Spare the rod and get ADD's

[dichotomy]

Attempting to guess what point someone is trying to create, especially from one who is not willing to be forthright, leaves another to surmise. Perhaps it is a game people play for the entertainment value. Rather then surmise, I’ll leave you to your entertainment for someone else to surmise, from there you can entertain one another.

 

I'll try again. The point being – People have made and continue to make observations, form hypotheses, do the experiments and build the evidence needed to form a theory of why ADD/ADHD and the like (loosely labelled disorders) exist and inhibit academic and social performance. Those theories will then be put out to peer review to confirm things. And I believe it is both genetic and environmental. And genes can be turned on at the right age bracket and with the right environmental triggers, like a slap to the head.

 

Social/behavioural experiments are very touchy subjects, think about Nazism, cannibalism; head hunting etc, these cultures really believed it was the right thing to do. Parents who are abusive to kids probably think it’s the right thing to do. It’s pretty simple really. What’s difficult is to change that mistaken belief for our current time and place. And spoiling kids is no good either. The balance is what is difficult to achieve and what we all strive for.

[seven8s]

Rereading my posts I realize that my frustration got the best of me, and that from there my mistakes gathered into a snowball. That was not my intention. I recognize that I may have offended others, and would like to take a moment to offer a sincere apology. I am hoping that it will be received in the same manner that it is extended.

 

Upon careful reflection it occurred to me that in order for that to happen, and to transition from frustration to peace it would be helpful to first acknowledge my mistake, then attempt a correction. I would also like to offer some positive feedback that I have gathered from this community through your postings, and various other threads that I have read over the past few years.

 

I am hoping that it (positive feedback) will be received in the spirit that it is given, from a place of sincerity. I am hoping that you all will be patient and allow me this opportunity to share with you the things that your posts have in many ways taught me.

 

 

 

I spoke off the cuff, as humans often do. I am not different then others, I am the same. There exists within me all of my experiences, both positive and negative. I desire like others to offer that which is good in me, but because of my humanness that is not always possible. When I do not offer my best, and instead may even offer my worst, I recognize that I have hurt another. When I hurt another I have hurt myself.

 

In that human beings have an innate drive toward correction, through the gift that has been given to us through evolution to experience feelings, my feelings ‘kick in’ when I perceive that I have either hurt another, even potentially hurt another, whether purposefully, or unintentionally, or feel that I have been hurt myself. I will feel shame, guilt, and remorse, frustration, even anger. I will experience sorrow, even lose. Those feelings show that I am normal, not abnormal. Those feelings are painful. And since humans seek pleasurable experiences, and flee painful experiences, our innate ability toward correction kicks in through all of our experiences hence feelings.

 

If I can say anything right now it is this; I am human, I am normal, and realistically take comfort in that. As one frequent poster states on this board, I embrace all of myself, all of it, or words to that effect. I didn’t understand that when I first read it, now I do.

 

If there is a gift that science has given us, I have come to learn that this gift is the knowledge of ourselves. Science cannot exist without scientists and so I can not just give recognition to the processes of life such as evolution for who I am. I would also give recognition to the scientists who discerned these very processes, then sought to teach others, who taught me so that I might know. To those teachers I would also give recognition. I would give recognition to all those who have entered my life, including the students, my children. It is amazing what one can learn from their own children.

 

In that I am not sure if the above is sufficient to correct some of the mistakes in my previous posts I would like to add the following, and would ask again your patience.

 

 

From a link offered by Dichotomy (I think), in regards to how our environment affects our genes, turning them on or off according to our environment I found other studies that spoke of the same subject, from different perspectives.

 

One study dealt with the subject of environment and genes through supportive intervention into the environments of mothers and children. The study established additional support to the mothers (adult/teacher) first, which enabled the natural bonding that occurs between mother and child to produce maximum effect, over a given period of time. The children’s IQ increased. Iow’s, the child was in reality the secondary, not primary target/benefactor of the study, or so it appears to me. I believe that the benefactor pool can be broadened to extended family members, and society as well.

