Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health

[stevevw]

Yes; but my point is that the only useful thing for that purpose is the content of the beliefs. Not whether or not they are rational.

But how do we determine the belief underpins abuse and violence before its enacted. How do we know that belief will lead to abuse and violence or not. If the content of the belief itself is what are measuring how can we determine whether that content will cultivate abuse and violence before it turns into abusive and violent controlling behaviour.

Untrue. We can identify the beliefs which underpin abuse without needing to make any judgement about their rationality or otherwise.

That seems like an arbitrary determination. If judgements are subjective then that is not a good basis as its more or less using subjective beliefs to measure subjective beliefs.

No; but we can say that belief in hierarchies is one of a cluster of beliefs which underpin abuse. On its own it might only be a red flag; along with acceptance of violence, dynamics of control and rigid roles, that would be much more of a concern.

But that same hierarchy on its own may be a green flag, a positive and healthy setup for society. You can't automatically say that they are a red flag. Thats like saying marriage is a red flag for abuse, business partnership or any relationship is a red flag for abuse.

Well, no. That's not really the point. We can look at the pattern; if many abusers all give justifications along the same lines, and we do not observe those beliefs in those who do not abuse, we start to see where the beliefs which underpin abuse are.

So therefore you are identifying particular patterns of thinking and beliefs that abusers have for which non abusers don't have right. In doing so we are also identifying these patterns as unjustified because they are destructful based on the facts that abuse causes harm.

Therefore we can say these patterns of thinking and beliefs are irrational and unreal to hold, to engage in compared to non abusers and we should find ways to discourage such patterns of thinking and beliefs by helping abusers to change their cognitions, beliefs and attitudes to more positive ones like non abusers.

We can't say a pattern of thinking and belief is unjustified unless we can have a rational basis to compare with ie (x) thinking and belief patterns are normal and healthy parenting compared to (y) thinking patterns and beliefs are unhealthy and destructive parenting. Which then has to be based on objective facts and not belief itself. That can only happen with some clinical or objective determination.

Well, yes. We do the research with known abusers, so that we can then apply what we know to others.

So in doing this research do we find certain thinking patterns and mindsets that abusers and violent people have in common. Are there certain profiles we can develop on which type of coignitions and psychological states would be more open and supceptible to holding such beliefs.

Actually, what I was trying to say is that you cannot automatically characterise them as irrational.

Why not. If they are by definition engaging in abusive behaviour and we can objectively say so then if they truely believe that their behaviour is good for the child, good for themselves and the world then we can prove that their thinking and beliefs are unreal. Just the same as if someone said that eating rat poison is good for you.

If they truely believe that rat posion is good for you when its factually not then there is something wrong with their mindset. The world they have created in their head that says that eating rat poison of destroying their child is healthy is unreal in light of the clear objective fact its not.

This will be the case for every abuser or every person that thinks and believes such counter factual ideas. That is the basis we use to try and eliminate this type of thinking and beliefs out of society.

I have been saying, over and over, that "rational" is not the same as right, and "irrational" is not the same as wrong.

And I have been saying over and over that when it comes to human wellbeing and health like every other objective measure of health and wellbeing we have scientific, rational and objective facts, data that shows that this thinking and behaviour is destructive to human wellbeing and health.

On that basis if someone claims that their destructive beliefs and behaviours are healthy and good for a child or any persons wellbeing and health we can confidently say that this is an unreal and irrational conclusion and behaviour. Just like we can say sticking a needle in your arm with dugs is self destructive or eating too much fatty foods is destructive for your health.

Not at all. We only need to demonstrate that particular beliefs underpin abuse.

But how do you tell it underpins abuse when that belief has yet to be identified as underpinning abuse before it has been acted out. Like with any new beliefs people may hold today that may underpin abuse.

The other problem is that even when we identify beliefs that underpin abuse we still don't change them and even promote them because of belief itself.

Because these issues are about how we should be as parents, individuals and order society its often one ideological belief against another. How do we work out which belief is best and will not lead to abuse when people will believe in abusive ideas and are blind to seeing that they are destructful.

We have that evidence. That work has been done. We know what those beliefs and attitudes are. This is very well established.

