Hacker News Reader

But in some cases, these are just behavior issues, not mental health issues. Indeed, prescribing pharma and telling a kid he's mentally ill might be compounding the behavioral issue.

I never suggested medication, or telling a child that they are mentally ill.

"I wonder if a nice beating would have done you any good." This was a response to a description of severe acting out by a child. A child threatening to kill herself or her parents is not an indication of sound mental health. Hitting them will make it worse.

Sufficiently dysfunctional behavior defines what it means to have a psychological problem.

Why do you assume that submission is the goal of the beating? Or that you know the best way to raise children?

"Outcome: The problem was fixed. He became more subdued and never threatened to run away."

What other goal would there be? The idea of corporal punishment is that child fears getting hit enough that they will stop acting on the motives they have which conflict with those of the parents. In other words, they will submit to the motives of the parents.

Common sense aside, the fact that beating doesn't produce good outcomes for children is common knowledge in highly educated societies.

The American Academy of Pediatrics says:

"First, establish a positive, supporting and loving relationship with your child. Without this foundation, your child has no reason, other than fear, to demonstrate good behavior. [...] If you feel discipline is necessary, the AAP recommends that you do not spank or use other physical punishments. That only teaches aggressive behavior, and becomes ineffective if used often."

>>What other goal would there be?

The goal for the drastic measures my mom took was to not loose her child. That he stopped being such a big brat was a bonus. He was still strong tempered, but at least he would no longer test my mother. And the threat of a beating kept the rest of us in line. We knew not to test her. All of my brothers and sisters grew up to be decent human beings.

In case you are wondering, my brother never beats his kids, is enough for them to see him mad when they misbehave for them to fall in line.

I concede, had he had a mental disorder it would probably not have worked. In this case though, I'm not sure the OP really had a mental disorder which is why I suggested the beating. Some kids will go to great lengths to manipulate you as much as they can.

Anyway, this is just an anecdote so take it as such.

I'm not saying that beating your children will necessarily ruin their lives, or that children who are beaten can't grow up to be functional adults. But two things are true, to the best of my knowledge:

- Beating does a worse job of correcting behavioral problems than more humane methods

- Beating contributes negatively to how your children feel, in general

Again, this doesn't mean that beating makes you sick, or that it never corrects a specific behavior. Only that it's not a good idea, and, however mildly on a case-by-case basis, it probably means you're mistreating your kids.

I wouldn't suggest it to anyone regardless of whether or not you consider violently threatening to kill yourself and your parents, to the point that they are afraid for their lives, to be evidence of mental health issues.

But, how to act after people have tried everything they could think of to no avail? Is medication a better solution than some spanking (especially when it's unclear a mental problem exists)? I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Beating your children isn't to manipulate them into becoming little slaves, it's to punish them for going against society's expected behaviour (which one might argue is its own form of slavery).

Can you back up your claim that beatings produce poor outcomes for children in "highly educated societies?" Or that 'less educated societies" are inferior because they don't have qualms about spanking their kids when they misbehave?

See the quote from AAP I posted elsewhere. Corporal punishment has been shown to be less effective than alternatives, and probably harmful to children.

Corporal punishment is more common in less affluent/educated societies than it is in wealthy/well-educated ones. This is common knowledge. I never said anything about inferiority. It's not about judging anyone, it's about contradicting bad advice.

Less effective in what setting? If physical punishment is more common world-wide, that is rather telling evidence that our forebears found it to be the most effective way to bring children in line, and it has been done ever since; at least until western civilization decided it was improper or at the very least, sub-optimal.

My point is that who is the AAP to say how best to raise children? I seriously doubt the validity of any study that claims to be conclusive on how to raise children, and would make a bet that any research they did was localized to the US. Anecdotally, several of my friends were beaten as children and turned out fine. All this proves is that sometimes physical punishment works and sometimes it doesn't. But the same goes for "establishing a loving relationship with your child;" since you can hardly do that when they're threatening to stab you with a knife.

  > is rather telling evidence that our forebears
  > found it to be the most effective way to bring
  > children in line

Our forebears also felt that the best was to run a society included things like:

- Slavery / Indentured Service as a means of generating wealth.

- Punishing women for sexuality (because all women were temptresses, and a man couldn't be blamed for infidelity, rape, etc).

- Torture against criminals / political prisoners.

- Religious wars.

I don't think that "our forebears did it, so there must be something to it," is a generally effective argument.

You make a great point. I didn't think of the big picture when I made that claim.

>> " Corporal punishment has been shown to be less effective than alternatives,"

I've always figured that Corporal punishment is like banging rocks together to make fire. sure it _can_ be done, our ancestors used it effectively and it can be useful as a last resort; but a lighter or matchsticks are significantly more effective.

