That's not the same link!
No, I don't. This is a forum discussion. I am free to participate - or not - in whatever way I choose, within CF's rules.
Which kind of describes how I see a lot of your claims in this thread. Unsubstantiated and poorly supported, and then you seem to take it personally when I find the whole edifice unconvincing.
Well I just checked every post where I linked this. Post #1,430 was the first time, then again in post #1,507, then again in post #1,575, again in post
So what about the epistemic obligation in debates to provide evidence for claims people make or to not misrepresent things. Isn't this an unspoken moral obligation if one chooses to participate in a debate seeking the truth.
lol but you cannot appeal to these epistemic moral obligations of not using personal opinions when you just said your not oblighed to follow them. So using them to point out that I am not adhering to the same obligations is hypocritical.
And yet I am the one supplying the factual evidence and reasoned arguements. You have not done this in our recent exchanges. Only offering personal opinion. Not once have I seen you refute the actual evidence I linked until I made you which shows you were avoiding them. You can't say you properly investigated whether the links were wrong because you did not even look at them.
Not at all. The link I was lookiing at was something about why spanking is harmful.
Again, this is a forum discussion. There is no obligation here at all.
I've provided evidence for my claims. Most of our recent discussion has been me pointing out why the evidence you're presenting isn't establishing your claims.
Can you tell me which link that was as I will correct it. But nevertheless you now you have the correct link 6 times so theres no excuse. Use any one of them to refute that its not talking about physical abuse and linking distress, beliefs in abusive and controlling punishment and physical abuse.
But you just insisted on those obligations by holding me to them in saying I am only offering personal opinion. How do you determine that this is the case unless you are also implicitly supporting those epistemic moral obligations. Otherwise everything you say about my arguement, my evidence, being unsupported and irrelevant fall on personal opinions including yours.
No you have not offered any arguements or evidence. The only thing we have been argueing is about your fallacious claim that those specific articles I mentioned were not speaking about PA.
I'm not going back through your squillions of links now. If you want to make a point about something you linked somewhere, I suggest you include just that one link, and a clear quote of which part of it you think is key to your argument, and make it clear which of your many claims you think this supports. Because it's at the point where your posts are so confusing it's not clear which link you're offering in support of which claim.
Not at all. You can offer personal opinion all you like; you are not obliged to do otherwise. However, if you do so, recognise that that's all it is, and others will weigh it accordingly.
But you just said you linked into it a couple of posts back. That is not hard to find just that one post. You just have to click the back button 2 or 3 times to find it. If you claim its wrong then prove it otherwise your objection is refuted and baseless. This is what I am talking about in how debates work.
And thats exactly what I have done. I have narrowed it down to that one link you claim is not there and yet I have linked it on 6 seperate occassions. I just linked it again on its own for you. all by itself with as you say "a clear quote of which part of it I think is key to my argument, and make it clear which of of my many claims I think this supports".
So how do we recognise personal opinion from the facts and truth. Is it not using objective independent evidence. So when you claim I am just expressing my personal opinion and you don't offer any independent arguement or evidence such as with the last article I have linked then all you have yourself is personal opinion.
Steve, this may come as a surprise to you, but I am working and busy. If you want to make a clear point, linking clear evidence, I will respond if I think there is a worthwhile response to be made. But if you're going to fill the thread with a large number of links, and incoherent arguments, and then demand that I sift through them pages later to look for the possibility of something with some substance, I'm just not willing to play that game.
The word "distress" only appears once in that link, and it is not listed as something contibuting to abuse. So, no, this does not link distress, belief in control and abusive physical discipline.
It is not "personal opinion" to point out that that last article does not mention distress as a contributing cause of abuse.
Then perhaps thats the problem, you are not dedicating time to research and investigating these matters to properly discount them or understand them to properly refute them and are rushing and providing unsound opinion. Good investigation to properly know the evidence takes time. I spend a lot of time reading and understanding these matters to know what I am talking about.
I am asking you to reply to one link and you can't even do that. Its not coherent, its factual, it clearly states that distress, unreal expectations and beliefs and abusive discipline are linked. Clear factual evidence and not incoherent.
I'm not asking you to go through all the links, just the one I have posted 7 times for you now and your doing everything in your power to avoid it.
