Kaki

This is the study I linked as well, but as Percentient pointed out it is from 2013 while the OP's article is from 2010; so it can't be the study they are referring to.

I completely agree with you here Carl. I was trying to find the actual study which was seemingly done by Marjorie Gunnoe. It might be this one, but I can't find more than the abstract. If someone can find more I would appreciate that! Just like you said Carl, the study was cited on DailyNews as "Spanking makes kids perform better in school, helps them become more successful: study" The British DailyMail turned it into: "Young children who are smacked 'go on to be more successful'" So it does indeed seem to be about academical and financial success and not emotional well-being. Marjorie Gunnoe, who came out with the study is indeed a "Christian Scientist" - whatever that might be. http://www.cccu.org/professional_development/resource_library/2003/recommended_readings_by_dr_marjorie_gunnoe http://www.calvin.edu/academic/psych/Vita/Gunnoe%20vita.pdf

There are threads about book recommendations you can search for, but let me give you a few here again: Nathaniel Branden: The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem - or basically anything by Branden (Honoring the Self; The Psychology of Self-Esteem; How to Raise Your Self-Esteem) Nathaniel Branden died recently- you might have seen Stef's farewell. Here is Stef's interview with him from 2009. John Bradshaw: Healing the Shame that binds you This one is about shame, how it becomes toxic, how to work with it etc. Have a look at the link, there is a rather long excerpt in the Amazon listing. (Bradshaw is bit mystical/religious at times, still there is a lot of interesting material in his books.) It is also worth it to search Youtube for playlists with John Bradshaw; You will find whole lectures about, healing shame and inner child work. Jay Earley: Self-Therapy If you are interested in IFS, this might be a good start. It is very easily explained and might give you a possible answer to your question about what "parts" you could focus on to begin with. Alice Miller: pretty much anything really, but The Drama of the gifted Child is a good one to start with. I don't know if addiction is a subject for you but this one is the book to read if it is: Gabor Maté: In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts You might have already come across this website by Peter Gerlach (here is his Youtube channel). He has tons of material which could be helpful for you as well. If you are more looking for something about relationships Stef's Real-time Relationships is here. and there is another IFS book on the subject (I thought this one was really helpful as well) is by Richard Schwartz:You Are the One You've Been Waiting For I think all of these are good starting points. When we are abused as children we have to find ways to survive and cope with it, so we develop different strategies to protect ourselves. These strategies range from addiction, self-harm, aggression to white knighting and many, many more. As children our whole view of the world is being shaped, our beliefs about ourselves and others, our values, how society functions etc. Unfortunately one can not work through those by just remembering ones past and accepting it. There is much more to it. Before I worked with my therapist I started out similarly like you with journaling, reading, listening to podcasts and talking to people. I found that particularly if there is a lot of stress and pressure it is important to set some time aside for yourself and to reflect. This doesn't have to be a lot of time but I found it very valuable to check in with myself regularly to see how I feel and to spend some time with those thoughts and feelings. I would absolutely recommend working with a therapist. If there is any way for you to see someone who is good, it is the best way you can spend your money and time. Journaling - as you said- is helpful. I can also recommend starting a dream journal. There is a really helpful thread on that here with links to books and podcasts. Hope that helps!

The freedom to fail? Shouldn't then the child rather than the mother have the freedom to fail without being verbally abused? After all the little girl has a brain that is not yet fully developed, she still lacks impulse control and has absolutely no choice or say in going shopping for many hours. Wouldn't it make more sense then to defend the child's "freedom to fail" and not the mother's - who has actively chosen to have a child and to take this young child on a several hour long shopping spree? Isn't the mother the first one who denies the "freedom to fail" by punishing her child for "failing"? I didn't read anywhere in this thread a suggestion for jail, fines or taking the child from her home. If a child is being regularly verbally abused the child will normalize this behavior. If someone stands up and says that this is in fact abuse the child is given a chance to see the abuse for what it is. This might be helpful in preventing the child from feeling guilty and responsible for being abused ("I must be a bad child"). Not carrying guilt for the abuse one has suffered, but being able to put responsibility where it belongs, is a precursor for not carrying the abuse into the following generation. If, for example, a child is being abused only in the home, with the mother only ever raising her voice behind closed doors but never outside, it is still easier for a child to identify this behavior as wrong and denormalize it. Hate the rape but love the rapist?

