Regarding the "The Facts about Spanking" video

[TimS]

At 5:39ish, Molyneux cites a paper by Murray Straus concerning IQ. This paper is questionable.
 
First, the chart showing IQ vs. CP is dreadful. You could change the x-axis to pretty much any negative anything and create an essentially identical chart. Why? Because IQ positively correlates with basically all good social things, and negatively correlates with basically all bad social things. Most importantly, of course, the chart would be unchanged regardless of whether it is that spanking is a contributing factor to low IQ, or whether low IQ is a contributing factor to behaviors that warrant spanking. (This is to say, that no, the chart does not show that spanking is a bad social thing.) Indeed the chart is meaningless if you are trying to arguing against spanking, because it tells us nothing about causation.
 
Secondly, if you begin to discard the most suspect data points (those from less-developed countries, that is), the correlation starts to vanish. Does anyone really believe, for example, that africans are only a few points above mental retardation? That under better socioeconomic conditions their IQ wouldn’t easily jump 15 to 20 points? (African-Americans average at 85, for example.)
 
Third, are people still not aware that the single strongest factor in determining a child's IQ is...his parent's IQ? There are a myriad of environmental factors that contribute as well, of course--thus any part that spanking could possibly play is very minor. Nevertheless, Molyneux, breathlessly: “This holds back an entire culture from advancing intellectually!” Come on, really? And what about all those leading IQ asian countries, whose rates are higher or much higher than the average Western country. Look how much 23 million Taiwanese have apparently benefited from hitting their children.
 
Staus also reports that children who are spanked lose ~5 IQ points over a period of several years compared to children not spanked. But where are the other controls? None are evident from what I have been able to find. For example, in another study (noted below), there are many important controls. But no mention here of the fact that children's IQs often fluctuate wildly. No mention of demographics, which would be very useful to know because, well... “disadvantaged urban children” (i.e., blacks) have been reported (Breslau, et al.) to lose ~5 points of IQ over a comparable set of ages for apparently no good reason. Breslau doesn’t control for spanking, and Staus has already established or strongly suggested that blacks spank more frequently.
 
Breslau, et al. Stability and Change in Children's Intelligence Quotient Scores: A Comparison of Two Socioeconomically Disparate Communities. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/154/8/711.full

 

At about 8:14 Molyneux talks about aggression. I think he is using this study: Mothers’ Spanking of 3-Year-Old Children and Subsequent Risk of Children's Aggressive Behavior. The study seems to do a great job with the controls, so I can accept the conclusions in good faith. Which are:

 

Spanking 3+ times per month offers a 49% higher chance of the child being more aggressive, but spanking 1-2 times per month has no effect. Did we fail to report that detail? Moreover, the study was nice enough to also report that a child demonstrating aggression at age 3 was 235% more likely to be more aggressive at age 5, which is useful for comparison.
 
The authors do us the courtesy of including this line (which should be obvious anyway to those with knowledge of stats): “Given the problem of potential unmeasured confounders, it is not possible to assert causality between CP and child aggression in observational studies such as this.” And how much less in studies that can't be bothered to control for parental risk factors or preexisting aggression! But I guess Stefan was not going to mention that one way or the other.

 

While I was busy trying to figure out which studies Stefan was using, I ran across this one (Spanking in Early Childhood and Later Behavior Problems: A Prospective Study of Infants and Young Toddlers) which has a bizarre conclusion: namely, that white children show a correlation between spanking and behavioral problems, but black children and hispanic children do not. Regardless, the study fails to control for the pre-existence of behavioral problems, which makes it useless one way or another for assessing causality. Not sure if Stefan cited this at any point, but I wanted to bring it up as an example of how worthless these studies can be.

 

On the same site (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org) I also found a (subscription-only, to my chagrin) article entitled, "A Blanket Injunction Against Disciplinary Use of Spanking Is Not Warranted by the Data". I guess that's not "shocking" science, though.

 

I'm going to stop here, as my quest to examine the sources has left me disappointed. I apologize for not addressing all of Stefan’s points, and for the snarky nature of my commentary. But I was really expecting more. Bottom line: the attitude of those opposed to spanking is wildly out of sync with the data I've seen so far. Spanking is the equivalent of being tossed into a battlefield? Spanking is responsible for third world’s lack of development? Parents who spank are deserving of contempt/hatred? This is ridiculous.

[pretzelogik]

So, is this post an endoesement of spanking?  What is it about children, other than their obvious disparity in size, that makes spanking an acceptable, or even a recommended tool for modifying thier behavior?  Why is not acceptable in adult relationships or at the workplace?

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

Given the opportunity, do you think it would be better if you:

 

a) Spanked Stef for reporting the information in the studies he used in the manner he reported them?

 

b) Asked Stef why he reported what he did and what other information he might have been drawing from for the video?

 

 

If you chose b and Stef was able to provide sound and logical arguments for the structure of the video, should Stef spank you?

[TimS]

Skip the oh so effing precious foreplay.

In
case you missed it (and that would be really easy considering the
self-evident opacity of the title/OP), this is not really a thread about
promoting or condeming spanking. This is a thread about some/all of the
studies that Stefan cites in his video "The Facts about Spanking" and Stefan's presentation of and reaction to the results of those studies. Who could have guessed that, right?

I
apologize for not interspersing said caveat in the OP; it should have
been in every other paragraph. No, who am I kidding, it should have been
every other flipping character. Because I'm sure that would have made a difference.

[Wesley]

The unfortunate by-product of the argument from effect is that no amount of evidence doesn't have problems, counter evidence, contradicting anecdotes, or holes.

[STer]

 

Skip the oh so effing precious foreplay.

In
case you missed it (and that would be really easy considering the
self-evident opacity of the title/OP), this is not really a thread about
promoting or condeming spanking. This is a thread about some/all of the
studies that Stefan cites in his video "The Facts about Spanking" and Stefan's presentation of and reaction to the results of those studies. Who could have guessed that, right?

I
apologize for not interspersing said caveat in the OP; it should have
been in every other paragraph. No, who am I kidding, it should have been
every other flipping character. Because I'm sure that would have made a difference.

 

TimS,

I've learned that unfortunately whenever you question any of the arguments or data on the subject of nature vs. nurture regarding children and the problems they develop here, you will mostly have several people ignore your factual arguments and act as if you just endorsed abusing children. The idea that all of the ills of the world stem from child abuse and none of them come from any innate traits in any people is dogma to many here and is not up for reasoned discussion. This forum is great at reasoned discussion of many topics, but this one, I find, is as ideologically driven here as religion is to many religious people.

[TimS]

More
precious foreplay, thanks. If you could spare the incredible bother of
reading the OP, you will discover that there are study conclusions which anyone can accept in
good faith.

Also,
rating = 1/5? Wow, there must be so many other threads that challenge
“The Facts about Spanking” on the basis of its sources. Total topic
fatigue. Classy.

I've learned that
unfortunately whenever you question any of the arguments or data on the
subject of nature vs. nurture regarding children and the problems they
develop here, you will mostly have several people ignore your factual
arguments and act as if you just endorsed abusing children. The idea
that all of the ills of the world stem from child abuse and none of them
come from any innate traits in any people is dogma to many here and is
not up for reasoned discussion. This forum is great at reasoned
discussion of many topics, but this one, I find, is as ideologically
driven here as religion is to many religious people.

Yeah. Thanks for the moral support. Of course nature vs. nurture is easily one of the most polarizing topics anywhere. Main reason I posted this was to
vent irritation after watching the video; I did not seriously expect any
serious responses. (For example it blew my mind that Stefan cited a paper which is based on research by Richard Lynn...) But it's fun to be an anarchist on the "nature" side, even if it's a hated minority of a hated minority.

[STer]

 

Yeah. Thanks for the moral support. Of course nature vs. nurture is easily one of the most polarizing topics anywhere. Main reason I posted this was to
vent irritation after watching the video; I did not seriously expect any
serious responses. (For example it blew my mind that Stefan cited a paper which is based on research by Richard Lynn...) But it's fun to be an anarchist on the "nature" side, even if it's a hated minority of a hated minority.

 

Nature vs. nurture is polarizing in part because, in these areas, it's very unsettled science. As I point out often, I don't know of any credible scientist who claims we know one way or another on traits as complex as those involved in ethical behavior. In fact, I think all the credible ones I've heard accept that it's some combination of them and they are inextricably interconnected. So I find it hard to understand anyone claiming it's one or the other and the matter is settled.

