Originally posted by King Kandy
OMG! HOW HORRIBLE!No not really.
While they do phrase it as "risk", nobody is out there saying BDSM is bad. Premarital unprotected sex and coercing people to have sex, which were also mentioned in the article, are problems however. That masochism, sexually violent behaviour, and unsafe sexual practices could be rooted in spanking is interesting though, as it would seem to indicate a connection between these behaviours, though some stuff I've seen on masochism seems to indicate, much like you said, there is nothing psychologically wrong with it.
The studies looked at in the meta analysis which the press release that this news article is based on was released for would probably not have dealt with any of the moral aspects just the correlation.
After thinking about this a bit, I see only one brilliantly glaring problem with the results, at least as they are reported in the article:
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
FA meta-analysis of spanking studies conducted by Gershoff found 93 percent agreement among studies that spanking can lead to such problems as delinquent and anti-social behavior in childhood along with aggression, criminal and anti-social behavior and spousal or child abuse as an adult."There's probably nothing else in child development that has 93 percent agreement in results," Straus said.
The big problem is, what is "agreement"? My assumption is that it is not a correlation, but a misinterpretation made by the reporter (this happens constantly in science). The reason I, and I ran this by my stats prof, believe this cannot be a real correlation is, as Straus puts it, nothing has a correlation of .93. I don't just mean in development, but in all human behaviour. It is such a high number to get for this type of thing that it almost certainly, were the 93% referring to a correlation, is due to methodological error. Again though, my contention is that the number does not refer to a correlation, and thus is not a problem with methods.
However, there is a second problem. If it does refer to a correlation of .93, not enough data is given, at least in the article, to make any real conclusions. There is no null hypothesis given, and no idea of how prevalent these behaviours are without spanking (actually, they do talk about hitting the spouse, which I missed the first time through). There could be a correlation of .90 or even .95 between not spanking and these same behaviours, the former making the .93 result explainable by chance alone or possibly even insignificant, the latter showing a preventative effect for spanking.
I don't believe that there is a correlation of .90 or .95 for not spanking a child and risky sexual behaviour however, and I am sure if this were based on a published article and not a presentation, meaning it were possible to look up the meta analysis, everything I have mentioned would be made abundantly clear (re: journalists are not scientists and have no idea how to report it, or are motivated to report it in such a sensational way that will sell their media).
Originally posted by inimalist
again, such powerful arguments from the detractorshow ever will this study stand the test of peer-review
well arent you mister charming... 😬
these so-called studies are open to massive interpretation, and it just stinks of trying yet again to classify something by finding an easy target...
Originally posted by pr1983
well arent you mister charming... 😬these so-called studies are open to massive interpretation, and it just stinks of trying yet again to classify something by finding an easy target...
oh, so you read a study that has yet to be published?
Were you at the presentation of this thesis?
I'm not interested in charming you, especially when you talk out of your ass
Originally posted by inimalist
oh, so you read a study that has yet to be published?Were you at the presentation of this thesis?
I'm not interested in charming you, especially when you talk out of your ass
again with the charm, you flatter me... 😉
i read the first post just like the rest of us, and i doubt my presence was required at the presentation, as i got the jist of it, from, you know, reading the first post... 😬
that and the point that i do read up on such things, and have first hand experience of physical abuse in a household...
they take a group of people and run their study, i mean, what assurances are given that these people are all as diverse as possible?
and stuff like this:
They found that spanking and other corporal punishment is associated with an increased probability of verbally and physically coercing a dating partner to have sex; risky sex such as premarital sex without using a condom; and masochistic sex such as spanking during sex.
because only the people who've been spanked badly as a child ever do those sorts of things... no offence, but you actually take that seriously?
honestly?
Originally posted by pr1983
again with the charm, you flatter me... 😉i read the first post just like the rest of us, and i doubt my presence was required at the presentation, as i got the jist of it, from, you know, reading the first post... 😬
that and the point that i do read up on such things, and have first hand experience of physical abuse in a household...
they take a group of people and run their study, i mean, what assurances are given that these people are all as diverse as possible?
and stuff like this:
because only the people who've been spanked badly as a child ever do those sorts of things... no offence, but you actually take that seriously?
honestly?
lol, if you look above I made some criticisms too. I'm not supporting or denying the claims because the study is currently unavailable. I hope you keep up with science better than just reading news posts.
saying "this is bullshit" is a terrible argument, and shows ignorance.
Also, science is not adequately portrayed through media outlets. Quite literally, you HAVE to read a study itself to really understand what is going on. The media has the motivations you are talking about, scientists less so.
Things like "I've experienced this" or "you can't believe that" are not good arguments either.
For instance, since you seem to be highly versed in how to read and argue scientific findings, why don't you explain the dangers of meta-analysis, especially focusing on papers written by a single author? thanks, saves me the trouble. Or explaining how the agreement used in the article is a misleading statistic?
great
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, if you look above I made some criticisms too. I'm not supporting or denying the claims because the study is currently unavailable. I hope you keep up with science better than just reading news posts.saying "this is bullshit" is a terrible argument, and shows ignorance.
Also, science is not adequately portrayed through media outlets. Quite literally, you HAVE to read a study itself to really understand what is going on. The media has the motivations you are talking about, scientists less so.
Things like "I've experienced this" or "you can't believe that" are not good arguments either.
For instance, since you seem to be highly versed in how to read and argue scientific findings, why don't you explain the dangers of meta-analysis, especially focusing on papers written by a single author? thanks, saves me the trouble. Or explaining how the agreement used in the article is a misleading statistic?
great
are you always this much of an ass to people?
Originally posted by inimalist
Also, science is not adequately portrayed through media outlets. Quite literally, you HAVE to read a study itself to really understand what is going on. The media has the motivations you are talking about, scientists less so.
I agree. I like to read up on medical studies when interesting new ones are completed, however, some of the wording used in those studies is difficult to make heads or tales of. Even after years of reading these studies, I get lost at what they are actually trying to convey when they are making a point about the data. I can't think of an example right off the top of my head, though.
Originally posted by Devil King
Probally not. It's never happened to me. You'd be suprised how quickly people back down in a face to face situation.
Well, in inimlist's defense, you ARE the Devil King. Not everyone can be as feisty as you are, all the time.
Originally posted by inimalistFor instance, since you seem to be highly versed in how to read and argue scientific findings, why don't you explain the dangers of meta-analysis, especially focusing on papers written by a single author? thanks, saves me the trouble. Or explaining how the agreement used in the article is a misleading statistic?
have a read of this
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124
Psychologists describing something as "sexually deviant"?
I'm aghast.
Also, correlation != causation. If 90% of parents spank kids, then it stands to reason that the majority of "sexual deviants"--heh, it's funny 'cause it's hypocritical--will have been spanked.
If anything, parents should be beating their children until they bleed and then rubbing salt in the wounds.
Originally posted by jaden101
have a read of thishttp://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124
damn, thank you 🙂