Karen Straughan published the first part of her response yesterday, in case you haven't seen it: Also, thanks iHuman for the info about swatting, I had not heard about this!

Maybe we misunderstand each other, I am not sure. Am I right that you are saying that r- and K-strategies have "not at all" to do with polygamy and monogamy? I did not actually make a statement like "John is r-focused because his culture has a lot of wealth" or even "The overwhelming majority of the people in that country are K-focused, because there's a lot of poverty in that society." What I am saying is that individuals have the impulse created (by the way they are genetically and epigenetically shaped) to be either polygamous or monogamous. An individual can produce stress hormones for a wide variety of reasons (poverty being only one of them) and society is only one of the factors in creating stress. I think that self-knowledge as well as external factors (for example cultural norms) play a role in not following ones own biological impulse for being either monogamous or polygamous. I don't think it is carved in stone at all. But I do think that how we are shaped already in the womb and within our first years has a lot to do with which strategy we chose. Does that clear it up?

Don't r- and K- reproductive strategies have a whole lot to do with why one would chose to be monogamous vs. being polygamous? I found a paper about it which I thought was really interesting: From Quantity to Quality of Life: r-K selection and human development by Francis Heylighen and Jan L. Bernheim, Universiteit Brussel Since it is useful for an organism to be able to adapt its strategy, we aren't born with a (wholly) fixed one, rather influenced before birth and afterwards by epigenetics (nurture). "As proposed by Chisholm [1993, 1999], such epigenetic biological effects may be mediated by hormones, whose levels are dependent on experience. r-strategies are most appropriate in a dangerous, uncontrollable environment, where there is little guarantee of surviving into adulthood. Such an environment creates stress, which leads to the release of glucocorticoid hormones, such as cortisol [sapolsky, 1996]. Therefore, we could expect that children who are subjected to chronically high levels of such stress hormones will be driven to develop into r-strategists, aiming for quick reproduction rather than long-term maturation. Biologically, this can be achieved by increasing their levels of sex hormones: testosterone in men, estrogen in women. This leads to early sexual maturity, a strong sex drive, a tendency towards agressivity and risk-taking in men, and high fertility in women." (...) "According to the well-known theory of Bowlby [1969], a primary cause of childhood stress is insecure attachment to the mother. This occurs when the child cannot rely on the mother for support when it needs it and/or is not allowed by the mother to explore the world on its own and thus develop autonomy. While such motherly neglect or overconcern is stressful in itself, it moreover is likely to indicate a dangerous external environment, which is either too demanding on the mother to have energy left to care for her child, or so risky that she cannot allow her child autonomy. Lack of attention to the child may also mean that the mother has too many other children to care for, which is itself a sign of an r-type situation. Thus, insecure attachment, through its stimulation of stress hormones [Gunnar, 1998], is a very strong indication for the child that it is growing up in an environment where an r-strategy is evolutionarily most appropriate [belsky et al., 1991]. Less immediate causes of childhood stress may include sexual, physical or emotional abuse, malnutrition, diseases, living in true poverty, in a ghetto or war-zone. All of these can be seen as signals for the hormonal system to prepare the body and brain to invest their energy in short-term reproduction, neglecting long-term goals. In contrast, a safe, caring, nurturing environment signals that it is worth investing in long-term development, building up the reserves of energy and experience that may lead to a long and healthy life, and that can be invested in turn in a few, well-cared for children." (...) "Quantity of offspring is only desirable in r-type circumstances, where life is risky and unpredictable, so that the only sure way to increase oneís chances to leave offspring is to have as many of them as quickly as possible. What counts in natural selection is not the number of offspring born, but the number that will survive long enough to be able to produce offspring themselves. In a K-environment, where the supply of resources is limited but stable, this number can be increased only by maximally investing in individual offspringís chances for long-term development. K-selection thus seems to promote all the characteristics that we associate with high QOL (Quality of Life): high life-expectancy, health, education, safety, long term development, etc." (If you are interested in this subject, this paper is well worth reading!) Without self-knowledge I think it is easy to just follow ones biological impulses without substantially questioning them. That might be the reason why explanations of why monogamy or polygamy are better often sound like justifications after the fact.