In my experience, those who argue strongly in favor of beating children do so not because they know better but because that technique is all they know. essentially: "but if i don't beat him how will I get him to behave??"

Living wirh my wife would also be easier when I could just beat her when she doesnt get my point. Thinking of it my coworkers are also stupid sometimes and I am certainly stronger than most. Good times ahead...

The AAP quote is not based on data, just a desire for the world to work a certain way. Do not attempt to cite data to the contrary; while you will find critical studies of corporal punishment you will not find any that supports their use of the polemical word, "only."

You're over-thinking this, and projecting motives onto an organization of pediatricians that you can't possibly prove.

Their audience here is a general one, especially parents. They are not using "only" to make some kind of absolute claim about human nature. The point is that it's commonly accepted (and supported by research) that hitting your children is unhelpful to them and doesn't work well.

The word only makes an explicitly absolute claim. Pediatricians have read the same studies you and I have read, so they know the data isn't absolute. Therefore, they are claiming an absolute where they know there isn't one. You are right that I can't prove why they do this, but I think I can safely say most people persuade using untrue absolutes in order to realize an ideological goal or to make money, and the AAP is a non-profit organization. The quote is not something that should carry weight in a room of scientists or parents. I don't think I am over-thinking something that you've posted, especially now that you've asked me not to think too much about it.

>>Common sense aside, the fact that beating doesn't produce good outcomes for children is common knowledge in highly educated societies.

Are these societies the same societies where shoot outs happen at schools? Because I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case.

Physical abuse is one thing. Disciplining is another.

'You won't get to play your video game' is not even a punishment. If you are thinking you can discipline your kid by these make believe tricks, All the best.

When we talk of beating a kid, we are not talking about smashing him/her to pulp. The idea to ensure the kid is stopped when he/she is at the beginning of doing something wrong[Like stopping him when he first steals from/bullies/hits other kids]. If you let your kid grow up, carry guns and fire at people something is seriously wrong with your upbringing. And frankly speaking you can't wash your hands off by putting it on mental disease.

These are not cases of mental disease, these are just unruly kids, who fear nothing[After all why should they, when their own parents can't do anything about their behavior who else will?].

These kids need to be taught how it is in the real world, and if they can't do it the easy way some minimal beating must be allowed. I would prefer that rather than watch some one grow and fire bullets at others.

I really am surprised by most of the (young) parents I have met so far in the US. My father used corporal punishment for even little things on us and left a (psychological) scar - I could never touch my kids - on the other hand, in our home (4 kids of my own) discipline is an extremely high (positive) value.

This has nothing to do with submission but with self-control - a rare quality which kids have to master. The so-called "timeouts" and disciplinary measures by our American friends don't work - resulting in children which cause so much more suffering for everybody - they don't work because the parents just do not establish a sense of authority and strict rules. Forget physical punishment for a moment but at home the parents and in school the teachers have to be able to establish their authority. I have seen so many parents, themselves using mental pharmaceutica who let their kids get away with things that were purely evil. At the same time I feel the sub-human stimulation (TV, games, etc.) many kids are flooded with over decades is considered less (negatively) habit forming than the application of simple repetitive acts of cultured manners, polite expressions and self-restraint.

I had the same thought at first, but reading the whole anecdote made me wonder. It's clear that the mother didn't do what she did just to indulge her own anger. She did, in fact, have her son's interests at heart. It was a last resort to get through to him. When you talk about submission as a goal, I think you have to ask, submission to what? If the goal is to get the child to submit to the parent's ego, as it so often is, then I agree with you. But parents have to set limits, and children have to submit to them.

Well, it depends on where you draw the line - I mean, in our society we have agreed that we will force everybody to submit to certain rules, no matter what they want or what it takes to make them submit.

As an example, if someone (for whatever reason) wants to kill his neighbour and take his goods/wife/house/whatever, then we'll force him not to do it, up to and including lethal force by lots of armed uniformed men.

Continuing with the example, if a "kid" realistically threatens to perform criminal acts - such as shooting someone, robbing someone, raping someone - then submission is not optional, it's mandatory and it SHOULD be an absolute goal. The only question is how to make that submission happen in a humane manner - if the expected result is violence and a long prison term or death, then many means of forcing submission, such as threatening physical punishment or forced medication may seem quite reasonable.

Why is submission a terrible goal in raising children? Isn't submission to authority absolutely required to achieve success and stay out of jail?

And once a person is an adult, physical abuse (police beatings, confinement with criminals, disgusting (http://www.npr.org/programs/wesat/features/2002/apr/loaf/)) is the normal way rebellion is treated. And it seems to work. Most people avoid harming their neighbors and pay their taxes.