Even Stefan admits both are involved. But then he usually speaks and prioritizes as if it's really about nurture, not nature. And much of the forum seems to take it as gospel that it's nurture, not nature. And if you question that you get ad hominems and evasions and so on. So I rarely bother bringing it up anymore. It was interesting to see how all you did is question one of the studies in an anti-spanking video and you got the same kinds of responses.

[TimS]

 

Nature vs. nurture is polarizing in part because, in these areas, it's very unsettled science. As I point out often, I don't know of any credible scientist who claims we know one way or another on traits as complex as those involved in ethical behavior. In fact, I think all the credible ones I've heard accept that it's some combination of them and they are inextricably interconnected. So I find it hard to understand anyone claiming it's one or the other and the matter is settled.

Even Stefan admits both are involved. But then he usually speaks and prioritizes as if it's really about nurture, not nature. And much of the forum seems to take it as gospel that it's nurture, not nature. And if you question that you get ad hominems and evasions and so on. So I rarely bother bringing it up anymore. It was interesting to see how all you did is question one of the studies in an anti-spanking video and you got the same kinds of responses.

 

I agree, although I think the chief reason it’s polarizing is because nobody wants to even think about
the possibility that people with darker skin underachieve largely for
biological reasons and not purely on the basis of oppression from
light-skinned people (if you’re a leftist) or purely on the basis of
otherwise reparable cultural dysfunction (if you’re a conservative). Too much hangs on the "everyone created equal" dogma. Thus everything in nature vs. nurture gets tarred and feathered.

And
of course, ironically, being on the “nature” side really just means you
think that nature has a significant effect. Not that environment has no significant effect.
(I have never heard of anyone who thinks that.) Meanwhile so many
people are desperate to say that everything is 100% environment.

I’m
glad Stefan agrees it’s both--and I completely understand the
prioritization of nurturing techniques, because of course we can’t do
anything about nature, and because legit child abuse remains rampant--so
if you’ve committed to never striking your children, physical abuse is
automatically ruled out. So I sympathize. I just object to dressing up
the position with purported “facts” that...aren’t.

[Stefan Molyneux]

Thank you Tim, I really appreciate you bringing that up, I will put our researcher on the data!

[STer]

 

 

Nature vs. nurture is polarizing in part because, in these areas, it's very unsettled science. As I point out often, I don't know of any credible scientist who claims we know one way or another on traits as complex as those involved in ethical behavior. In fact, I think all the credible ones I've heard accept that it's some combination of them and they are inextricably interconnected. So I find it hard to understand anyone claiming it's one or the other and the matter is settled.

Even Stefan admits both are involved. But then he usually speaks and prioritizes as if it's really about nurture, not nature. And much of the forum seems to take it as gospel that it's nurture, not nature. And if you question that you get ad hominems and evasions and so on. So I rarely bother bringing it up anymore. It was interesting to see how all you did is question one of the studies in an anti-spanking video and you got the same kinds of responses.

 

I agree, although I think the chief reason it’s polarizing is because nobody wants to even think about
the possibility that people with darker skin underachieve largely for
biological reasons and not purely on the basis of oppression from
light-skinned people (if you’re a leftist) or purely on the basis of
otherwise reparable cultural dysfunction (if you’re a conservative). Too much hangs on the "everyone created equal" dogma. Thus everything in nature vs. nurture gets tarred and feathered.

And
of course, ironically, being on the “nature” side really just means you
think that nature has a significant effect. Not that environment has no significant effect.
(I have never heard of anyone who thinks that.) Meanwhile so many
people are desperate to say that everything is 100% environment.

I’m
glad Stefan agrees it’s both--and I completely understand the
prioritization of nurturing techniques, because of course we can’t do
anything about nature, and because legit child abuse remains rampant--so
if you’ve committed to never striking your children, physical abuse is
automatically ruled out. So I sympathize. I just object to dressing up
the position with purported “facts” that...aren’t.

 

This is the second time this has come up and I thought we were just talking about ethical issues - like whether some people are born without brains with a capacity for conscience, born psychopaths, for example - and the person instead took it toward the racial subject. Racial differences is not where I'm going with it at all.

I agree with maximizing healthy parenting. That's a no-lose. But repeatedly we've been over, in different threads, the fact that not currently having any quick fix for biological contributors to unethical behavior is no excuse for not strongly supporting research into finding them, as well. We never know where that could lead. And, as I've pointed out many times, finding biological markers could, at the very least, allow us to tailor caregiving to a particular child's needs. Perhaps children with certain brain patterns need one type of parenting and those with other patterns respond better to a different type.

Both sides of this puzzle deserve serious attention. But when you've already made up your mind that it's "all nurture" you not only don't support the nature side of things being investigated, you tend to oppose it.

[TimS]

 

Thank you Tim, I really appreciate you bringing that up, I will put our researcher on the data!

 

Cool, thanks for the response. []

[TimS]

 

This is the second time this has come up and I thought we were just talking about ethical issues - like whether some people are born without brains with a capacity for conscience, born psychopaths, for example - and the person instead took it toward the racial subject. Racial differences is not where I'm going with it at all.

I agree with maximizing healthy parenting. That's a no-lose. But repeatedly we've been over, in different threads, the fact that not currently having any quick fix for biological contributors to unethical behavior is no excuse for not strongly supporting research into finding them, as well. We never know where that could lead. And, as I've pointed out many times, finding biological markers could, at the very least, allow us to tailor caregiving to a particular child's needs. Perhaps children with certain brain patterns need one type of parenting and those with other patterns respond better to a different type.

Both sides of this puzzle deserve serious attention. But when you've already made up your mind that it's "all nurture" you not only don't support the nature side of things being investigated, you tend to oppose it.

 

I fully agree. +1

[pretzelogik]

 

I agree, although I think the chief reason it’s polarizing is because nobody wants to even think about
the possibility that people with darker skin underachieve largely for
biological reasons and not purely on the basis of oppression from
light-skinned people (if you’re a leftist) or purely on the basis of
otherwise reparable cultural dysfunction (if you’re a conservative). Too much hangs on the "everyone created equal" dogma. Thus everything in nature vs. nurture gets tarred and feathered.

And
of course, ironically, being on the “nature” side really just means you
think that nature has a significant effect. Not that environment has no significant effect.
(I have never heard of anyone who thinks that.) Meanwhile so many
people are desperate to say that everything is 100% environment.

I’m
glad Stefan agrees it’s both--and I completely understand the
prioritization of nurturing techniques, because of course we can’t do
anything about nature, and because legit child abuse remains rampant--so
if you’ve committed to never striking your children, physical abuse is
automatically ruled out. So I sympathize. I just object to dressing up
the position with purported “facts” that...aren’t.

 

Is this to suggest that we should think of darker-skinned as being being inherently predisposed to underachieving largely due to biological factors?

[TimS]

 

Is this to suggest that we should think of darker-skinned as being being inherently predisposed to underachieving largely due to biological factors?

 

Still trying to derail the thread?

[pretzelogik]

 

 

Is this to suggest that we should think of darker-skinned as being being inherently predisposed to underachieving largely due to biological factors?

 

Still trying to derail the thread?

 

Does asking for clarification constitute derailing?

The OP calls out citation of inaccurate data as potentially irresponsible misdirection.  So far so good, better to be accurate with the data.  But there must be some reason for calling out the data in the first place, unless it is the intention of the post to challenge any and all data references in any report at any time that may be inaccurate.  Here there is a particular bias toward clearing up any fallacies regarding the effects of spanking.  My question was and still is: "Why?"  Why the concern toward clarifying the misleading data in this area?  Why the evasive answer about derailing? 

Do you want us to think there are biological tendencies where certain people with certain levels of melanin are concerned?  I did not reference color, so I am curious as to where we can find accurate data to support those suggestions.

Also, is the point of this post to say that since the data is misleading we should re-examine our attitudes toward spanking?  If so, what is it about children specifically that makes it acceptable to spank them?

 

 

[STer]

 

 

 

Is this to suggest that we should think of darker-skinned as being being inherently predisposed to underachieving largely due to biological factors?

 

Still trying to derail the thread?

 

Does asking for clarification constitute derailing?