I'm not talking about obvious ones we now know due to the abuse they underpin. I am talking about identifying future beliefs, current beliefs and attitudes in society that may be underpinning and cultivating abuse and violence in the future.

We need some factual basis that identifes the type of mindset and patterns in cognition itself and not based on subjective judgements. Because those subjective judgements may themselves be beliefs underpinning abuse in the future.

But they are not measuring likelihood to abuse. Because abuse is not driven by what they are measuring.

Why would a parental belief scale not measure parent beliefs about abuse. As you said there are certain patterns of thinking and believing that abusers have than non abusers don't have. I suggest it is their differences that we can identify which determine the thinking and beliefs behind abuse for which these scales measure.

Yes, but not in the way that you are claiming. Only in that an abuser holds a cluster of beliefs that non-abusers do not.

So is there any different cognitions or psyche associated with this cluster of beliefs that is different to non abusers as well.

Systemic oppression is an issue, but it is not what we are discussing in this thread.

Why is it not up for discussion. Isn't it related. Doesn't it contribute to cultivating abuse and violence generally. If oppressive systems create downtrodden communities and downtrodden communities have the highest rates of abuse and violence it makes sense that reducing downtrodden communities will lead to reductions in abuse and violence.

I think, though, that it takes away our focus from the immediate problem. Sure, we can talk about ideologies of power and control and hierarchy more generally, but we don't even have a basic shared understanding of these as the problem which drive the very particular problem of abuse in the household. We need to build that first.

But I think these discussions are the very thing that brings the understanding of what drives abuse in households. We can focus on the immediate issue of abuse happening in households but thats always playing catchup in that we are responding after the abuse.

To prevent abuse happening in the first place we need to clarify exactly which ideas and beliefs upstream lead to abuse in households. Like I said the upstream belief that say allowing people to be downtrodden in society as acceptible or promoting violence in the media may be part of why abuse and violence is cultivated.

No sense picking out certain beliefs as bad when at the same time allowing other beliefs that will undermine any work on trying to change peoples beliefs and behaviour. It send a mixed and conflicting message. We have to be consistent and unified.

We could relax the restriction and see if harm results. No harm; no need for the restriction.

That seems a strange way to determine abuse. It seems experimental like lab rats. We will try an untested experiment that may harm people but when it does we will know that its not good. In the mean time the harm done is just an unfortunate side effect of our testing methods.

I suggest we can do better than that and by using other testing methods like identifying the types of cognitions that always lead to irrational beliefs of some sort is better. At least we have a identifiable pattern to use as a basis.

We can then use other factors to build a better identification of high risk mindsets and behaviours upstream that will lead to abusive and violent behaviour. We can predict such behaviour in society and put preventative measures in place which will not only prevent abusive and violent behaviour but other destructive and anti social behaviour.

Oh thats right we already do that and it works. Its called the etiological appraoch to social health and wellbeing. But you seem to think abuse is somehow immune to this approach when it works for every other abusive and destructive behaviour.

A scam is not a good thing, but it is not the same as coercion.

Scam, manipulations coersion they are all employed to sucker people in. Manipulation markets, pressurising doctors, offering incentives to push one treatment over others is a form of coersion. Its just using legal but unethical manipulations that are available within the same system.

The end result is people are not given free choice as to what may be best but their free choice is being limited to certain options pushed by a system that may not care about what is best for you bit what is best for them. Most people are ignorant to this and just go along like sheep thinking the system has their best interests when it doesn't.

Free choice is only as good as the choices you are given. Like in politics we have a free choice to vote for whichever party we want. But that is useless when all choices are no good.

 

[Paidiske]

But how do we determine the belief underpins abuse and violence before its enacted.

We look at the patterns. We have done this work with statistically significant cohorts of abusers. We know which beliefs drive their abuse. So when we see those beliefs in people who have not abused yet, we can be confident that they are a risk. And we can work to challenge these beliefs in society, so that people don't form them to the same degree.

That seems like an arbitrary determination. If judgements are subjective then that is not a good basis as its more or less using subjective beliefs to measure subjective beliefs.

