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.

 

[stevevw]

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.

But you have also implied that a hierarchy is itself is inherently abusive and controlling. For example I said
Stevevw said
I think its important to clarify that hierarchies themselves are not controlling or abusive and that it takes a human to make them abusive.
Paidiske said
I don't agree. Hierarchies - relationships of control - are, by definition, controlling.
Stevevw said
Acceptence of hierarchies is not violence or abusive. Acceptence of rigid roles is not inherently violent or abusive.
Paidiske said
No; but they are two necessary prerequisite beliefs to being violent and abusive. In that sense, they are not neutral; they are profoundly dangerous.

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

But we are not just talking about households but any relationship within society as you said. So relationships within society, within households can be hierarchal and in fact are necessarily hierarchal and are not controlling in an abusive sense.

For example as mentioned the family hierarchy where parents are in control and at the top of the hierarchy overall and children are at the bottom. Or in how competent people are at the top and in positions of power and control to make the best decisions and to do the best work to run society and the rest are at varying levels of control below in forming a natural and healthy hierarchy for running a large society.

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

Its a value judgement in that you have said above that a hierarchy itself is abusive control and that you have not clearly defined which exactly is abuse or not. You assume any control within hierarchies is abusive. You have implied good and innocent people as holding abusive beliefs including myself when you have no evidence. That is a value judgement.

What on earth are you talking about?

How you have assumed normal and healthy situations like controlling hierarchies are abusive. How you have accused innocent people in trying to read their minds, attribute abusive thinking and beliefs to them because they have opposing views that controlling hierarchies are abusive.

Your approach has no factual basis because control can be both positive and negative, abusive or healthy and beneficial but you assume they are all abusive.

No, you haven't.

I have provided evidence for the mindset of abusers. Every link I provided that links cognitions, emotions, feelings, psychological distress and perceptions to abuse is evidence that belief does not act in isolation and is entangled in cognitions, emotion and influence our psyche.

I don't want to have to re submit the many links I already posted. You just have to go back and you will find ample evidence.

But realistically if you breakdown my evidence I have actually linked 100s of pieces of evidence that abuse does not just happen because of beliefs and that it involves cognitions, emotional and psychological states. Like this simple statement of fact points out

Parents experiencing parental burnout are more likely to engage in abusive behavior toward their children.

So even simple statements like this refute your claim that cognitions, emotions and the psyche are not involved in abuse. If parents who experience burnout or distress abuse more then this is evidence that emotion, cognition and the psyche are linked. In that sense there are 100's of pieces of evidence besides the more clear cut ones I have linked like this.


Peel back the layers of human consciousness, and you’ll find an intricate dance of thoughts, emotions, and beliefs.
Caught in the Storm: Understanding and Managing Lashing Out - The Daily Positive

The processes of believing integrate external perceptual information from the environment with internal emotional states and prior experience to generate probabilistic neural representations of events, i.e., beliefs.

Believing and social interactions: effects on bodily expressions and personal narratives

The processes of believing integrate external perceptual information from the environment with internal emotional states and prior experience to generate probabilistic neural representations of events, i.e., beliefs. As these neural representations manifest ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Behaviour is affected by factors relating to the person, including: personal and emotional factors - personality, beliefs, expectations, emotions, mental health, life experiences - family, culture, friends and life events.
Principles for effective support - What factors can affect behaviour?

I could find hudreds of these all linking beliefs, cognitions, emotions and psychological states and affects.
Beliefs are related to emotional processes
people believe behaviors are justified because of the intensity of their emotions
Irrational and unreal beliefs are higher when emotional stress is elevated
Psychological interventions have been shown to reduce emotional symptoms and decrease negative thoughts and beliefs
changing your mind does indeed mean changing how you feel, especially so for beliefs, which are more emotion-sensitive than knowledge.
“emotions can awaken, intrude into, and shape beliefs
“Strong feelings tend to elicit a search for supporting beliefs” and, conversely, beliefs tend to elicit a search for information that reinforces associated emotions (“belief-guided attentional focus.”)

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

But you have no clear way of recognising when its abusive control and when its just healthy control. You have already shown that you conflate normal and health control with abusive control. You even said is there anything such as healthy control as though there is no such thing.