The OP calls out citation of inaccurate data as potentially irresponsible misdirection.  So far so good, better to be accurate with the data.  But there must be some reason for calling out the data in the first place, unless it is the intention of the post to challenge any and all data references in any report at any time that may be inaccurate.  Here there is a particular bias toward clearing up any fallacies regarding the effects of spanking.  My question was and still is: "Why?"  Why the concern toward clarifying the misleading data in this area?  Why the evasive answer about derailing? 

Do you want us to think there are biological tendencies where certain people with certain levels of melanin are concerned?  I did not reference color, so I am curious as to where we can find accurate data to support those suggestions.

Also, is the point of this post to say that since the data is misleading we should re-examine our attitudes toward spanking?  If so, what is it about children specifically that makes it acceptable to spank them?

 

 

 

Are you kidding me? If a religious person came in here and threw out some nonsense statistic supporting their position and you refuted it and their response was "But why are you refuting it? Let's not talk about the statistic in question, what matters is your motive in refuting it?" you'd find them evasive. But when the fact in question has to do with something you believe in, then you do the same thing and try to focus on the questioner's motive instead of the fact at hand?

If a fact is misrepresented, it should be called out and checked on. It doesn't matter what the motive of the person who caught the error is. In fact, even if you completely disagree with their overall position, if you value truth, as people here claim to, you should be eager to check that fact out in an unbiased way.

Is the highest value here truth or is it some particular agenda?

[TimS]

 

Does asking for clarification constitute derailing?

The OP calls out citation of inaccurate data as potentially irresponsible misdirection.  So far so good, better to be accurate with the data.  But there must be some reason for calling out the data in the first place, unless it is the intention of the post to challenge any and all data references in any report at any time that may be inaccurate.  Here there is a particular bias toward clearing up any fallacies regarding the effects of spanking.  My question was and still is: "Why?"  Why the concern toward clarifying the misleading data in this area?  Why the evasive answer about derailing? 

Do you want us to think there are biological tendencies where certain people with certain levels of melanin are concerned?  I did not reference color, so I am curious as to where we can find accurate data to support those suggestions.

Also, is the point of this post to say that since the data is misleading we should re-examine our attitudes toward spanking?  If so, what is it about children specifically that makes it acceptable to spank them?

 

Here
are several other potential motives (besides the super obvious one
pointed out by STer--thanks again) you might have considered if the term
“bona fides” had any meaning to you: it irritates me when people who
purport intellectualism accept reporting uncritically if it’s preaching
to the choir, I look for unexploited market niches the same as
post-graduate researchers (where are the armies challenging this
video?), I think Stef’s message is too valuable to be compromised...et
cetera, et cetera.

The OP calls out data that are misrepresented and/or meaningless.
(And, uh, misrepresentation is not "potentially" irresponsible.) I have no idea what you think you mean by “inaccurate”. And I think
it’s hilarious that you’re willing to outright concede the legitimacy of
my concern. No pushback at all? Come on, my arguments aren’t that good. It’s precisely this lack of pushback that makes your trolling so transparent.

And
now you make it even more transparent by focusing on an irrelevant
side-comment made to a person with whom I was commiserating about being
trolled (by you). Please.

If
you have serious questions that don’t relate to the OP (including your desperate supicion that I support child abuse), you could always
exercise the PM function. My good faith towards you hasn’t been
exhausted just yet, despite that yours towards me started out in the
negative.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

 

 

Is this to suggest that we should think of darker-skinned as being being inherently predisposed to underachieving largely due to biological factors?

 

Still trying to derail the thread?

 

Does asking for clarification constitute derailing?

The OP calls out citation of inaccurate data as potentially irresponsible misdirection.  So far so good, better to be accurate with the data.  But there must be some reason for calling out the data in the first place, unless it is the intention of the post to challenge any and all data references in any report at any time that may be inaccurate.  Here there is a particular bias toward clearing up any fallacies regarding the effects of spanking.  My question was and still is: "Why?"  Why the concern toward clarifying the misleading data in this area?  Why the evasive answer about derailing? 

Do you want us to think there are biological tendencies where certain people with certain levels of melanin are concerned?  I did not reference color, so I am curious as to where we can find accurate data to support those suggestions.

Also, is the point of this post to say that since the data is misleading we should re-examine our attitudes toward spanking?  If so, what is it about children specifically that makes it acceptable to spank them?

 

 

 

Are you kidding me? If a religious person came in here and threw out some nonsense statistic supporting their position and you refuted it and their response was "But why are you refuting it? Let's not talk about the statistic in question, what matters is your motive in refuting it?" you'd find them evasive. But when the fact in question has to do with something you believe in, then you do the same thing and try to focus on the questioner's motive instead of the fact at hand?

If a fact is misrepresented, it should be called out and checked on. It doesn't matter what the motive of the person who caught the error is. In fact, even if you completely disagree with their overall position, if you value truth, as people here claim to, you should be eager to check that fact out in an unbiased way.

Is the highest value here truth or is it some particular agenda?

 

I agree SO much, with this, and I'm hoping those like you and I can press these issues to the front enough times to make this the respectable philosophy forum that it claims to be instead of the forum philosophers  on the outside consider a cult. I don't think that it's too late to save this forum, but I do see a lot of weird, almost religious denial going on with certain topics and elements that blows my mind. I'm a "pure" thinker. I never conform to dogmatic expectations, or friendly rhythms. 

[STer]

 

 

 

 

 

Is this to suggest that we should think of darker-skinned as being being inherently predisposed to underachieving largely due to biological factors?

 

Still trying to derail the thread?

 

Does asking for clarification constitute derailing?

The OP calls out citation of inaccurate data as potentially irresponsible misdirection.  So far so good, better to be accurate with the data.  But there must be some reason for calling out the data in the first place, unless it is the intention of the post to challenge any and all data references in any report at any time that may be inaccurate.  Here there is a particular bias toward clearing up any fallacies regarding the effects of spanking.  My question was and still is: "Why?"  Why the concern toward clarifying the misleading data in this area?  Why the evasive answer about derailing? 

Do you want us to think there are biological tendencies where certain people with certain levels of melanin are concerned?  I did not reference color, so I am curious as to where we can find accurate data to support those suggestions.

Also, is the point of this post to say that since the data is misleading we should re-examine our attitudes toward spanking?  If so, what is it about children specifically that makes it acceptable to spank them?

 

 

 

Are you kidding me? If a religious person came in here and threw out some nonsense statistic supporting their position and you refuted it and their response was "But why are you refuting it? Let's not talk about the statistic in question, what matters is your motive in refuting it?" you'd find them evasive. But when the fact in question has to do with something you believe in, then you do the same thing and try to focus on the questioner's motive instead of the fact at hand?

If a fact is misrepresented, it should be called out and checked on. It doesn't matter what the motive of the person who caught the error is. In fact, even if you completely disagree with their overall position, if you value truth, as people here claim to, you should be eager to check that fact out in an unbiased way.

Is the highest value here truth or is it some particular agenda?

 

I agree SO much, with this, and I'm hoping those like you and I can press these issues to the front enough times to make this the respectable philosophy forum that it claims to be instead of the forum philosophers  on the outside consider a cult. I don't think that it's too late to save this forum, but I do see a lot of weird, almost religious denial going on with certain topics and elements that blows my mind. I'm a "pure" thinker. I never conform to dogmatic expectations, or friendly rhythms. 

 

I just keep coming back the fact that FDR has to make a decision. Is it primarily a philosophical discussion or is it primarily about promoting a particular agenda (ie: non-aggression, peaceful parenting, etc.)? These are all worthy goals, but I think it's a little over the top to say "We are a philosophical conversation and all of our viewpoints are just the unquestionable results of philosophizing." It's putting forth a particular political and social viewpoint while trying to portray it not as a viewpoint at all but objective fact.

Time and again I see situations pop up where commitment to a particular agenda like peaceful parenting and commitment to truth and empiricism are both brought up at the same time. And when that happens, which one should take precedence? It all depends on what FDR is. If it's mainly a philosophy conversation dedicated to an epistemological approach like empiricism, that should take precedence. If it's an activist organization for peaceful parenting and non-aggression, then that should take precedence.

I think this is all symbolized by the fact FDR is known by almost everyone as a very vocal promoter of anarchism, atheism and non-aggression, yet it never openly declares this as its purpose. It calls itself a philosophy discussion. So there are these mixed messages somewhat.

[Arius]

A self-identified "pure" thinker:

 

...Whenever a person reads context where it isn't, a person is projecting...

...You can NEVER completely trust another subject in your reality...

