch of reason or imagination. If the authors had > made these types of harebrained ideological extrapolations from their > rather nuanced results, their paper would not have been accepted for > publication in Science, or any other peer-reviewed journal, for that > matter. The attempt to justify and condone the crimes of the inquisition > is especially grotesque in this regard. But so is the absurd point about > sparing the rod. Corporal punishment is not only found to be ineffective > in children, but it has been shown to have deleterious effects on > subsequent behavior. This form of disciplining has been banned in public > and Catholic schools in 102 countries across the world. Here is an > American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement > on banning of corporal punishment in school children: > http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b106/2/343 > Mario observes:
I may be taking my life in my hands here by entering where even angels fear to tread: between Gilbert Lawrence and Santosh Helekar:-)) However, as the only real voice for truth, reason and peace on Goanet, I must say I am mystified by this thread. In the link posted by Gilbert one sees an announcement of a study that apparently indicates that the "threat of punishment" deters selfish people, who are called "freeloaders" in this article, from breaking rules of normal, civil behavior and encourages them to be considerate of others. In my opinion, the term "punishment" is hyperbole in this article because the examples of "punishment" that are mentioned are not corporal or physical, but more like disapproval and public embarrassment and losing some privilege or "points" in a game. The phrase "negative consequences" would be far more appropriate. The salutory effect of some negative consequences for inappropriate behavior makes intuitive common sense. How Gilbert took this to justify the effectiveness of corporal punishment for children when he likened it to the old adage "Spare the rod and spoil the child" is a total mystery to me. Even more bizarre was his rhetorical question likening corporal punishment in bringing up children with the Inquisition where alleged heretics were mercilessly punished and tortured, even put to death, by unspeakably cruel methods. If there is any application in the new study it would be the threat of denying a misbehaving child some privilege like watching a certain TV program, or denying them their favorite dessert, or not taking them to a favorite place, or sending them to their room for a few hours. All such consequences are what enlightened parents use these days and none of these disciplinary measures rise to the level of corporal punishment. Equally mysterious is why Santosh took the bait when he could have easily shown that Gilbert's extrapolations did not fit the new study at all and were therefore simply codswallop.