 

I noted this study because of it’s supportive intervention to the mother first, hoping to draw a parallel about the needs of adults, whether parent or teacher, male or female because adults are both, and most stressed. They are the primary intervention in the development of children, an idea that I had not thought of before, because I did not have the knowledge to think so. Like other mothers, my maternal instincts kick in, and I think of children first. While instincts enable the survival of species those same instincts must be understood, tempered, and redistributed for the survival of the whole. A parent or teacher depleted is of little use to children.

 

I am not suggesting that we ignore children, especially young teenagers, but that we don’t ignore ourselves either.

 

If I can draw a parallel from that study, this is the parallel I can draw: I can duplicate those results by adding additional, more helpful, healthful supportive additions to my life.

 

I don’t have to wait for someone else’s support, nor for their permission, I can give that to myself through a variety of endeavors. From there I can give that to others, because I am reacting to life, and it’s challenges from a place of well being. Iow’s, I don’t have to be selfish, in the traditional sense of the word, but I do need to be mindful of the self, myself; it’s needs, it’s, abilities, processes, purpose, rewards, challenges.

 

From here, I will thank you for your time.

 

Dichotomy, I did not realize that you had posted to the board. I read your post, and thank you for being more forthright. I will consider what you wrote, and if I think I have something of value to add, will post that addition. I don’t disagree with what you wrote.

[dichotomy]

One study dealt with the subject of environment and genes through supportive intervention into the environments of mothers and children. The study established additional support to the mothers (adult/teacher) first, which enabled the natural bonding that occurs between mother and child to produce maximum effect, over a given period of time. The children’s IQ increased. Iow’s, the child was in reality the secondary, not primary target/benefactor of the study, or so it appears to me. I believe that the benefactor pool can be broadened to extended family members, and society as well.

 

Sounds interesting. Can you provide a link to this study?

 

This, i think, is related. I recently read this and found it very interesting, although it produced quite a few more questions as per usual, for me.

 

Unlock the Genius Within: Neurobiological Trauma, Teaching, and Transformative Learning

By Daniel S. Janik

Published by Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2005

 

 

 

Dichotomy, I did not realize that you had posted to the board. I read your post, and thank you for being more forthright. I will consider what you wrote, and if I think I have something of value to add, will post that addition. I don’t disagree with what you wrote.

 

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me when I offer no substantial evidence. This just drives me to get off my lazy butt and attempt to find that evidence . I always think the real danger is in communicating with yes men on one hand, and narrow thinkers on the other. Science is only the best available explanation for things that we have, explanations can be refined and changed with new evidence. I have my own experiences of human behaviour and others scientific studies to help form my best understanding of things; until better evidence comes along.

[visceral]

The problem with physical punishment of the young is that the young think that this is the way to solve their own problems in life.

As for soft forms of punishment (time-out) having a co-relation to the rise in ADD? I think you might want to firstly look at the rise in the eagerness of clinicians to diagnose what constitutes ADD firstly. The hot headed kids of yesterday would probably be classified as ADD today.

 

 

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-24076787_ITM

 

"Predictors of aggression across three generations among sons of alcoholics: relationships involving grandparental and parental alcoholism, child aggression, marital aggression and parenting practices"

 

Agreed. I actually have a lot of the effects of ADD/ADHD, but I know I don't actually have either of those, I'm just still not yet mature. Modern life is way too narrow-minded. Anyone outside a certain norm seems to get diagnosed with a disorder.

[dr.syntax]

nothing to say here

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

the stick,the hand,the fist,the whip,etc..? Consider that when suggesting defenseless children should be subjected to such abuse for any reason. How would you react ? Cower in the face of your tormentor and hate them ? This is no way to treat children. There is an online article/book that deals with seemingly unjustified anger pain and fear in children.. I will have to come back here with that link. ...ds

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

that will actually help those children at : [ http://primal-page.com/solter3.htm ]. ...DS

Edited August 29, 2009 by dr.syntax
I am not sure who I am Responding to

[dr.syntax]

Pioneer, as far as I can see you are proposing to punish (some) children for something for which they are not responsible. To me that's just plain wrong and it doesn't matter if their condition is due to nurture or nature.