...I will not be passive aggressive. I'll straight out make it honest and
we'll just have a real knock down drag out cut down match...

...It's natural for me to understand that nothing outside of my experience can be proven...But there's no need to disprove or prove anything in my experience
because I do experience it. Whether it's true or false, it's still
there. But beyond that, who can "really" say....

...Anarchy is a faith based philosophy based on it's own contorted moral projections on how things should be...

...If you don't know the meaning of the word choice...then I wont play that game of definitions with
you...There are numerous definitions, and my observations are totally valid as far as the dictionary is concerned...

...The parent child dynamic is too complicated to have an outsider with too little information draw some kind of conclusion....

...I wouldn't be surprised at all if the parents are abusive in one way or another...

...I know I was, and it's easy for me to blame my parents for my upbringing, but I was a little asshole, too...

...abuse is always abuse. But a minor hand slap is not abuse...If you slapped me, I'd kick your ass...

 

[STer]

 

A self-identified "pure" thinker:

 

I think he meant "free thinker." That would make more sense.

[pretzelogik]

 

 

Does asking for clarification constitute derailing?

The OP calls out citation of inaccurate data as potentially irresponsible misdirection.  So far so good, better to be accurate with the data.  But there must be some reason for calling out the data in the first place, unless it is the intention of the post to challenge any and all data references in any report at any time that may be inaccurate.  Here there is a particular bias toward clearing up any fallacies regarding the effects of spanking.  My question was and still is: "Why?"  Why the concern toward clarifying the misleading data in this area?  Why the evasive answer about derailing? 

Do you want us to think there are biological tendencies where certain people with certain levels of melanin are concerned?  I did not reference color, so I am curious as to where we can find accurate data to support those suggestions.

Also, is the point of this post to say that since the data is misleading we should re-examine our attitudes toward spanking?  If so, what is it about children specifically that makes it acceptable to spank them?

 

Here
are several other potential motives (besides the super obvious one
pointed out by STer--thanks again) you might have considered if the term
“bona fides” had any meaning to you: it irritates me when people who
purport intellectualism accept reporting uncritically if it’s preaching
to the choir, I look for unexploited market niches the same as
post-graduate researchers (where are the armies challenging this
video?), I think Stef’s message is too valuable to be compromised...et
cetera, et cetera.

The OP calls out data that are misrepresented and/or meaningless.
(And, uh, misrepresentation is not "potentially" irresponsible.) I have no idea what you think you mean by “inaccurate”. And I think
it’s hilarious that you’re willing to outright concede the legitimacy of
my concern. No pushback at all? Come on, my arguments aren’t that good. It’s precisely this lack of pushback that makes your trolling so transparent.

And
now you make it even more transparent by focusing on an irrelevant
side-comment made to a person with whom I was commiserating about being
trolled (by you). Please.

If
you have serious questions that don’t relate to the OP (including your desperate supicion that I support child abuse), you could always
exercise the PM function. My good faith towards you hasn’t been
exhausted just yet, despite that yours towards me started out in the
negative.

 

I started out with simple inquiries, no judgement.  Simple questions, that inquire as to the specifics of your post.

I don't purport intellectualism, nor do I take any statistic on
faith.  I find it far simpler and more direct to rely on logic and
universality.  So, yet again, can you just give me a simple response as
to whether children are suitable subjects for behavior modification by
spanking?  There are no statistics or IQ tests required for this answer,
it's black and white.  Either spanking is an acceptable method of
behavior modification or it isn't. If it is, does it only apply to
children? If so, why?  No statistics required.

Is this what you call trolling?  There are a few comments in this
thread being levied at those who accept information uncritically, yet
when questions are posed to those presenting new information, it is
referred to as trolling.

If the possibility of those with various levels of
pigmentation in their skin being biologically/neurologically challenged in some way
should be considered, as mentioned, I think it is the responsibility of the claimant
to provide some evidence, or perhaps even some data (preferably
incontestable), lest the claimant be considered irresponsible.  Or such claims could be justified as commiseration and ignored, but that may violate the high standards of intellectual integrity to which those advancing arguments on philosophical forums ought to be held.

[STer]

 

 

 

Does asking for clarification constitute derailing?

The OP calls out citation of inaccurate data as potentially irresponsible misdirection.  So far so good, better to be accurate with the data.  But there must be some reason for calling out the data in the first place, unless it is the intention of the post to challenge any and all data references in any report at any time that may be inaccurate.  Here there is a particular bias toward clearing up any fallacies regarding the effects of spanking.  My question was and still is: "Why?"  Why the concern toward clarifying the misleading data in this area?  Why the evasive answer about derailing? 

Do you want us to think there are biological tendencies where certain people with certain levels of melanin are concerned?  I did not reference color, so I am curious as to where we can find accurate data to support those suggestions.

Also, is the point of this post to say that since the data is misleading we should re-examine our attitudes toward spanking?  If so, what is it about children specifically that makes it acceptable to spank them?

 

Here
are several other potential motives (besides the super obvious one
pointed out by STer--thanks again) you might have considered if the term
“bona fides” had any meaning to you: it irritates me when people who
purport intellectualism accept reporting uncritically if it’s preaching
to the choir, I look for unexploited market niches the same as
post-graduate researchers (where are the armies challenging this
video?), I think Stef’s message is too valuable to be compromised...et
cetera, et cetera.

The OP calls out data that are misrepresented and/or meaningless.
(And, uh, misrepresentation is not "potentially" irresponsible.) I have no idea what you think you mean by “inaccurate”. And I think
it’s hilarious that you’re willing to outright concede the legitimacy of
my concern. No pushback at all? Come on, my arguments aren’t that good. It’s precisely this lack of pushback that makes your trolling so transparent.

And
now you make it even more transparent by focusing on an irrelevant
side-comment made to a person with whom I was commiserating about being
trolled (by you). Please.

If
you have serious questions that don’t relate to the OP (including your desperate supicion that I support child abuse), you could always
exercise the PM function. My good faith towards you hasn’t been
exhausted just yet, despite that yours towards me started out in the
negative.

 

I started out with simple inquiries, no judgement.  Simple questions, that inquire as to the specifics of your post.

I don't purport intellectualism, nor do I take any statistic on
faith.  I find it far simpler and more direct to rely on logic and
universality.  So, yet again, can you just give me a simple response as
to whether children are suitable subjects for behavior modification by
spanking?  There are no statistics or IQ tests required for this answer,
it's black and white.  Either spanking is an acceptable method of
behavior modification or it isn't. If it is, does it only apply to
children? If so, why?  No statistics required.

Is this what you call trolling?  There are a few comments in this
thread being levied at those who accept information uncritically, yet
when questions are posed to those presenting new information, it is
referred to as trolling.

If the possibility of those with various levels of
pigmentation in their skin being biologically/neurologically challenged in some way
should be considered, as mentioned, I think it is the responsibility of the claimant
to provide some evidence, or perhaps even some data (preferably
incontestable), lest the claimant be considered irresponsible.  Or such claims could be justified as commiseration and ignored, but that may violate the high standards of intellectual integrity to which those advancing arguments on philosophical forums ought to be held.

 

I think the order of things matters. OP raised an issue with some of the research in one of Stef's videos. You ignored that, didn't address it, and skipped to asking him about other things. The problem isn't that you aren't allowed to ask questions back, but that when you do so in a way that changes the subject while avoiding the question at hand already, that's evasive.

OP's personal views are really not even relevant to the point he raised, which was questioning a particular piece of research in Stef's video. It's ad hominem to suggest his views are even relevant.

I agree that if he wants to put forth other assertions of his own he has the onus to back those up with solid data, as well. But first and foremost, in this thread, the data in Stef's video that he raised should be addressed. Stef himself was reasonable enough not to question OP's motives or views or anything else. He simply saw the questions about his research and agreed to look into it. It's sad others don't have the same straightforward reaction to it that he did.

Once we agree on the importance of verifying the research OP questioned, then it makes sense to move on to other issues. But until then, it's a distraction mechanism.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

 

 

Does asking for clarification constitute derailing?

The OP calls out citation of inaccurate data as potentially irresponsible misdirection.  So far so good, better to be accurate with the data.  But there must be some reason for calling out the data in the first place, unless it is the intention of the post to challenge any and all data references in any report at any time that may be inaccurate.  Here there is a particular bias toward clearing up any fallacies regarding the effects of spanking.  My question was and still is: "Why?"  Why the concern toward clarifying the misleading data in this area?  Why the evasive answer about derailing? 