Value judgements are subjective; but this is not a value judgement. It's a measurement of an objective reality; people who hold this cluster of beliefs are much more likely to abuse.

But that same hierarchy on its own may be a green flag, a positive and healthy setup for society.

We are not talking about any particular hierarchy. We are talking about holding a belief that relationships should be hierarchically ordered. A value of hierarchy as the best or only right way to order human relationships, including in the household.

So therefore you are identifying particular patterns of thinking and beliefs that abusers have for which non abusers don't have right. In doing so we are also identifying these patterns as unjustified because they are destructful based on the facts that abuse causes harm.

I'm not making any judgement about whether a particular cluster of beliefs is justified. I see that as largely irrelevant.

Therefore we can say these patterns of thinking and beliefs are irrational and unreal to hold, to engage in compared to non abusers and we should find ways to discourage such patterns of thinking and beliefs by helping abusers to change their cognitions, beliefs and attitudes to more positive ones like non abusers.

From my point of view, it's much more simple. These patterns of thinking and belief lead to abuse. We can discourage them on that basis, and sidestep the whole question of whether they are irrational or "unreal." Even if they were rational and "real," they would still be leading to abuse, and would still need to be challenged.

So in doing this research do we find certain thinking patterns and mindsets that abusers and violent people have in common. Are there certain profiles we can develop on which type of coignitions and psychological states would be more open and supceptible to holding such beliefs.

No; there is no profile of cognition or psychological state which leads to abuse. Abuse happens in people with the full range of psychological states. What abusers have in common is a particular cluster of beliefs; there's no more to it than that.

Why not. If they are by definition engaging in abusive behaviour and we can objectively say so then if they truely believe that their behaviour is good for the child, good for themselves and the world then we can prove that their thinking and beliefs are unreal.

You might think so, but it can be perfectly rational from within their own perspective. And really, the whole thing about irrationality is largely besides the point.

That is the basis we use to try and eliminate this type of thinking and beliefs out of society.

You don't need any more basis than, "This cluster of beliefs underpins abuse."

The other problem is that even when we identify beliefs that underpin abuse we still don't change them and even promote them because of belief itself.

I don't know what you mean by this.

How do we work out which belief is best and will not lead to abuse when people will believe in abusive ideas and are blind to seeing that they are destructful.

You keep repeating this kind of question as if this work hasn't been done. But it has been. We know which beliefs underpin abuse.

I am talking about identifying future beliefs, current beliefs and attitudes in society that may be underpinning and cultivating abuse and violence in the future.

How do we identify beliefs which are not currently held, but which, if they come to be held in the future, might lead to abuse?

That's so far off in hypothetical la-la land that it's irrelevant. Let's deal with the known problems now. That's enough to be going on with.

Why would a parental belief scale not measure parent beliefs about abuse.

It only measures what it's designed to measure. It measures very specific traits. Those traits are mostly not related to the attitudes which underpin abuse.

You might argue that's poor design, or maybe our understanding of abuse has advanced since these measures were developed, whatever. The simple fact is that these scales don't measure the attitudes which underpin abuse. Making claims about "irrational thinking" based on scores on these scales, therefore, is only tangentially relevant to someone's risk of abusing.

So is there any different cognitions or psyche associated with this cluster of beliefs that is different to non abusers as well.

No. You're chasing a mirage, there.

Why is it not up for discussion. Isn't it related.

Largely because I am very tired of you dragging this thread off topic and distracting from the very real issues this thread was seeking to address. We are dealing with the physical abuse of children. Not every injustice under the sun.

But I think these discussions are the very thing that brings the understanding of what drives abuse in households. We can focus on the immediate issue of abuse happening in households but thats always playing catchup in that we are responding after the abuse.

No; we can work on primary prevention of abuse. But in order to do that, we need to stay focussed on that issue, not every other vaguely related thing.

That seems a strange way to determine abuse. It seems experimental like lab rats. We will try an untested experiment that may harm people but when it does we will know that its not good. In the mean time the harm done is just an unfortunate side effect of our testing methods.

I think perhaps you have misunderstood me. I am not arguing for abuse. I am arguing that, in deciding whether a particular instance of control of one person by another is necessary, we can relax that control and see whether any harm results.