It states that abusive parents are often stressed. That is clear evidnece that the majority are stressed. Taken with the other links that I have already posted which you also avoided that show the vast majority of abusive parents are stressed or distressed its clear evidence that abusive parents are stressed or distressed.
But you did not even mention this before you even looked at the article. You automatically dismissed it as incoherent and irrelevant before you even understood as you admitted you went into a different link instead of the correct one.
What I am not dedicating time to, is being given the run-around on your posts.
I did. I pointed out that it didn't even discuss what you were claiming.
And why do you think it is valid to conflate "stress" and "distress"? They are not the same thing.
What is the difference between saying that something "contributes to," and that something is "a cause of," abuse? How can something contribute to something else without being a cause of it? I mean, really...
The article appears to be saying that, but when you look further, the study they cite for that finding isn't actually looking at abuse at all. It's looking at the differences between parents of children with and without hyperactivity.
But thats purely your personal opinion. I happen to think I have presented well researched evidence.
No you pointed out two things which I refuted. One was that the 'harsh' was not referring to physical punishment which I showed it was as the entire article was about "why parents physically abuse their child". It stated that a belief in harsh physical punishment was one of the reasons.
It seems your determined to find a chink going from one thing and when that fails trying to find another and another. Next it will be the source.
Yes it does because it shows that stress is a big factor for all parents even for those who don't have additional problems. So imagine those parents who cannot handle that stress like most parents. If parents without additional determinants find it hard then those with other problems find it even harder and will more likely be compromised in some way.
Like smoking is a contributing factor to lung cancer but may not be the sole cause of lung cancer. But it is highly associated. As I said there is no single cause of child abuse and its a combinaaation of factors that build towards abuse. Each individual may have their own set of factors so not two are the same but there will be some combination that will build towards abuse.
Ok now its the source. At least you are engaging in actually investigating my evidence which is good as this makes for a productive debate and may even come up with some good challenges.
It's not just what you have presented, but the way you have presented it. It is, at times, very difficult to follow the claims you are making, and the relationship between your presented sources and those claims.
Those are just not the same thing. You can't read different sources discussing "stress," "distress," "depression," and whatever else, and decide that they're all discussing the same thing, or that the claims made for one can be transferred to the others.
If most parents are stressed, and most parents don't abuse, then you can't claim that stress is causative of abuse. The question then becomes, what is the difference between stressed parents who abuse, and those who don't? We know that it's not stress level or cognitive "compromise," because those are experienced by parents who don't abuse. But we know that the abusive parents have different beliefs and attitudes than the ones who don't abuse.
No, I don't misunderstand at all. I just disagree.
But that source is not discussing abuse. It does not say there is any higher abuse in that cohort. Your article is extrapolating beyond what has been demonstrated by the evidence.
No, it is not good science to say, "Oh, this thing here says something that sounds vaguely related to this other thing over there, so they must amount to the same thing."
I cannot help if you lack understanding on these matters. There pretty straight forward. All I am doing is repeating the evidence.
They are more or less the same thing. Here is the APA's definition which is most relevant.
As I just said all parents or in fact everyone experiences stress. But its the unreal perception of the person who sees that stress as too hard to handle which results is distress. Your thinking in either and or fallacies again. Either anyone with stress must abuse or otherwise stress is irrelevant.
Its not necessarily the stress levels but the perception of the stress. One person sees it as something they can handle, they may have more emotional resilence or have support. But others cannot handle the same stress. Like I said your seeing things too black and white like everyone is the same and should handle stress the same.
We do and I have been posting that evidence all along. Thats what I mean by not understanding because we can draw paraelles with other health issues that contribute just like with abuse and violence.
You don't know that because its behind a pay way. It may refer to abuse in the body of the paper. We just don't know. But the other paper linked in the same article under the heading Parental Burnout does link stress to abuse and so do many other links below so we can safely say that it does link stress and abuse.
link.springer.com
Nothing I have linked in this thread like the above link between stress and distress and abuse is vaguely connection but rather are clearly connected and as I said have good solid scientific evidence because many indperndent good sources say the same thing.
I would not agree that you are communicating in a straightforward way, at all.
Oh good grief. No, they absolutely are not. Especially when you want to throw depression into the mix as well.
Which would be one reason why they are not the same thing.
No; I am pointing out that if stress is common to both abusive and non-abusive parents, then that is not what differentiates those who abuse, from those who don't.