Do you want us to think there are biological tendencies where certain people with certain levels of melanin are concerned?  I did not reference color, so I am curious as to where we can find accurate data to support those suggestions.

Also, is the point of this post to say that since the data is misleading we should re-examine our attitudes toward spanking?  If so, what is it about children specifically that makes it acceptable to spank them?

 

Here
are several other potential motives (besides the super obvious one
pointed out by STer--thanks again) you might have considered if the term
“bona fides” had any meaning to you: it irritates me when people who
purport intellectualism accept reporting uncritically if it’s preaching
to the choir, I look for unexploited market niches the same as
post-graduate researchers (where are the armies challenging this
video?), I think Stef’s message is too valuable to be compromised...et
cetera, et cetera.

The OP calls out data that are misrepresented and/or meaningless.
(And, uh, misrepresentation is not "potentially" irresponsible.) I have no idea what you think you mean by “inaccurate”. And I think
it’s hilarious that you’re willing to outright concede the legitimacy of
my concern. No pushback at all? Come on, my arguments aren’t that good. It’s precisely this lack of pushback that makes your trolling so transparent.

And
now you make it even more transparent by focusing on an irrelevant
side-comment made to a person with whom I was commiserating about being
trolled (by you). Please.

If
you have serious questions that don’t relate to the OP (including your desperate supicion that I support child abuse), you could always
exercise the PM function. My good faith towards you hasn’t been
exhausted just yet, despite that yours towards me started out in the
negative.

 

I started out with simple inquiries, no judgement.  Simple questions, that inquire as to the specifics of your post.

I don't purport intellectualism, nor do I take any statistic on
faith.  I find it far simpler and more direct to rely on logic and
universality.  So, yet again, can you just give me a simple response as
to whether children are suitable subjects for behavior modification by
spanking?  There are no statistics or IQ tests required for this answer,
it's black and white.  Either spanking is an acceptable method of
behavior modification or it isn't. If it is, does it only apply to
children? If so, why?  No statistics required.

Is this what you call trolling?  There are a few comments in this
thread being levied at those who accept information uncritically, yet
when questions are posed to those presenting new information, it is
referred to as trolling.

If the possibility of those with various levels of
pigmentation in their skin being biologically/neurologically challenged in some way
should be considered, as mentioned, I think it is the responsibility of the claimant
to provide some evidence, or perhaps even some data (preferably
incontestable), lest the claimant be considered irresponsible.  Or such claims could be justified as commiseration and ignored, but that may violate the high standards of intellectual integrity to which those advancing arguments on philosophical forums ought to be held.

 

I think the order of things matters. OP raised an issue with some of the research in one of Stef's videos. You ignored that, didn't address it, and skipped to asking him about other things. The problem isn't that you aren't allowed to ask questions back, but that when you do so in a way that changes the subject while avoiding the question at hand already, that's evasive.

OP's personal views are really not even relevant to the point he raised, which was questioning a particular piece of research in Stef's video. It's ad hominem to suggest his views are even relevant.

I agree that if he wants to put forth other assertions of his own he has the onus to back those up with solid data, as well. But first and foremost, in this thread, the data in Stef's video that he raised should be addressed. Stef himself was reasonable enough not to question OP's motives or views or anything else. He simply saw the questions about his research and agreed to look into it. It's sad others don't have the same straightforward reaction to it that he did.

Once we agree on the importance of verifying the research OP questioned, then it makes sense to move on to other issues. But until then, it's a distraction mechanism.

 

I agree

[pretzelogik]

 

 

 

 

Does asking for clarification constitute derailing?

The OP calls out citation of inaccurate data as potentially irresponsible misdirection.  So far so good, better to be accurate with the data.  But there must be some reason for calling out the data in the first place, unless it is the intention of the post to challenge any and all data references in any report at any time that may be inaccurate.  Here there is a particular bias toward clearing up any fallacies regarding the effects of spanking.  My question was and still is: "Why?"  Why the concern toward clarifying the misleading data in this area?  Why the evasive answer about derailing? 

Do you want us to think there are biological tendencies where certain people with certain levels of melanin are concerned?  I did not reference color, so I am curious as to where we can find accurate data to support those suggestions.

Also, is the point of this post to say that since the data is misleading we should re-examine our attitudes toward spanking?  If so, what is it about children specifically that makes it acceptable to spank them?

 

Here
are several other potential motives (besides the super obvious one
pointed out by STer--thanks again) you might have considered if the term
“bona fides” had any meaning to you: it irritates me when people who
purport intellectualism accept reporting uncritically if it’s preaching
to the choir, I look for unexploited market niches the same as
post-graduate researchers (where are the armies challenging this
video?), I think Stef’s message is too valuable to be compromised...et
cetera, et cetera.

The OP calls out data that are misrepresented and/or meaningless.
(And, uh, misrepresentation is not "potentially" irresponsible.) I have no idea what you think you mean by “inaccurate”. And I think
it’s hilarious that you’re willing to outright concede the legitimacy of
my concern. No pushback at all? Come on, my arguments aren’t that good. It’s precisely this lack of pushback that makes your trolling so transparent.

And
now you make it even more transparent by focusing on an irrelevant
side-comment made to a person with whom I was commiserating about being
trolled (by you). Please.

If
you have serious questions that don’t relate to the OP (including your desperate supicion that I support child abuse), you could always
exercise the PM function. My good faith towards you hasn’t been
exhausted just yet, despite that yours towards me started out in the
negative.

 

I started out with simple inquiries, no judgement.  Simple questions, that inquire as to the specifics of your post.

I don't purport intellectualism, nor do I take any statistic on
faith.  I find it far simpler and more direct to rely on logic and
universality.  So, yet again, can you just give me a simple response as
to whether children are suitable subjects for behavior modification by
spanking?  There are no statistics or IQ tests required for this answer,
it's black and white.  Either spanking is an acceptable method of
behavior modification or it isn't. If it is, does it only apply to
children? If so, why?  No statistics required.

Is this what you call trolling?  There are a few comments in this
thread being levied at those who accept information uncritically, yet
when questions are posed to those presenting new information, it is
referred to as trolling.

If the possibility of those with various levels of
pigmentation in their skin being biologically/neurologically challenged in some way
should be considered, as mentioned, I think it is the responsibility of the claimant
to provide some evidence, or perhaps even some data (preferably
incontestable), lest the claimant be considered irresponsible.  Or such claims could be justified as commiseration and ignored, but that may violate the high standards of intellectual integrity to which those advancing arguments on philosophical forums ought to be held.

 

I think the order of things matters. OP raised an issue with some of the research in one of Stef's videos. You ignored that, didn't address it, and skipped to asking him about other things. The problem isn't that you aren't allowed to ask questions back, but that when you do so in a way that changes the subject while avoiding the question at hand already, that's evasive.

OP's personal views are really not even relevant to the point he raised, which was questioning a particular piece of research in Stef's video. It's ad hominem to suggest his views are even relevant.

I agree that if he wants to put forth other assertions of his own he has the onus to back those up with solid data, as well. But first and foremost, in this thread, the data in Stef's video that he raised should be addressed. Stef himself was reasonable enough not to question OP's motives or views or anything else. He simply saw the questions about his research and agreed to look into it. It's sad others don't have the same straightforward reaction to it that he did.

Once we agree on the importance of verifying the research OP questioned, then it makes sense to move on to other issues. But until then, it's a distraction mechanism.

 

Last lines from the OP:

"Bottom line: the attitude of those opposed to spanking is wildly
out of sync with the data I've seen so far. Spanking is the equivalent
of being tossed into a battlefield? Spanking is responsible for third
world’s lack of development? Parents who spank are deserving of
contempt/hatred? This is ridiculous."

Correct me if this is something other than the contention that it would be more "in sync" (less "wild", as it were) according to the data, to be at the least tolerant of spanking.  Since it's "ridiculous" to show "contempt/hatred" of those who spank, what exactly does the data suggest we show as an alternative?  Support?

Perhaps I am not the one here ignoring the OP's sentiments.  Statements such as the ones from the OP above are judgements.  To avoid answering questions about the motivation behind such judgement remarks by claiming the post is merely about data is disingenous at best and blatantly hypocritical at worst.

And the hypocrisy is multiplied when those claiming to hold truth in high regard ignore the evasion so studiously.