I suggest you don't know yourself the difference but rather assume your own ideological beliefs about what control means and you give a biased and one sided view before any measure is taken. So you will always see abuse where others see it as just a normal part of how society works.

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.

Thats like saying lets just concentrate on this one drug for drug prevention and ignore all the other drug choices which also cause problems. Thats why I think your approach is very limited and dangerous. It overlooks a lot.

It overlooks the thinking, emotions and psychological states, the conditions that cultivate abuse and everything is about beliefs which themselves have no clear definition and people can easily conflate non abusive situations as abusive and abusive situations as non abusive while missing a whole bunch of stuff that has been proven to be assocated with abuse and violence.

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

Not really as they are already overlooking beliefs that justify abuse in society right now because of their ideological beliefs. Or they promote abusive beliefs in the name of equality.

I agree that there are some obvious beliefs like the belief in violent and abusive controlling which speaks for itself. But when you start talking about hierarchies and control as being inherently abusive or any control being abusive then you have lost me as there is no evidence for this and its more about your own ideological beliefs.

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.

It does have to do with DEI policies because they underpin the same principles of making people equal to prevent disproportionate power relationships. If everyone is equal and of equal position then there are no hierarchies of control and power or situations where some have it over others because they have more empowerment and control.

To be more specific the 'E; in DEI, Equity promotes policies such as Affirmative action. This is based on equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity in order to equalize society. The idea is to priviledge those who are percieved as being disadvangaed by giving them special treatment to catch up on others and be equal.

But this is actually a form of descrimination and it priviledges some (minorities) over others thus disadvantaging others. Its doing exactly what the ideologues are protesting about. But its not seen as abusive because its helping the disadvantaged. This same policies has resulted in abuse and violence and yet is deeply believed as a good thing in how we should order society. This is just one example and there are others.

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

Yes they are and I gave yopu the evidence which you were awefully silent about. Like I said I could go back through all the links I supplied and hightlight where they are linked to demandingness, awfulising, downing and frustration intolertance ie

Across these studies, low frustration tolerance was associated with increased physical child abuse potential, greater use of parent-child aggression in discipline encounters, dysfunctional disciplinary style, support for physical discipline use and physical discipline escalation, and increased heart rate.

Analog assessment of frustration tolerance: association with self-reported child abuse risk and physiological reactivity - PubMed

Although frustration has long been implicated in promoting aggression, the potential for poor frustration tolerance to function as a risk factor for physical child abuse risk has received minimal attention. Instead, much of the extant literature has examined the role of anger in physical abuse...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

As already evidenced Self-Downing is associated with parental low self esteem and comparing self to others negatively as well as putting others down to make self feel better. Many of the links provided support this ie

The abusive parents are usually rigid and inflexible in their thinking and are more likely to use coercive disciplinary methods and believe that harsh punishment is the only way to discipline. Parents at risk of abuse toward children tend to have low self-esteem.
Why Do Parents Physically Abuse Their Children

Child-abusing women also lack self-esteem and strength of will.
Effects of Family Structure on Child Abuse [Marripedia]

Two robust findings were the negative correlation between explicit self-esteem and self-downing

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235417899_Implicit_and_explicit_self-esteem_and_irrational_beliefs

Your negative core beliefs reflect the negative, broad, and generalised judgements you have made about yourself, based on some negative experiences you might have had during your earlier years. negative life experiences contribute to the development of your low self-esteem provide clues as to what your negative core beliefs are.
https://www.cci.health.wa.gov.au/-/...m---08---Developing-Balanced-Core-Beliefs.pdf

Controlling people have low self-esteem and project their own negative traits onto their partners. All controlling people have a low sense of self-esteem and self-worth, and being in control brings a sense of safety. They feel that they are entitled to inflict pain on others. They have a strong intolerance of any type of discomfort, and have rigid beliefs about how a person should be. The abusive or controlling personality type believes the other person is the problem and must be controlled and made subject to their will.
controlling people have low self-esteem and project their own negative traits onto their partners - Jim O'Shea, Researcher, Author, Volunteer Counsellor & EMDR Therapist

Quite often, controlling people seek praise from others as a means of reassurance and boosting their own self-esteem. What Are Control Issues? Causes, Signs And Treatments

The findings suggest that there are key mechanisms through which vulnerable parents can be helped to break the cycle of abuse. Specifically the importance of promoting social support, regulating parents’ behaviour through trauma-informed approaches and enhancing their knowledge, self-esteem and confidence in parenting.
Using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) to Characterise Parenting Interventions to Prevent Intergenerational Child Abuse - International Journal on Child Maltreatment: Research, Policy and Practice

 

[Paidiske]

But you have also implied that a hierarchy is itself is inherently abusive and controlling.