No; I am pointing out that there are many overwhelmed people who are not coping with stress, who nevertheless do not abuse.
But none of those beliefs are the ones which underpin abuse.
I have not seen evidence which quantifies the causative contribution of your claimed risk factors. I have seen significant evidence calling that causative contribution into question.
But you have not shown that the distress forms the specific beliefs which underpin abuse.
Again, correlation is not causation.
Because your chain of evidence doesn't demonstrate what you want to claim it does.
Well, if we don't know, you certainly can't claim that it does! It does not refer to such things in the part that we can read, nor is that the subject of that study.
So, here's the question. What is the difference between burnt out parents who abuse, and those who don't? Find that difference, and you will find what is actually causing burnt out parents to abuse.
How can you get copying and pasting exactly what the article says wrong. Its there is plain english. When it says X is a risk factor, it means exactly that. When it says distress is linked to abuse it means exactly that "communicating in a straightforward way"
Its a proven fact that distress in the form of depression and anxiety are the biggest problems for modern society. Its also a proven fact that distress is linked to abuse. Remember it is not 'I who want to throw this in' but what the actual evidence shows. I just showed that with the last articles. Let me remind you of the APA's definition
I am not sure what you mean.
Thats like saying because lung cancer can happen to smokers and non smokers then smoking is not linked to lung cancer. Your logic doesn't follow, its a non sequitor.
Saying that people handle stress does not negate that some parents cannot handle stress and act inappropriately towards their child. Once again a non-sequitor.
Your not seeing the forest through the trees. The specific beliefs such as "rigid roles and controlling hierarchies" are the symptoms of a controlling mindset. A controlling mindset sees the world in rigid and controlling ways not just with roles or hierarchies. Roles and hierarchies are just two examples of the methods that a controlling mind will use to control and abuse.
How could you have seen the evidence against when you have not read them. Your own article supported the determinants (risk factors) that contribute to unreal and inappropriate beliefs and attitudes that lead to abuse. So how could you not see it when your own article states it.
But your own article supports the Risk factors (determinants) linked to abuse which say exactly the same thing as my articles. So your own link contradicts your unsupported claims that these risk factors are not linked to abuse.
Once again your own article supports the link between distress and stress and beliefs and attitudes that underpin abuse. My articles say the exact same thing so this makes good science that several independent sources are saying the same thing.
Oh man not this again. I have already refuted that. Your doubling down now.
You missed what I said. I said if the chain of associated factors has been proven with other social issues regarding belief and behaviour then why is it different for abuse and violent behaviour.
But you were the one who made such a claim that the article did not refer to abuse or harsh parenting as a result of the added stress.
Once again a non- sequitor, strawman and misrepresentation. Just like distress just because some parents handle burnout doesn't mean some cannot.
Hum, this is the chicken and the egg thing again. I am not sure and I don't think anyone is. We are still working it out. Its like nature and nurture, its not so simple how humans work and most of the time there is not any 'Single process" going on that causes any human thinking, belief or behaviour.
A proven fact? And what were the criteria for analysing and ranking the problems in modern society, and who did that work, and where was it published?
I think you're conflating a bunch of distinct things, and on that basis making unfounded claims.
I mean that the fact that different people experience different levels of distress when stressed, demonstrates that stress and distress are not the same thing.
No, and I am not saying that these things are not "linked" to abuse. I am saying that we cannot say that people abuse because they are stressed.
No; my point is that many people who cannot handle stress don't abuse. There is something else in play which drives abuse, and that is the beliefs and attitudes of the parents.
And where is your evidence for this? The specific research looking at those exact beliefs and a so-called "controlling mindset"?
I have not seen a source which purports to be looking at quantifying the causative contribution of your claimed risk factors.
No, but I keep claiming that if they contibute, we ought to be able to show how, and demonstrate how much.
You have not shown that people who hold these beliefs do so because of distress. I would argue that many who hold these beliefs are not distressed in this kind of way, but do so because of social and cultural norms etc.
Again and every single time you make the same error. It is a logical error to say, "These two things tend to happen together, so that's proof one causes the other." That has to be demonstrated, not just inferred.
There is no reference to abuse in the part of it that we can see, nor is that the subject of the study. To claim that it proves anything about abuse seems a blatant misrepresentation of the study.