I am not a particular fan of any statistics that rely on self reporting, or statistics concerning human behavior in general as it is more often than not the exception to the statistical mean that make for a live well lived.  Tests such as IQ can be biased in regard to particular cultural norms.  Why not reasons from first principles, using logic as the guide?  The OP contends the data suggests we modify our attitude toward spankers, so as not to be "ridiculous".  Because it's the data, not logic that make this ridiculous, no?

Once again, will one of the purveyors of truth just step up to the plate and tell us why these attitudes are so ridiculous and what it is about children that makes it acceptable to spank them?

[TimS]

Got back from work to find that STer has said everything I could have said and more, except better and without the seething irritation. <3

Since it's "ridiculous" to show "contempt/hatred" of those who spank, what exactly does the data suggest we show as an alternative?  Support?

The study data I have seen suggest spanking ought to be viewed with neutrality or mild suspicion. In your wildest fantasies, did this really not occur to you?! And this conclusion could be easily deduced from the OP.

Perhaps I am not the one here ignoring the OP's sentiments.  Statements such as the ones from the OP above are judgements.  To avoid answering questions about the motivation behind such judgement remarks by claiming the post is merely about data is disingenous at best and blatantly hypocritical at worst.

You display a misunderstanding of what disingenouity/hypocrisy are, because my motivation(s) have now been provided. STer got the main one, and I listed other contributing motivations. I suppose your basis for accusations of "evasion" is that I haven't admitted what you just know is my secret desire to promote child abuse. Divine revelation, no doubt.

I'm feeling slightly charitable, so re: the comment I made about the dark/light skin and IQ: this is was in response to STer affirming my assertion that nature vs. nurture is polarizing and presenting a reason for its polarization. I agreed with him, and then noted what I think is the primary reason for its polarization; namely, the fact that the 100% environment view has been at the core of anti-racism everywhere: in academia, in politics, in gradeschool, on the street. (This is why it is taken for granted that anyone promoting a non-100% environment view should be demonized as racist. Look at Jensen, Murray, Lynn, Rushton, etc.) In fact I think it is safe to say that it is the sine qua non of egalitarianism. If it needs to be spelled out: since racism is perhaps the most viciously polarized issue of our time, it is hardly surprising that this would carry over into the defense of the 100% nurture position.

If you want to know the arguments for and against the heritability of intelligence, well, that's a funny trick question. The best research has been done on european people (for reasons that hardly require an explanation) and I don't think you'll find a lot of disagreement that intelligence is highly heritable when it comes to europeans. The controversy is when you start talking about the fact that different "races" score differently on intelligence tests (still not really in dispute), and then it starts in earnest when you start discussing the heritability of intelligence for africans and latin americans. That's because here, like in another topic that could apparently be named, truth usually takes a backseat to ideaology. Best place to start reading? Wikipedia. I happen to think they give a pretty comprehensive and balanced report (despite various articles remaining in an apparently perpetual flagged state). I also recommend listening to a debate between Flynn (of the Flynn Effect) and Murray on the black-white IQ gap, which can be found on YT. Both are gentlemen and scholars.

Why not reasons from first principles, using logic as the guide? The OP contends the data suggests we modify our attitude toward spankers, so as not to be "ridiculous". Because it's the data, not logic that make this ridiculous, no?

Stop being so goddamned difficult! Did you ask Stefan that when he posted the video? Have you ever commented on a piece of sociological research which confirmed your views, "I am no particular fan of stats on human behavior"? And you have the gall to accuse others of hypocrisy. But cute tactic: if soci/psychology doesn't support your case, you discard the discipline altogether. Really. So tell me again about first principles, please. Because the last time I checked, the value of the soft sciences was derived from first principles. Hypocrisy, what?

At this point I cannot even conceive of trying to discuss logic with you, so stop asking. (I flatter myself by thinking you were asking me.) But thanks for your contributions.

[pretzelogik]

Quite a bit of emotion and projection for someone claiming to be all about the data, truth, etc.  But a side note was given to the original questions about the logic and first principles, albeit not directly.  Great.

So, we should view spanking with neutrality or mild suspicion.  Not because there is something in particular about children that makes this particular practice of behavior modification acceptable, but the data in regards to whacking kids is inconclusive at best, or shows no lasting impact.  I will even take you at your word that the data suggests spanking to have no deleterious effects. 

If I spanked my wife every time she did something I did not approve of, it might be argued that she would suffer no lasting effects from being restrained and struck with enough force to make her cry out in pain or feel quite uncomfortable (not consensual spanking, naughty minds ;-).  It might be a tough sell for the friends and neighbors to say that I was attempting to modify her behavior. 

Could you reference any studies that speak to the spanking of adults and whether it has any lasting impact?  Perhaps if neutrality is the prescription we should consider spanking in the workplace in order to prompt more productivity from the shiftless.  I work with a couple of less than industrious individuals whom I might like to see spanked into cleaning up after themselves, although the lack of size disparity might make it a bit of a challenge if they were of a mind to resist.  Funny how it ended in my house when my mom broke the yardstick across my back and I was able to walk away in defiance of her attempts to restrain me.  And when my father knew that the next time we would be squaring off mano a mano and it might not have been a walk in the park for him either.  I guess after that point they got a mildly suspicious of spanking or maybe became neutral about it.

"Stop being so goddamned difficult!"  How familiar.

So, around we go.  What is it about children, in your own words dear OP, that separates them from adults and qualifies them as acceptable candidates for "spanking"?  Do we need studies and statistical analyses to make this call?

 

[Annabelle]

 

Got back from work to find that STer has said everything I could have said and more, except better and without the seething irritation. <3

Since it's "ridiculous" to show "contempt/hatred" of those who spank, what exactly does the data suggest we show as an alternative?  Support?

The study data I have seen suggest spanking ought to be viewed with neutrality or mild suspicion. In your wildest fantasies, did this really not occur to you?! And this conclusion could be easily deduced from the OP.

 

There are two ways one could go with the spanking question (and this is a general theme, if you look at philosophy/science papers on any topic):

1) Is spanking good, or bad?

2) Can we prove hypothesis X regarding spanking? (e.g. hypothesis: spanking a child causes their IQ to drop).

Failing to prove a hypothesis doesn't say anything except that you failed to prove the hypothesis (maybe you're just bad at collecting or analyzing data). Succeeding in proving the hypothesis doesn't answer question 1), because question 1) is such an all-encompassing question. There could be dozens or hundreds or facts regarding spanking to consider. And facts aren't even necessary. You could talk in abstract terms about the
dignity of a person, or, as you have, you could appeal to our moral
instincts, i.e. that spanking an adult seems wrong, and what makes a
child any different?

If you want to go after question 1) (pretzelogik and Stef), and facts aren't the most important thing to you, be bold and say so. Don't just grab onto stats that seem to support your argument, but are actually built on shaky studies. Doing so will only distract and detract from your overall point.

 

[STer]

 

 

Got back from work to find that STer has said everything I could have said and more, except better and without the seething irritation. <3

Since it's "ridiculous" to show "contempt/hatred" of those who spank, what exactly does the data suggest we show as an alternative?  Support?

The study data I have seen suggest spanking ought to be viewed with neutrality or mild suspicion. In your wildest fantasies, did this really not occur to you?! And this conclusion could be easily deduced from the OP.

 

There are two ways one could go with the spanking question (and this is a general theme, if you look at philosophy/science papers on any topic):

1) Is spanking good, or bad?

2) Can we prove hypothesis X regarding spanking? (e.g. hypothesis: spanking a child causes their IQ to drop).

Failing to prove a hypothesis doesn't say anything except that you failed to prove the hypothesis (maybe you're just bad at collecting or analyzing data). Succeeding in proving the hypothesis doesn't answer question 1), because question 1) is such an all-encompassing question. There could be dozens or hundreds or facts regarding spanking to consider. And facts aren't even necessary. You could talk in abstract terms about the
dignity of a person, or, as you have, you could appeal to our moral
instincts, i.e. that spanking an adult seems wrong, and what makes a
child any different?

If you want to go after question 1) (pretzelogik and Stef), and facts aren't the most important thing to you, be bold and say so. Don't just grab onto stats that seem to support your argument, but are actually built on shaky studies. Doing so will only distract and detract from your overall point.