I did some little researching lately for a friend who was considering taking antidepressants. I found this link especially helpful: Serotonin and Depression: A Disconnect between the Advertisements and the Scientific Literature concerning "chemial imbalance": If you go through the article you will find lots of links to studies which you can check as well! Hope that helped!

I have been wondering a lot about the "Do you have kids?" question as well. The only thing I came up so far is: "I don't have to be a dog-owner to know that mistreating a dog is bad."

It always baffles me that people can say that with a straight face. She herself is tired after hours of shopping which she takes as an excuse for her behavior. At the same time the little one has been through the same ordeal but without any control over it and probably the whole time bored out of his mind. And she doesn't even try seeing this. How incredibly self-involved! Good job R.J.!

After seeing so many videos of parents mistreating and abusing their kids I thought it'd be nice to post something more positive! I just came across this which made me smile: Chanda Champbell walked in on her 4-year-old son, Emmett, using an electric trimmer to give himself his first haircut. Her reaction is absolutely lovely! There is nothing scaring, shaming or negative at all here. Many commenters on her facebook page a praising her for her parenting, admitting they wouldn't have been that calm. If you want to share it here is the original facebook link which has by now over 5 million views!

You might have tried this before: google has a function where you can explicitly search for scholarly articles if you don't want editorials. Try: http://scholar.google.com/ I also wanted to mention that Joel Patterson posted this excellent thread the other day: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42710-the-truth-about-verbal-abuse/ Maybe you want to look at that as well! Obviously there is Stef's "The Bomb in the Brain" series. Links to the studies and statistics Stef used are here: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/20900-fdr-the-bomb-in-the-brain-the-effects-of-child-abuse-part-1/ https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/22050-the-bomb-in-the-brain-part-4-the-death-of-reason-the-effects-of-child-abuse-references/

I found this video very difficult to watch and think it is heartbreaking how the little girl is being treated. I was myself was not allowed to express anger, sadness or frustration as a child and seeing this girl feeling so desperate and alone tears me up. I have great empathy for her would handle a situation like this with a child completely different. Here are my thoughts about it: The absolute first thing I would do in such a situation is to put the camera down and be fully present with my child and her pain. The child is more important than hits on youtube, praise from other parents or whatever motive the mother might have filming her child in such a vulnerable and exposed moment. I believe it is important to let the child feel that her anger and frustration are neither threats to the bond with the parent nor is it something that can't be handled. I would want my child to feel loved even if she behaves inconvenient to me. I would like her to know that no anger outburst can break the bond. I would try to convey this by offering a hug and see if the girl is open for it. If not that is fine as well. I'd try to stay sensitive to when she might be open for it and offer it again at a later point. I would try to reaffirm what she is telling me and what she is acting out. The girl seems to be acting out what she can't express in words, my job as a parent would be to give her words for those emotions and a more appropriate way to express them. The girl is telling her mother repeatedly that she wants to talk to her and that she needs her. She seems completely overwhelmed with feelings she doesn't know how to handle and without any support or listening ear to help her. Instead of demonstrating to the child that anger is unacceptable and that not even the mother can handle it, a bit of curiosity would go a long way. The little girl in the video is very responsive to questions and is clearly wanting to communicate, to feel heard and understood. She is so quick to apologize and so desperate for her mother to forgive and listen to her, I imagine that just being calm, curious and comforting would do a lot to help the girl to calm down as well. I am currently reading a book called "Raising Our Children, Raising Ourselves" by Naomi Aldort which I think is worth mentioning here. (I can strongly recommend it!) She has a whole chapter about tantrums and another about how to deal with your childs anger: "Tantrums: Crying for a Need or a Need for Crying?" and "Listening to Children's Anger") Aldort begins her book talking about what she calls the "S.A.L.V.E.- formular" which is basically a reminder of steps to help parents shift towards helping their child to let emotions be and act authentically. The "S" in S.A.L.V.E. stands for "Silent-Self-Talk" which means in this context something like RTR with yourself; finding out if the response to the child is authentic or if you as a parent react to something in your past which creates anxiety and makes you impulsively react in a certain way to your child. "A" is for attention. After investigating your own feelings focus your attention on the child "L" means listen to what your child is saying or acting out; asking questions, eye contact, letting the child know you understand. "V" is for validating the child emotions without dramatizing or minimizing and finally "E" is for empowering the child to resolve its own upset by getting out of her way. If feelings are expressed the child can either let go or come up with a solution herself. Aldort describes a child who throws a tantrum as "feeling helpless and in need for autonomy and a sense of dignity." She distinguishes between a child throwing a tantrum because of a need- for example something that is unchangeable or as a way to express pent-up emotions. In both cases she explains how important it is to not deny, minimize, distract, avoid or induce fear when a tantrum happens. In the chapter about anger Aldort explains how important it is to support the child by asking questions and listening to focus less on the blame part of the anger but of the pain/loss behind it. (Instead of focusing on "This is so unfair, I hate school!" to "I am sad I lost my little stamp.")

