Briareos H on 22/2/2012 at 02:19
This kind of "infographics" (who coined that term anyway?) is a plague of the modern, connected world. Don't pay attention to it. Haven't seen one that didn't make me want to slap someone in the face.
But in a way it captures well the traditional american fashion of reduction to first degree logic where everything works beautifully so why bother?
demagogue on 22/2/2012 at 02:32
It's the first layer of an onion that everyone is invited to "dig deeper" into to prove it wrong. Politics or beliefs are never cleanly split in two with everyone lining up perfectly. But I think it's true that people often act under the banner of clear values, and that chart spells out a common way values tend to clump together. But if you wanted a real answer, take a class in American sociology & political theory (I studied the give & take between politics & culture with Duverget's law, which says that American political values are usually going to clump into "two parties" just on logistical grounds, and that feeds-back into how people self-identify later and the banner they act under, to sometimes hilariously inconsistent results as we know), but you couldn't fit it all into a post.
Edit: But I'm not going to really defend them and that criticism doesn't really speak to my main point in that post anyway, which is that this debate is a lot more or as much a proxy debate about class than about best-parenting practices (though it's that too). I just posted that infographic to give a little nutshell idea of what I meant, but I didn't intend that that point stood just on the infographic. Of course it's a much bigger story, and I'm happy to toss out that graphic to focus on my main point if it's more helpful, which it probably is. I don't like them much either. But you don't have to say it's just red-state vs blue-state to say class is involved here. Do you guys see a lot of proxy class debating here like I do or not? That's what my post was asking.
Nicker on 22/2/2012 at 02:33
Quote Posted by heywood
ITT: people speaking as if children are all the same and behavioral outcomes are solely a function of parenting.
Theoretical arguments about parenting hypothetical children are overridden by the practical need for a tool which works for a given child and situation.
Parenting strategies don't have to be perfect to be preferable. A strategy of treating children like adults in training is more adaptive and comprehensive than one aimed mainly at creating compliance, regardless of the child or parent. I don't even see that there needs to be a left / right breakdown in this choice.
A child suffering from a medical condition affecting their behaviour may require special "tools" but why would hitting be one of them? How is associating an unwanted behaviour with an arbitrary result going to help them understand real world cause and effect? How is a damaged child going to benefit from playground justice coming from an adult? Not in any beneficial way I can think of.
Most children are capable of learning a reasonable balance between self-interest and communal responsibility. As children explore and test boundaries they learn to navigate the grey zone of adult expectations and to negotiate solutions to social problems. Even more than rational intelligence, emotional intelligence is key to forming a solid character and to functioning well within the group. Where does hitting fit in to this outcome? How will a child learn adult behaviour when exposed to infantile behaviour by adults?
If neither "normal" children nor "troubled" children benefit from hitting, what category of child does?
There is good evidence that hitting has lasting negative effects on emotional development and the fine line between correction and abuse is very vague and variable, depending on the child, the parent and the exact situation. A basic risk / benefit analysis doesn't recommend hitting as a useful tactic in any situation (i.e. you are more likely to do harm than to do good).
Scots Taffer on 22/2/2012 at 02:56
I agree with most of that in principle, Nicker. The reality remains that in certain scenarios (all of which are individualistic on the basis of the child, the parent, the situation, etc) a smack/spank is a valid tool (although I think it should always be the last and only tool left) to achieve a specific parenting outcome.
No matter how hard you attempt to treat a child as an adult in training, they are not and they are (at certain ages) incapable of parsing their emotional response to your parental guidance and this can reach a critical mass where a physical response is the final resort.
A huge caveat to this statement is that this kind of scenario should be fairly rare in occurence and this is where the line tends to blur, where parents can fall into a trap of using physical response as a valid parenting tool in any situation, which I think is definitely a form of abuse.
Shug on 22/2/2012 at 04:32
Even very well adjusted and reasonable kids will have melt-downs, it's just absurd to think you can talk a six year old down at any moment. That said I still wouldn't hit the kid, I'd just grab them up and march out of there and expect to punish them non-physically at home as a result. If you aren't capable of lifting a large child, you'd probably have to exercise a hand.
I'm pretty surprised anyone could advocate shooting a laptop as a reasonable parental measure, but then again, Internet
Muzman on 22/2/2012 at 05:15
Yeah, if you want to make a point about privilege and value etc wanton destruction hardly seems the way.
Format it and give it to the Mexican kid across town who can't afford one.
(curious about this idea that it's all self promotion. Very curious indeed)
Kolya on 22/2/2012 at 10:17
Quote Posted by demagogue
Of course it's a much bigger story, and I'm happy to toss out that graphic to focus on my main point if it's more helpful, which it probably is. I don't like them much either. But you don't have to say it's just red-state vs blue-state to say class is involved here. Do you guys see a lot of proxy class debating here like I do or not? That's what my post was asking.
While the discussion cannot be reduced to red vs. blue, an infographic like that is still helpful to understand where some of you are coming from (not just here but in many discussions like gun law, etc). Because otherwise I might just label them as nuts, which isn't too helpful (though I'm not completely tossing out that option either). So yeah, it works as a refresher on American political culture. But it's only a rough description, not an explanation.
My little sister used to have meltdowns when she was about 5 or 6 years old, usually accompanied by screaming at the top of her blessed little lungs, kicking and tearing her clothes off!
At times like these we would just stand back and watch the show from somewhere safe. It led to some hilarious scenes which have entered the family lore, like that one time she was lying naked in a gutter with a saleswoman at her side who had actually run out of a shop to try and soothe that poor child, while me and my mom watched from afar. My sister of course could not be soothed and instead tried to gnaw pieces out of the gutterstone while still screaming. Fun times. :)
Eventually she was too exhausted to continue at top level, so we picked up her clothes and herself and went on with our usual business. All that required was a bit of time, which you better bring plenty when dealing with a young child.
Vasquez on 22/2/2012 at 12:04
Quote Posted by Muzman
Format it and give it to the Mexican kid across town who can't afford one.
Finally, a voice of true wisdom :thumb:
june gloom on 23/2/2012 at 22:55
Kolya, what did your sister grow up into?