 

 

Pretzelogik, if serious (which I'm sometimes doubting), appears to think that when you claim a study is not valid or reliable, it is relevant what the implications of that are. As if we should let pass shaky studies if we like what they support and not call them into question if doing so might help an argument we don't like. Pretzelogik is not apparently able to separate simply requiring data to be accurately reported from taking stances on issues. He thinks if you call out a study that supports a particular viewpoint then you are supporting its opposite. In fact, I think when you support a particular viewpoint but call out the studies that support it just as much as ones against it when merited, you gain credibility. Pretzelogik's view is that of biased people everywhere who call out studies that go against their view but want the ones that support their view to not be questioned. In other words, confirmation bias rather than an honest search for truth whatever it is regardless of the implications.

As I've already said, it's completely irrelevant what OP's viewpoint is. He could be the most horrible terrible person on the face of the earth, whose viewpoints we all disagree with vehemently. But if he is correct that Stefan was referencing a faulty study, then that's all that matters in this particular discussion. Feel free to start a new thread where the topic is OP's particular viewpoints. This thread was about the validity of a study Stefan referenced.

It may be Pretzel is just pushing buttons. But luckily I think this is worth saying anyways since it is relevant to philosophy in general.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

 

Got back from work to find that STer has said everything I could have said and more, except better and without the seething irritation. <3

Since it's "ridiculous" to show "contempt/hatred" of those who spank, what exactly does the data suggest we show as an alternative?  Support?

The study data I have seen suggest spanking ought to be viewed with neutrality or mild suspicion. In your wildest fantasies, did this really not occur to you?! And this conclusion could be easily deduced from the OP.

 

There are two ways one could go with the spanking question (and this is a general theme, if you look at philosophy/science papers on any topic):

1) Is spanking good, or bad?

2) Can we prove hypothesis X regarding spanking? (e.g. hypothesis: spanking a child causes their IQ to drop).

Failing to prove a hypothesis doesn't say anything except that you failed to prove the hypothesis (maybe you're just bad at collecting or analyzing data). Succeeding in proving the hypothesis doesn't answer question 1), because question 1) is such an all-encompassing question. There could be dozens or hundreds or facts regarding spanking to consider. And facts aren't even necessary. You could talk in abstract terms about the
dignity of a person, or, as you have, you could appeal to our moral
instincts, i.e. that spanking an adult seems wrong, and what makes a
child any different?

If you want to go after question 1) (pretzelogik and Stef), and facts aren't the most important thing to you, be bold and say so. Don't just grab onto stats that seem to support your argument, but are actually built on shaky studies. Doing so will only distract and detract from your overall point.

 

 

Pretzelogik, if serious (which I'm sometimes doubting), appears to think that when you claim a study is not valid or reliable, it is relevant what the implications of that are. As if we should let pass shaky studies if we like what they support and not call them into question if doing so might help an argument we don't like. Pretzelogik is not apparently able to separate simply requiring data to be accurately reported from taking stances on issues. He thinks if you call out a study that supports a particular viewpoint then you are supporting its opposite. In fact, I think when you support a particular viewpoint but call out the studies that support it just as much as ones against it when merited, you gain credibility. Pretzelogik's view is that of biased people everywhere who call out studies that go against their view but want the ones that support their view to not be questioned. In other words, confirmation bias rather than an honest search for truth whatever it is regardless of the implications.

As I've already said, it's completely irrelevant what OP's viewpoint is. He could be the most horrible terrible person on the face of the earth, whose viewpoints we all disagree with vehemently. But if he is correct that Stefan was referencing a faulty study, then that's all that matters in this particular discussion. Feel free to start a new thread where the topic is OP's particular viewpoints. This thread was about the validity of a study Stefan referenced.

It may be Pretzel is just pushing buttons. But luckily I think this is worth saying anyways since it is relevant to philosophy in general.

 

So many times in Stefs videos he gives statistics. But rarely does he reference where they come from.

[pretzelogik]

 

 

 

Got back from work to find that STer has said everything I could have said and more, except better and without the seething irritation. <3

Since it's "ridiculous" to show "contempt/hatred" of those who spank, what exactly does the data suggest we show as an alternative?  Support?

The study data I have seen suggest spanking ought to be viewed with neutrality or mild suspicion. In your wildest fantasies, did this really not occur to you?! And this conclusion could be easily deduced from the OP.

 

There are two ways one could go with the spanking question (and this is a general theme, if you look at philosophy/science papers on any topic):

1) Is spanking good, or bad?

2) Can we prove hypothesis X regarding spanking? (e.g. hypothesis: spanking a child causes their IQ to drop).

Failing to prove a hypothesis doesn't say anything except that you failed to prove the hypothesis (maybe you're just bad at collecting or analyzing data). Succeeding in proving the hypothesis doesn't answer question 1), because question 1) is such an all-encompassing question. There could be dozens or hundreds or facts regarding spanking to consider. And facts aren't even necessary. You could talk in abstract terms about the
dignity of a person, or, as you have, you could appeal to our moral
instincts, i.e. that spanking an adult seems wrong, and what makes a
child any different?

If you want to go after question 1) (pretzelogik and Stef), and facts aren't the most important thing to you, be bold and say so. Don't just grab onto stats that seem to support your argument, but are actually built on shaky studies. Doing so will only distract and detract from your overall point.

 

 

Pretzelogik, if serious (which I'm sometimes doubting), appears to think that when you claim a study is not valid or reliable, it is relevant what the implications of that are. As if we should let pass shaky studies if we like what they support and not call them into question if doing so might help an argument we don't like. Pretzelogik is not apparently able to separate simply requiring data to be accurately reported from taking stances on issues. He thinks if you call out a study that supports a particular viewpoint then you are supporting its opposite. In fact, I think when you support a particular viewpoint but call out the studies that support it just as much as ones against it when merited, you gain credibility. Pretzelogik's view is that of biased people everywhere who call out studies that go against their view but want the ones that support their view to not be questioned. In other words, confirmation bias rather than an honest search for truth whatever it is regardless of the implications.

As I've already said, it's completely irrelevant what OP's viewpoint is. He could be the most horrible terrible person on the face of the earth, whose viewpoints we all disagree with vehemently. But if he is correct that Stefan was referencing a faulty study, then that's all that matters in this particular discussion. Feel free to start a new thread where the topic is OP's particular viewpoints. This thread was about the validity of a study Stefan referenced.

It may be Pretzel is just pushing buttons. But luckily I think this is worth saying anyways since it is relevant to philosophy in general.

 

This above is so laden with projection and cherry-picking and a multiplicity of fallacies it boggles (it would likely fit comfortably as a counter on some hyperbolic MSM rant about the inherent evil of guns or the like.  Which is what passes as argument these days).  Yet, these defenses and rationalizations are done in the name of philosophy.   I do declare.  The OP was a judgment and an opinion, an attempt to set the record straight as it were, about the merits/faults of spanking.

The simple and obvious answer to questions about the motivation behind setting the record straight would be something along the lines of: "Spanking is logically contradictory and morally repugnant, but in the interest of the greater good of philosophy, I think it's important to call attention to faulty research."  "I am carrying the mantle of factual accountability for Stef and am going to see to it that when a statistic is referenced in his videos, they are accurate, by gum!" And so on.

Judgement was introduced in the OP, as has been repeatedly pointed out and studiously ignored.  When faced with inquiry, the responses were ad hominems and value projections.  If one's intention is to come to the rescue of philosophical integrity, eliminating contradictions from one's own arguments might be a good place to start.

 

[Rick Horton]

 

 

 

 

Got back from work to find that STer has said everything I could have said and more, except better and without the seething irritation. <3

Since it's "ridiculous" to show "contempt/hatred" of those who spank, what exactly does the data suggest we show as an alternative?  Support?

The study data I have seen suggest spanking ought to be viewed with neutrality or mild suspicion. In your wildest fantasies, did this really not occur to you?! And this conclusion could be easily deduced from the OP.

 

There are two ways one could go with the spanking question (and this is a general theme, if you look at philosophy/science papers on any topic):

1) Is spanking good, or bad?

2) Can we prove hypothesis X regarding spanking? (e.g. hypothesis: spanking a child causes their IQ to drop).

Failing to prove a hypothesis doesn't say anything except that you failed to prove the hypothesis (maybe you're just bad at collecting or analyzing data). Succeeding in proving the hypothesis doesn't answer question 1), because question 1) is such an all-encompassing question. There could be dozens or hundreds or facts regarding spanking to consider. And facts aren't even necessary. You could talk in abstract terms about the
dignity of a person, or, as you have, you could appeal to our moral
instincts, i.e. that spanking an adult seems wrong, and what makes a
child any different?