For example, take a workplace's rules about when and how leave may be taken (which just happens to be top of mind for me this week). Are those rules necessary? If we relax them to some degree, does it cause any problems? If yes, tighten them up again. If no, leave them relaxed.

 

[stevevw]

I think the issue comes from inconsistency - rather than the smacking itself.

Parents need to be consistent and disciplined about when and how they discipline.

If a kid always knows when they are going to get smacked - it helps correct their behavior.

I think its not so much that smacking happens or happens that much at all. But rather the possibility which represents a clear boundary for which the child respects and knows there are consequences for bad behaviour. It should be part of a holistic range of parenting which includes communication and setting an example.

Thats why I think parents need to reflect on their own thinking and behaviour and get that right first. Get educated, understand basic child development but most importantly to be emotionally mature and manage self and acknowledge that parenting is a big challenge and support networks are vital.

 

[stevevw]

We look at the patterns. We have done this work with statistically significant cohorts of abusers. We know which beliefs drive their abuse.

We don't know which beliefs drive abuse because there are beliefs that drive abuse happening today in society and they are either not being recognised through ignorance or they are being overlooked due to ideological beliefs themselves.

So when we see those beliefs in people who have not abused yet, we can be confident that they are a risk. And we can work to challenge these beliefs in society, so that people don't form them to the same degree.

But we don't recognise them. Thats the point.

Value judgements are subjective; but this is not a value judgement. It's a measurement of an objective reality; people who hold this cluster of beliefs are much more likely to abuse.

I am not talking about beliefs that have already been shown to underpin abuse. I am talking about new beliefs that underpin abuse that may be different to the ones you are talking about.

The other problem I see is that even the cluster of beliefs you say underpin abuse can be subjectively determined based on an ideological assumption and belief about how we should order society to achieve the equality and abuse free society.

One person may see certain situations that create inequality and control as normal and natural while the other sees it as abusive and controlling. I gave the example of language, words and how some believe certain words are abusive and violence while others see them as reflecting objective reality.

Yet it seems ideologues will push the subjective realities over the objective realities as the right kind of beliefs society should have. If objective reality is what we should measure what is right and good as far as who we are and how we get along then the subjective ideologies should be rejected. And yet we find modern society promoting these subjective ideas as how we should measure ourselves and order society.

So far this ideology has caused more division, abuse and violence rather than equality and no abuse and violence. So despite the simplistic idea that we can tell which beliefs underpin abuse, we can't always do that and sometimes its belief itself, a new belief which cultivates abuse just like in the past in how those beliefs were cultivated and society thought they were good its happening again and again and happening right now.

 

[Paidiske]

We don't know which beliefs drive abuse because there are beliefs that drive abuse happening today in society and they are either not being recognised through ignorance or they are being overlooked due to ideological beliefs themselves.

Where is your evidence for this?

And note, I am not going to accept arguments about red-herring issues like medical care for minors with gender dysphoria. Your evidence, if you want any response to it, had better be relevant to the kind of abuse that is the topic of this thread.

The other problem I see is that even the cluster of beliefs you say underpin abuse can be subjectively determined based on an ideological assumption and belief about how we should order society to achieve the equality and abuse free society.

It is not "subjectively determined." It has been shown through clear, robust, repeated research.

As to the rest of your post, it seems to me that you are not really interested in the topic of this thread, only in using it as a springboard for your own ideological hobby horses.

 

[stevevw]

We are not talking about any particular hierarchy. We are talking about holding a belief that relationships should be hierarchically ordered. A value of hierarchy as the best or only right way to order human relationships, including in the household.

But that is not an abusive belief on its own. As I have already shown hierarchies are natural and efficent ways ort organising society, organisations, institutions like law and order. We naturally rank people by their competence, the benefits they provide or the imcompetence and problems they cause.

So assuming a inherent abusive control to these hierarchies is not only not a fact but is damaging to those good and normal systems which are also hard wired into our cognition.

I'm not making any judgement about whether a particular cluster of beliefs is justified. I see that as largely irrelevant.