Once you have a group that can be identified as "in need of a good hiding" then either you have brought them up badly, thereby training them that way; or they are born that way.

Smacking them for your failings or their genetic bad luck seems no better than just hitting unruly children because they make you angry- at least you can blame instinct for that.

 

There is a book out that deals with these issues. It is titled :Tears and Tantrums: What to do when babies cry. By Dr.Aletha J. Solter. " In spite of hardships and painful experiences,children can heal themselves from stress and trauma through the natural processes of tears and tantrums..." She has a lot of helpful information at: http://Primal-page.com/solter3.htm . These children need real help and some real answers are provided at that website. ...Dr.Syntax

[Sisyphus]

Just so you know, dr.syntax, this is an old thread. I've noticed you re-open a lot of old ones. This isn't against the rules, but you should be aware that the posters you're responding to probably won't read it or remember the conversation. The date and time of each post is given at the right of the blue bar at the top of each.

 

But as long as it's open, I may as well respond to the notion that it's so much more of a problem than "a generation ago" with an appropriate quote:

 

The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

[myopicdreams]

The problem with physical punishment of the young is that the young think that this is the way to solve their own problems in life.

 

....http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-24076787_ITM

 

"Predictors of aggression across three generations among sons of alcoholics: relationships involving grandparental and parental alcoholism, child aggression, marital aggression and parenting practices"

 

It is clear that our society has come to "agree" that physical punishment teaches violence, but I am not convinced that there is actually any evidence to support this view when physical discipline is used in a non-abusive, age-appropriate, way in the context of a healthy family system.

The evidence I have mostly seen to support this view is extrapolated from studies such as the one referred to in this post. The title of the article explains that this is a study to measure the levels of aggression in sons of alcoholics as measured across three generations with evidence of alcoholism and aggression, and is therefore not necessarily a reliable indicator of how reasonable physical correction impacts the psyche of a child living in a stable and supportive environment.

From what I can tell, taking a historical look at aggression in the USA, at least, corporal punishment used to be "the rule" as our puritanical roots admonished us not to "spare the rod" in case we will "spoil the child," the switch from physical to "other" types of discipline has not made our society less violent and in many cases may have contributed to an increase in violence.

Perhaps the most easily recognizable group with increased incidents of violence is the growing trend of aggressively violent teenage girls. It would be just as questionable to blame the rise of female violence on a lack of corporal punishment as it is to blame corporal punishment for aggressive behavior-- in both cases we are dealing with complex systems of cognition and socialization that are not easily reduced to one such factor.

IMO increases in aggression and violence among young children are multidimensionally caused; increased permissiveness, unclear boundaries for self and others, violent media exposure from young ages, insufficient parenting, attempts to instill unbased "self-esteem" and overly protect children from the natural consequences of their actions, and countless other factors that could play a part in increasing aggression.

On the whole, though, it seems to me that our society has become very much more aggressive during the period since we began to advocate against physical correction. Of course correlation does not equal causation and I would guess that our culture's increasingly relaxed standards of civility and socially acceptable behavior is one of the big things to consider... much moreso, to me, than spankings from a self-controlled and nurturing parent.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The problem with physical punishment of the young is that the young think that this is the way to solve their own problems in life.

 

....http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-24076787_ITM

 

"Predictors of aggression across three generations among sons of alcoholics: relationships involving grandparental and parental alcoholism, child aggression, marital aggression and parenting practices"

 

It is clear that our society has come to "agree" that physical punishment teaches violence, but I am not convinced that there is actually any evidence to support this view when physical discipline is used in a non-abusive, age-appropriate, way in the context of a healthy family system.

The evidence I have mostly seen to support this view is extrapolated from studies such as the one referred to in this post. The title of the article explains that this is a study to measure the levels of aggression in sons of alcoholics as measured across three generations with evidence of alcoholism and aggression, and is therefore not necessarily a reliable indicator of how reasonable physical correction impacts the psyche of a child living in a stable and supportive environment.

From what I can tell, taking a historical look at aggression in the USA, at least, corporal punishment used to be "the rule" as our puritanical roots admonished us not to "spare the rod" in case we will "spoil the child," the switch from physical to "other" types of discipline has not made our society less violent and in many cases may have contributed to an increase in violence.