No. It's the absence of the beliefs and attitudes which drive abuse. Without those beliefs and attitudes, parents don't abuse, no matter the "risk factors." And with them, they will abuse, no matter the "protective factors."
Given that primary prevention work is entirely predicated on this understanding, then I'd say a lot of people are sure.
I agree that they've been formed by their life experiences, but I disagree that it's about "negative" experiences so much as the cumulative weight of total experience, especially including social and cultural norms.
I just literally gave you evidence with the links you ignored. The criteria is the studies on the prevelence of psychological distress especially depression and anxiety). From the actual people and populations experiencing depression and anxiety. Where else but direct from those suffering. Why do you think either the sufferers or the studies made the figures up.
Thats what you keep claiming so I am pinning you down on this to see if your claim stands up. So I'm asking you about the APA's claim not mine. I'm not conflating anything. If anyone is conflation then you will have to take that up with the APA or make an arguement why the APA is conflating a bunch of distinct things on the basis of unfounded claims.
Then why does the APA, the ones that give the diagnostic criteria for stress and distress say they are variations on the same thing.
Then why do so many of my links state that people about due to be stressed and distressed. That it is part of why people abuse. We can say that stress and distress contributes to why people abuse. This is fact. Its part of the mix of why people abuse.
But this doesn't follow that there are people who cannot handle stress that do abuse. This is a non sequitor.
Actually as your link states unreal and inappropriate beliefs and attitudes about abusing and controlling others are caused by distress. You can't believe in wanting to control and abuse others unless you are primed with the need to abuse and control others.
I just gave them a few posts ago. I am beginning to think you either refuse to acknowledge this or you are really don't understand what they are saying. I also linked the articles on the Parental Rational and Irrational Belief Scale which explains the mindset of those who have beliefs in abuse and control such as "Demandingness" ect.
What do you mean by "quantifying the causative contribution".
I have also provided evidence for this and will only re-link it if tyou dispute this. Your saying that of all the links I have provided none state how these contribute to abuse. Say with data and studies.
Are you kidding, your own link provided this evidence. I have to respond to this. Look here are some of the links you have obviously ignored.
And I have never said this so your creating another Strawman to knockdown. Your entire arguement is full of logical fallacies that I keep having to knock down.
I never said it did. That is your conjecture. I said we don't actually know but we have other sources that do know which state that stress and distress are linked to abuse. But of course you totally ignored these again. In fact initially you were the one who made the unsupported claim that the article "was not" about abuse without knowing the content of the article.
But the belief in CP itself is not abusive. So something else has caused the abuser to move from the socially acceptable belief to a negative and abusive one. That is they have abused the socially acceptable belief in CP. So the belief in CP itself is not the problem but something within the abuser that heard the same message but distorts it.
No this is just your take on its. Its not what the majority of the industry think. Your choosing to highlight one aspect at the societal eleve when theres a bunch of factors that happen before that and influence that at the individual and family level your completely ignoring.
But considering these beliefs are detructful and most people don't go along with them its not the result of society telling them to be abusive but more the personal negative experiences that make the person relate to abusive and controlling thinking in the first place.
My point is that there are many problems in modern society, and without wishing to downplay mental health issues, there are many other problems which could reasonably be considered for the claim of "biggest problem."
There's no real point in a discussion based on things like claiming that depression and anxiety are the "biggest problem" facing modern society. That's just you throwing opinions around.
Ok; APA definitions.
Which stands to reason, since by definition, maladaptation is shown by behaviour patterns which are detrimental or counter-productive. But what was meant by "psychological maladaptation," in context of that quote?
That's not what I see when I look at their definitions.
I disagree.
Isn't that basically your argument? That the poor abusive parents are so stressed that they can't help but abuse their kids?
They might be heightened by distress, but distress isn't what causes people to find violence acceptable. It isn't what causes people to believe in hierarchy, power and control. It isn't what causes people to believe in rigid relational and household roles.
Then why do campaigns aimed at changing social norms work? Because those social norms shape people's beliefs.
I think you are claiming they say something they don't really say.
And we went through them point by point, and found that those scales measure quite a lot that is not related to abuse, and only a small portion of the beliefs which do drive abuse. (That small area of overlap in the Venn diagram). So no, they don't explain the mechanisms for how people come to hold the very specific beliefs and attitudes which underpin abuse.