But are you saying that the particular cluster of beliefs you keep mentioning underpin abuse. That is making a value judgement. In fact you have also implied that believing in hierarchies itself underpins abuse.

From my point of view, it's much more simple. These patterns of thinking and belief lead to abuse. We can discourage them on that basis, and sidestep the whole question of whether they are irrational or "unreal." Even if they were rational and "real," they would still be leading to abuse, and would still need to be challenged.

Perhaps thats why this approach gets it wrong so often as it assumes abuse where theres none. By taking the simplistic view it misses important understandings associated with cognition, emotion and psyche. The more aspects that can be identified with abusive and violent controlling beliefs the better we can identify the upstream thinking and psyche that leads to such beliefs.

No; there is no profile of cognition or psychological state which leads to abuse. Abuse happens in people with the full range of psychological states. What abusers have in common is a particular cluster of beliefs; there's no more to it than that.

I disagree and I have provided ample evidence for this.

But even common sense shows you are wrong. Belief is linked to cognition, emotion and psyche so these aspects have to be involved and also different to non abusers.

As you agreed abusers have different thinking patterns to non abusers and we can show we science that they have unreal perceptions of their child and the world. You cannot have unreal expectations and perceptions without cognition and emotion.

You might think so, but it can be perfectly rational from within their own perspective. And really, the whole thing about irrationality is largely besides the point.

I think its very much the point. You even acknowledge when you keep saying " it can be perfectly rational from within their own perspective" rather than 'perfectly rational from outside their perspective' for which we should be determining whats real or not.

Yes we know people can truely believe what goes on in the isolated minds from outside reality. But we also know that the worlds people create in their subjective heads can be totally detached from reality if they don't test those beliefs in the real world.

You don't need any more basis than, "This cluster of beliefs underpins abuse."

You do if you don't want to accuse people falsely of holding abusive beliefs.

I don't know what you mean by this.

This basically means that just like society has promoted upstream beliefs and ideas that led to abuse in the past. Society is promoting upstream beliefs that promote abuse today. The simple fact that society can create new beliefs or apply the old abusive beliefs to new situations in society and that belief blinds people from seeing the truth we can promote new ways of underpinning abusive beliefs which in fact we are doing today.

You keep repeating this kind of question as if this work hasn't been done. But it has been. We know which beliefs underpin abuse.

Like I said, no we don't because there are beliefs being promoted that are not being recognised or acknowledged due to ideological beliefs. You can't use beliefs to determine how we should deal with abuse and violence in society. You need some basis.

How do we identify beliefs which are not currently held, but which, if they come to be held in the future, might lead to abuse?
That's so far off in hypothetical la-la land that it's irrelevant. Let's deal with the known problems now. That's enough to be going on with.

You missed what I said. I said how do we identify current beliefs that may underpin abuse and violence but have not yet led to abuse and violence or may have already led to abuse and violence but are not being acknowledged due to belief itself. If belief allows society to make abuse acceptable and they are blind to the reality of what harm the beliefs are causing.

How do we know that very same situation is not happening now. Those who claim they know the truth about how we should order society to prevent abuse may be basing this truth on their own ideological belief. So just like in the past society is blind or denying the truth due to an ideological belief.

Perhaps an example is needed. Without going into detail most of the basis for equality laws and policies is based on DEI ideology. This ideology is promoted as a way to combate abuse and to equalise society. But this ideology actually causes division, abuse and violence. But the ideologues in charge truely believe its good, its the best and only way we should order society and people. This is a modern example of a new belief that is becoming a society norm which actually cultivates abuse and violence.

It only measures what it's designed to measure. It measures very specific traits. Those traits are mostly not related to the attitudes which underpin abuse.

Its designed to measure parents beliefs and attitudes towards child rearing. I would have thought abusive beliefs and attitudes was a central belief in that regard.

Out of all the parental belief scales I have never seen one that specifically breaks down and measures hierarchies connected to abuse and violent parenting. So whatever thisw scale is it doesn't seem to exist. I've seen measures that include the wider societal factors such as social norms and attitudes and cultural and religious factors.