If you want to go after question 1) (pretzelogik and Stef), and facts aren't the most important thing to you, be bold and say so. Don't just grab onto stats that seem to support your argument, but are actually built on shaky studies. Doing so will only distract and detract from your overall point.

 

 

Pretzelogik, if serious (which I'm sometimes doubting), appears to think that when you claim a study is not valid or reliable, it is relevant what the implications of that are. As if we should let pass shaky studies if we like what they support and not call them into question if doing so might help an argument we don't like. Pretzelogik is not apparently able to separate simply requiring data to be accurately reported from taking stances on issues. He thinks if you call out a study that supports a particular viewpoint then you are supporting its opposite. In fact, I think when you support a particular viewpoint but call out the studies that support it just as much as ones against it when merited, you gain credibility. Pretzelogik's view is that of biased people everywhere who call out studies that go against their view but want the ones that support their view to not be questioned. In other words, confirmation bias rather than an honest search for truth whatever it is regardless of the implications.

As I've already said, it's completely irrelevant what OP's viewpoint is. He could be the most horrible terrible person on the face of the earth, whose viewpoints we all disagree with vehemently. But if he is correct that Stefan was referencing a faulty study, then that's all that matters in this particular discussion. Feel free to start a new thread where the topic is OP's particular viewpoints. This thread was about the validity of a study Stefan referenced.

It may be Pretzel is just pushing buttons. But luckily I think this is worth saying anyways since it is relevant to philosophy in general.

 

This above is so laden with projection and cherry-picking and a multiplicity of fallacies it boggles (it would likely fit comfortably as a counter on some hyperbolic MSM rant about the inherent evil of guns or the like.  Which is what passes as argument these days).  Yet, these defenses and rationalizations are done in the name of philosophy.   I do declare.  The OP was a judgment and an opinion, an attempt to set the record straight as it were, about the merits/faults of spanking.

The simple and obvious answer to questions about the motivation behind setting the record straight would be something along the lines of: "Spanking is logically contradictory and morally repugnant, but in the interest of the greater good of philosophy, I think it's important to call attention to faulty research."  "I am carrying the mantle of factual accountability for Stef and am going to see to it that when a statistic is referenced in his videos, they are accurate, by gum!" And so on.

Judgement was introduced in the OP, as has been repeatedly pointed out and studiously ignored.  When faced with inquiry, the responses were ad hominems and value projections.  If one's intention is to come to the rescue of philosophical integrity, eliminating contradictions from one's own arguments might be a good place to start.

 

 

I do declare, I agree, lol. 

    Furthermore, It really bothers me when Stef starts rattling of statistics and facts without referencing EACH one. I know it might be hard work and take more time and effort, but damned if it isn't totally necessary when you start stating facts that you get from somewhere. When he doesn't (and it's often) reference the facts by source I handily MUST throw out the facts he gives. That is the only right way to proceed with integrity. Philosophic arguments are different, but when you start with facts, and statistics, it's irresponsible to not source EVERY single fact. Where did you get the fact?  If you don't tell me I don't listen to the fact because then I'd be irresponsible too. If Stef doesn't like that added red tape then it shows me that he is unwilling to be rigorous in his videos. I, myself, try not to give statistics  because I'm less interested in the populous POV. My interest is in the individual. Statistics REALLY obscure that. It doesn't matter what others do, or how they feel, if you don't agree with them and you are rigorous in pursuit of how to live the way you want. More-over, all of these statistics fall under the Umbrella of "some" STATE's effect on the populous, which really fucks things up, too. We, in a society are not acting merely as individuals, but as members of some State, (or) hostages of it as it is in some cases. The way people behave in this environment depends on The State itself and its very effect over the populous, since many fine mutations and contingencies are inherently effecting every single behavior in the State's grip, for better or/and often worse, although not in all situations.

[TimS]

It looks like all the contributors express some level of misgiving towards Stef’s video. Success? I guess.

I have limited interest in meta-discussions, so that’s probably it for me. Thanks all!

[STer]

 

 

 

 

Got back from work to find that STer has said everything I could have said and more, except better and without the seething irritation. <3

Since it's "ridiculous" to show "contempt/hatred" of those who spank, what exactly does the data suggest we show as an alternative?  Support?

The study data I have seen suggest spanking ought to be viewed with neutrality or mild suspicion. In your wildest fantasies, did this really not occur to you?! And this conclusion could be easily deduced from the OP.

 

There are two ways one could go with the spanking question (and this is a general theme, if you look at philosophy/science papers on any topic):

1) Is spanking good, or bad?

2) Can we prove hypothesis X regarding spanking? (e.g. hypothesis: spanking a child causes their IQ to drop).

Failing to prove a hypothesis doesn't say anything except that you failed to prove the hypothesis (maybe you're just bad at collecting or analyzing data). Succeeding in proving the hypothesis doesn't answer question 1), because question 1) is such an all-encompassing question. There could be dozens or hundreds or facts regarding spanking to consider. And facts aren't even necessary. You could talk in abstract terms about the
dignity of a person, or, as you have, you could appeal to our moral
instincts, i.e. that spanking an adult seems wrong, and what makes a
child any different?

If you want to go after question 1) (pretzelogik and Stef), and facts aren't the most important thing to you, be bold and say so. Don't just grab onto stats that seem to support your argument, but are actually built on shaky studies. Doing so will only distract and detract from your overall point.

 

 

Pretzelogik, if serious (which I'm sometimes doubting), appears to think that when you claim a study is not valid or reliable, it is relevant what the implications of that are. As if we should let pass shaky studies if we like what they support and not call them into question if doing so might help an argument we don't like. Pretzelogik is not apparently able to separate simply requiring data to be accurately reported from taking stances on issues. He thinks if you call out a study that supports a particular viewpoint then you are supporting its opposite. In fact, I think when you support a particular viewpoint but call out the studies that support it just as much as ones against it when merited, you gain credibility. Pretzelogik's view is that of biased people everywhere who call out studies that go against their view but want the ones that support their view to not be questioned. In other words, confirmation bias rather than an honest search for truth whatever it is regardless of the implications.

As I've already said, it's completely irrelevant what OP's viewpoint is. He could be the most horrible terrible person on the face of the earth, whose viewpoints we all disagree with vehemently. But if he is correct that Stefan was referencing a faulty study, then that's all that matters in this particular discussion. Feel free to start a new thread where the topic is OP's particular viewpoints. This thread was about the validity of a study Stefan referenced.

It may be Pretzel is just pushing buttons. But luckily I think this is worth saying anyways since it is relevant to philosophy in general.

 

This above is so laden with projection and cherry-picking and a multiplicity of fallacies it boggles (it would likely fit comfortably as a counter on some hyperbolic MSM rant about the inherent evil of guns or the like.  Which is what passes as argument these days).  Yet, these defenses and rationalizations are done in the name of philosophy.   I do declare.  The OP was a judgment and an opinion, an attempt to set the record straight as it were, about the merits/faults of spanking.

The simple and obvious answer to questions about the motivation behind setting the record straight would be something along the lines of: "Spanking is logically contradictory and morally repugnant, but in the interest of the greater good of philosophy, I think it's important to call attention to faulty research."  "I am carrying the mantle of factual accountability for Stef and am going to see to it that when a statistic is referenced in his videos, they are accurate, by gum!" And so on.

Judgement was introduced in the OP, as has been repeatedly pointed out and studiously ignored.  When faced with inquiry, the responses were ad hominems and value projections.  If one's intention is to come to the rescue of philosophical integrity, eliminating contradictions from one's own arguments might be a good place to start.

 

 

As has been pointed out ad naseum, OP's motivations are not relevant. Are you going to accept critique only from those whose motivations you like? If something incorrect is pointed out by someone whose motivations you don't like, will you then refuse to correct it? Are you not allowed to learn from people unless you agree with their motivations? The message is what matters here, not the messenger. You don't want to pay attention to the message so you keep trying to focus on the messenger.

Again, compare your response to Stefan's:

Stefan's: "Thank you Tim, I really appreciate you bringing that up, I will put our researcher on the data!"

Yours paraphrased: "But OP first you have to tell me your motivations. My response depends on what your motivation was, not simply on the merits of whether the study was flawed or not."

What more can I say. At this point I'm not even responding for your sake, Pretzel, since you are clearly not going to be convinced, but for others who might read this thread.