Perhaps the most easily recognizable group with increased incidents of violence is the growing trend of aggressively violent teenage girls. It would be just as questionable to blame the rise of female violence on a lack of corporal punishment as it is to blame corporal punishment for aggressive behavior-- in both cases we are dealing with complex systems of cognition and socialization that are not easily reduced to one such factor.

IMO increases in aggression and violence among young children are multidimensionally caused; increased permissiveness, unclear boundaries for self and others, violent media exposure from young ages, insufficient parenting, attempts to instill unbased "self-esteem" and overly protect children from the natural consequences of their actions, and countless other factors that could play a part in increasing aggression.

On the whole, though, it seems to me that our society has become very much more aggressive during the period since we began to advocate against physical correction. Of course correlation does not equal causation and I would guess that our culture's increasingly relaxed standards of civility and socially acceptable behavior is one of the big things to consider... much moreso, to me, than spankings from a self-controlled and nurturing parent.

[DrP]

The problem with physical punishment of the young is that the young think that this is the way to solve their own problems in life.

 

Only if they are so thick that they don't understand that they are being punished for something they have done wrong. Most get the idea. We did, because we arn't stupid.

 

 

 

EDIT: Sorry! I came into this thread without reading half of it - I missed page 2. Comment still stands though.

Edited March 30, 2010 by DrP

[pioneer]

Spanking can be effective, for teaching cause and effect, to children with an attention span of a puppy. But it only works, if it is based on consistent cause and effect, and not the whimsical irrationality of an adult. The latter is what gives spanking a bad reputation. Some adults do it for themselves. When done properly cause and effect is taught in 1-2 seconds, which is the attention span of a puppy. With ADD, attention is short, by definition.

 

With a lecture, cause and effect is stretched out beyond 1-2 seconds. The longer the lecture is drawn out, the less one has full attention of a puppy. This can cause the adult to become frustrated and irrational, talking to a fidgeting wall, making it harder to teach cause and effect. One starts to teach irrationality to the distracted irrational. Many parents pawn off the duty to teachers and/or medication since they hit this wall.

 

A time out, takes the adult out of the picture and depends on the puppy to figure out cause and effect for themselves. This is more for the adult to help them avoid having to deal with the rod, or a lecture, to a wall. It is the TV of the punishment world, so they ignore the problem and hope he out grows it on his own.

 

Let me give an example of a real world spanking based on cause and effect. The candle flame is hot and can burn you. This is a law of reality, based on cause and effect. Once the child touches the flame, he immediately gets spanked by the flame. The flame is not being mean. This is cause and effect within reality. Even with the attention span of a puppy, a puppy will learn a lesson in cause and effect. The faster they feel pain from the flame; sensitivity, the quicker they avoid it in the future, the less danger to them and the less permanent scar damage.

 

Very few children are mentally scarred for life, hating all candles, after quickly learning cause and effect. Those who don't learn, are more likely to scale up until they get permanently scarred.

 

Next, we will take away the immediate cause and effect lesson of the flame. Fire is hot, period. So we will need to do this by removing nerves in the hand, making the child insensitive. This allows the puppy to place his hand in the fire many times, so we can talk about it. We deaden him to the natural cause and effect by avoiding natural pain of fire. Although he may feel less pain, the final damage to his skin is more pronounced.

 

The last way is to also remove the cause and effect of the natural nerves, via surgery. After each singe of the hand, with little pain, we place him in his room and tell him to figure it out.

[DrP]

This is pathetic! Police hurt at clothing sale. : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8601387.stm

 

In any other country the police would just get the baseball bats out and the croud would run in fear. Over here the divs in the crowd arn't scared at all - they are just taking the piss and laughing because they know that the police can't doing anything without getting done for brutality. Too much political correctness - no need for arrests here - just hurt the offenders with a few whacks arounds the legs with the battons - they wouldn't take the piss out of the cops again and everyone else would run out of fear of it happening to them.

 

Stuff like this happens because ther is no/little discipline anymore. It starts during childhood.