They may mention that abuse can happen in social hierarchies as part of social norms. But nothing that specifically breaks down which hierarchies exactly cause abuse or explaining how hierarhies can be both abusive or healthy. The go to measures for rational and irrational beliefs is the clinical scales just like we use for other beliefs associated with other human destructive or antisocial behaviour.

You might argue that's poor design, or maybe our understanding of abuse has advanced since these measures were developed, whatever. The simple fact is that these scales don't measure the attitudes which underpin abuse. Making claims about "irrational thinking" based on scores on these scales, therefore, is only tangentially relevant to someone's risk of abusing.

Actually the belief scales measure both rational and irrational beliefs. So its not only identifying the negative beliefs that underpin abusive, antisocial and destructive behaviour but also the positive beliefs and the healthy cognitions associated.

Thats why its comprehensive and more importantly a factual basis rather than some subjective idea that has no basis and will misjudge abuse and accuse innocent people and social settings as abusive when they are not.

No. You're chasing a mirage, there.

So you know more than professionals in psychology and cognition. The fact is belief in entangled with cognitions, emotions and feelings. I provided this evdience. You cannot have a belief without the cognitions, emotions and perceptions that underpin that belief.

For example a belief that there is a ghost under the bed. You can''t have that belief unless the person has a fear of the dark or some other perception that sees ghosts as real. So the mind is percieving the possibility of ghoses and the emotion is fear, perhaps anxiety. But a sudden belief in scary ghosts doesn't come out of the blue.

If this same thing happened to someone who did not have that disposition to believe in scary ghosts they would be saying its just make believe and not real. They would not have a picture in their mind that there are scary ghosts in the world. All belief works this way. You have to first paint the picture in your head as to what the world is like and then you base beliefs on this. Its not the other way around.

Largely because I am very tired of you dragging this thread off topic and distracting from the very real issues this thread was seeking to address. We are dealing with the physical abuse of children. Not every injustice under the sun.

Perhaps this is the problem that you limit our understand to a very narrow view which stops us from fully understanding why people abuse and become violent.

I keep going back to the basic principle which applies to all human behaviour. The only way we can understand this is through a multifaceted level based on the individual, family, community and wider societal determinants. This approached is used for all human behaviour and works because its holistic. Any approach that is not holistic should be viewd with caustion and skepticism.

The simple fact that your approach wants to narrow and simply things is the problem without even discussing the details. The approach is wrong in the first place and seems more an ideology than factual.

No; we can work on primary prevention of abuse. But in order to do that, we need to stay focussed on that issue, not every other vaguely related thing.

I disagree. As I also said these levels of influence, individual, family, community and wider society are entangled. They cannot be seperated and if you do you are more or less seperating out important factors that help explain and understand the problem in the first place to then make your preventative approach on. If you leave them out then your approach will be misguided and cause more problems.

I think perhaps you have misunderstood me. I am not arguing for abuse. I am arguing that, in deciding whether a particular instance of control of one person by another is necessary, we can relax that control and see whether any harm results.

I don't even know how this could be done or that its necessary to do. We can just investigate our current systems, ensure they have checks and balances rather than relaxing them. We can come to understand how humans work, how certain situations in society can be more conducive of promoting abusive control and go from there.

We are not dummies and are pretty advances in our behavioural sciences. We can diagnose and predict other behaviours and we get this pretty right. So we just need some factual basis to use which we pretty well know to go by.

But this can be hard because of the nature of belief. Two different people can see the same situation differently like I said. One sees words as abuse and the other doesn't. Sometimes even our so called protectors promote abuse believing its the right thing to do. We have to have some independent grounding otherwise theres no way to tell.

For example, take a workplace's rules about when and how leave may be taken (which just happens to be top of mind for me this week). Are those rules necessary? If we relax them to some degree, does it cause any problems? If yes, tighten them up again. If no, leave them relaxed.

I think there already pretty relaxed. Its also a case by case basis. Some industries don't have as much flexibility as others. Its not so simple as a unified relaxing.

But heres the thing, what if the problem of leave, of having enough time to spend with family and down time is the problem itself. That work has become so dominant that calling for more relaxing of time away from work may be a cry that we are overloaded and that modern society puts too many demands on people, on families.