I mean that if you claim that a, b, and c, all contribute to something, we ought to be able to demonstrate how, and measure how much, each of those things contribute.
I do dispute it. You have not demonstrated that most claimed risk factors cause abuse in any way.
This is very vague. At this point it's not even clear exactly what you're claiming.
I don't believe so. Where does it demonstrate that abusers hold the beliefs they do because of distress?
But does not measure the specific beliefs which underpin abuse. We've been over this...
This is exactly what many of your arguments amount to. This thing happens more often alongside abuse, so it must cause abuse. It's nonsense.
It's not about abuse. That is very clear from the abstract. If it were about abuse, it would be mentioned.
It's one necessary leg of the tripod, in that it demonstrates acceptance of violence, even if at a level not severe enough to meet the legal definition of abuse. But I was not discussing non-abusive corporal punishment.
It's just acceptance of a more severe level of violence.
Yeah, no. I'm confident enough in my professional experience and expertise, not to be dismissed by someone without the same experience and expertise, metaphorically patting me on the head and telling me I don't understand my own work.
I had to explain to you what primary prevention was, and now you claim to know what the majority of the primary prevention industry think?
I'd disagree. "Most" people in society hold attitudes which accept violence, at least at some level. Most people hold attitudes which accept hierarchy, power and control, rigid roles, at least to a degree. The depth of conviction might vary, but it would be a very rare person who held none of these values to any degree. They are deeply embedded social and cultural norms.
Of course not. I have never made such a ridiculously simplistic claim.
You need evidence for claims like that. Dismissing people with whom you disagree as "nut cases" is neither accurate nor helpful.
It depends on where you stand I would imagine. What you class as more of a problem. Certainly for those in war torn nations, war is the biggest issue. But for many in the west, in Australia though war is on their minds its other more local issues that are more pressing like the growing poor mental health.
Its actually very relevant and its not just throwing opinion around but fact. You can argue exactly where mental health ranks but theres no doubting its one of the significant issues facing modern society. Especially in the west. Any problem that effects nearly half the population is a significant problem.
www.cdc.gov
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
I never said they were exactly the same thing, I said they are more or less the same thing. Once again you create a strawman.
Exactly which supports that psychological distress and psychological maladaptation experienced by parents can cause detrimental and counter-productive thinking, beliefs and behaviours towards children.
Its obviously to do with psychological states of mind being dysfunctional and not within the normal range of health cognition and resulting behaviour. Distortion and maladaptative thinking. Its not normal functioning, it leads to inappropriate thinking and behaviour.
So this doesn't indicate they are interlinked "distress is the negative stress response, often involving negative affect and physiological reactivity: a type of stress that results from being overwhelmed"
Once again a strawman. No one is saying "stress made the person abuse". It is saying that its a contributory factor in the mix as to why people abuse and become violent. Violence itself is a form of intense reactivity associated with stressed states. Severe aggression is a form of stress state. You can't seperate it out of the equation.
We don't in regards to excusing the behaviour. But we do recognise the roles of stress and distress in contributing. Denying this will distort our understanding of why people abuse and commit violence.
wayahead.org.au
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
No thats your take as you think in either and or fallacies. I said why people abuse and use violence is a complex mix of determinants for which stress and distress play a major role.
No, any claim that anything is the "biggest problem" is just opinion.
My point is simply that you can't generalise about them as if they are the same thing, because they aren't.
I think stress can influence us in many ways, but I do not believe it causes us to abuse.
Why not quote the actual source material?
Things being interlinked doesn't mean they are "variations on the same thing."
I would like to see that quote in context in order to work out what they mean.
Isn't that what you're arguing for? If not, why are we even talking about stress?
To my mind, making it about stress distorts the reality that this behaviour is chosen. And that we can hold people accountable for their choices, and encourage different choices.
Yes it is and thats what the evidence shows. Do you want me to show the evdience again.
But the social norms themselves are not necessarily abusive.
Ah, no I am simply copying and pasting the evidence and just repeating what they are saying. Its pretty straight forward and clear. When they say distress is linked with unreal beliefs and abuse that is exactly what they mean.
Wait a minute your the one who cited the PRIBS as the go to measure for parental beliefs about abuse.
Yes they do. The 4 basic beliefs Demandingness, Catastrophizing, Frustration Intolerance and Self-Downing cover all parental beliefs regarding how they interact with their child.