"I hate all men" is not an emotion. It is -just as Patrick explained- a projection. In this example the person doesn't have self-knowledge about where the anger really stems from but is misplacing it and making someone else- all men- responsible for it.

I completely agree with this. This post is deeply disturbing and I would have appreciated a warning at the beginning of it or in the title. One of the things I kept thinking was: Thank god your girlfriend didn't get pregnant! I very much hope you are and have been in therapy with a very good therapist.

There is a book - besides RTR- I can strongly recommend. It is by Richard Schwartz (the developer of IFS): Richard Schwartz: You Are The One You've Been Waiting For, Bringing Courageous Love To Intimate Relationships (You can find the book also as ebook and audiobook) My husband and I found it quite helpful. We both are are in therapy (both IFS) and work parallel on our relationship.

I am very interested! I'll send you a link to my portfolio tonight by email!

I am doing IFS therapy now since a year through Skype with a female therapist and I am -just like you- neither spiritual nor religious in any way. The therapist I am working with is herself an atheist. There is no spirituality or esoteric or anything like this ever coming up in the sessions. My IFS-therapist believes in objective truth and has always been 100% supportive of me defooing my parents. There have never been any issues of her defending them or justifying my parents behaviors. I have been searching for a good therapist for a long time and met many (both in person as well as through Skype) before I found the one I am currently working with. IFS has been incredibly helpful and my progress through therapy has been huge. I can wholeheartedly recommend the method if you find a therapist you trust and feel comfortable with. I have spoken to IFS therapists who triggered me and who were not a good match, I am sure it would not have been possible for me to work with them in the long run. The IFS approach is incredibly respectful of you and what you are dealing with. This was (besides my therapist being highly empathic) for me personally a great help in learning respect for myself and taking what happened to me serious. I also love about it that you can easily do most of the work outside of the sessions which makes the sessions that much more productive. I am spending one hour per week in therapy (two if something important has come up) but easily 14-18 hours outside doing parts-work and journaling. Let me know if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer!

Roslyn Ross has is a nice list of reading recommendations on her blog: http://roslynross.blogspot.se/p/reading-recommendations.html Her list is sorted by: If you are expecting If you have a baby If you have a toddler If you have a child (3-12) If you have a teenager (13-18) If you have an adult child She is an objectivist/peaceful parent and has some really interesting articles on her blog. Here is a lecture of her´s which is well worth watching:

What about a sadists need to hurt others?

It is soon time for this years nanowrimo and I was wondering if anyone here is taking part! If you have not heard about nanowrimo, here is what wiki says:

Anyone want to join the call? We are online in skype right now! Feel free to call!

I'd love to join! Can you add me to the Skype group?

Statehood is nothing more than the monopoly of the use of force in a certain geographical area. It has nothing to do with "people being persuaded to collectively focus their energy", it is people being forced to do something which they by definition do not want to do. (Otherwise there would be no need to force them.) There is no compromise or middle ground between initiating force against peaceful people or dealing voluntarily with each other.

I'm a native speaker and can proofread for you. Feel free to message me and we can talk through Skype if you want to!