So the belief that we must work, work, work, to buy the house, to get the stuff, to keep up and conform which seems to be and ever increasing expectation may be the root problem.

This is an example of a belief that society may think is good, is necessary due to how we have been conditioned to base happiness on things and yet its being pushed onto society as something good. An unreal expectation that is causing people, families and society to breakdown.

 

[Paidiske]

But that is not an abusive belief on its own.

No; as I have pointed out again and again and again on this thread, it is a cluster of beliefs which underpin abuse. This is one belief in that cluster.

As I have already shown hierarchies are natural and efficent ways ort organising society, organisations, institutions like law and order. We naturally rank people by their competence, the benefits they provide or the imcompetence and problems they cause.

Which has nothing to do with healthy power dynamics in a household.

But are you saying that the particular cluster of beliefs you keep mentioning underpin abuse. That is making a value judgement.

No; it is not making a value judgement. It is making a statement of fact.

Perhaps thats why this approach gets it wrong so often as it assumes abuse where theres none.

What on earth are you talking about?

I disagree and I have provided ample evidence for this.

No, you haven't.

You do if you don't want to accuse people falsely of holding abusive beliefs.

It's not a matter of accusation. It's a matter of recognising where we still, as a society, have work to do.

You missed what I said. I said how do we identify current beliefs that may underpin abuse and violence but have not yet led to abuse and violence or may have already led to abuse and violence but are not being acknowledged due to belief itself.

And I'm saying, let's work on the beliefs which we currently know underpin abuse. All this other hypothetical stuff about possible future beliefs is just a distraction from the work that needs doing now.

Those who claim they know the truth about how we should order society to prevent abuse may be basing this truth on their own ideological belief.

No, they're basing it on what we've learned about the beliefs abusers use to justify their abuse.

Perhaps an example is needed. Without going into detail most of the basis for equality laws and policies is based on DEI ideology. This ideology is promoted as a way to combate abuse and to equalise society. But this ideology actually causes division, abuse and violence. But the ideologues in charge truely believe its good, its the best and only way we should order society and people. This is a modern example of a new belief that is becoming a society norm which actually cultivates abuse and violence.

Your example is so vague I have no real idea what you're talking about. I suspect I would deeply disagree that attempts to promote equality are actually causing abuse. Either way, I'm fairly sure it's completely off topic, because we are concerned here with abuse within households, and that has nothing to do with DEI ideology.

Its designed to measure parents beliefs and attitudes towards child rearing. I would have thought abusive beliefs and attitudes was a central belief in that regard.

It actually measures very specific traits; demandingness, awfulising, downing, etc. Those are (with the possible exception of demandingness) not the attitudes which drive abuse.

So its not only identifying the negative beliefs that underpin abusive, antisocial and destructive behaviour but also the positive beliefs and the healthy cognitions associated.

But it is not measuring the attitudes and beliefs that underpin abuse!

So you know more than professionals in psychology and cognition.

I am only telling you what is the common understanding in the primary prevention field, and what I have seen reflected in the academic literature.

You cannot have a belief without the cognitions, emotions and perceptions that underpin that belief.

But the same belief can be held by people with vastly different cognitions, emotions and perceptions. Or by the same person over time, with very different cognitive, emotional and perceptual states. It is not as simple as all of these things varying together in a stable and predictable way.

I disagree.

(Says the guy who's never worked in primary prevention).

I think there already pretty relaxed.

That would depend entirely on the workplace, wouldn't it?

But heres the thing, what if the problem of leave, of having enough time to spend with family and down time is the problem itself. That work has become so dominant that calling for more relaxing of time away from work may be a cry that we are overloaded and that modern society puts too many demands on people, on families.

I wouldn't even necessarily disagree with this, but it is not the point I was making.

So the belief that we must work, work, work, to buy the house, to get the stuff, that keep up and conform which seems to be increasing all the time is the root problem. This is an example of a belief that society may think is good, is necessary due to how we have been conditioned and yet its being pushed onto society as something good. An unreal expectation that is causing people to breakdown.

And this has absolutely nothing to do with the situation I was referring to. But we are, once again, getting completely off topic.