Because I define a hierarchy as a relationship of control, then yes, it is inherently controlling, and to the extent that that control is unnecessary or harmful, abusive.

So relationships within society, within households can be hierarchal and in fact are necessarily hierarchal and are not controlling in an abusive sense.

I disagree. They very often are controlling in an abusive sense.

Its a value judgement in that you have said above that a hierarchy itself is abusive control and that you have not clearly defined which exactly is abuse or not.

I have; I have said that any control which is unnecessary or harmful is abusive.

You have implied good and innocent people as holding abusive beliefs including myself when you have no evidence.

At 86 pages of this thread, you have actually supplied a great deal of evidence that you support some beliefs and attitudes which belong to the cluster which underpin abuse.

I have provided evidence for the mindset of abusers. Every link I provided that links cognitions, emotions, feelings, psychological distress and perceptions to abuse is evidence that belief does not act in isolation and is entangled in cognitions, emotion and influence our psyche.

But nothing you have provided demonstrates that particular cognitive or psychological states are necessary precursors to abuse. At most, they are more often correlated.

But you have no clear way of recognising when its abusive control and when its just healthy control.

Is this control necessary (eg. for the safety of small children)? If no, it's abusive. Is it harmful (including undermining the dignity and agency of the person being controlled)? If yes, it's abusive.

Thats like saying lets just concentrate on this one drug for drug prevention and ignore all the other drug choices which also cause problems. Thats why I think your approach is very limited and dangerous. It overlooks a lot.

It's focussed on what we know now, and what we can actually take action on now. Rather than getting dragged off into whataboutery.

But when you start talking about hierarchies and control as being inherently abusive or any control being abusive then you have lost me as there is no evidence for this and its more about your own ideological beliefs.

The evidence is in the bruises, the welts, the broken bones, the lost teeth, the PTSD of every single person who has ever been abused by someone seeking to preserve their own power and control in a household. The evidence is in every broken life, every instance of lost potential, every human being degraded by someone protecting their place in the household hierarchy. The evidence is in every gravestone of someone killed by their abuser who felt entitled even to their very life.

Australian women are losing their lives at the rate of one every four days this year, to men who feel entitled to control them.

That's the evidence. This is not hypothetical. We know that abusers feel entitled to positions of power and control, to a hierarchical role, and they will use violence to enforce it.

This same policies has resulted in abuse and violence and yet is deeply believed as a good thing in how we should order society.

What abuse and violence? Who is getting beaten up because of affirmative action?

Yes they are and I gave yopu the evidence which you were awefully silent about.

I did not find your claims at all convincing, and you did not present evidence which clearly demonstrated that these traits drive abuse. (Again, correlation is not causation).

 

[stevevw]

Because I define a hierarchy as a relationship of control, then yes, it is inherently controlling, and to the extent that that control is unnecessary or harmful, abusive.

Well then this is an example of how a persons own ideological beliefs can distort reality and the facts and go on to blame others and society of abusive control when it was not. This will cause more problems for society rather than help unite people. So therefore your approach as I said lacks a objective basis outside human ideology to determine the truth.

I disagree. They very often are controlling in an abusive sense.

I have provided the evidence and you ignored it. This is a good example of what I have been talking about in how a belief and assumption is being used to judge whether a belief is positive or negative and underpinning abuse or not in upstream situations.

You claim hierarchies are inherently abusive because of your belief that there should not be unequal relationships of any form as this signifies abuse. Yet the evidence, the facts and the lived reality states different. Hierarchies can be positive, beneficial, healthy, natural and normal ways that humans organise themselves because it helps us live together and get along.

I was going to relink the evidence I posted on hierarchies but I thought I will just post the important points the articles make and explain about how natural, automatic, beneficial and practical social hierarchies are and assuming they are inherently abusive is not based on the evidence nor reality.

Social groups identify themselves as a part of the group by immediately self-organising themselves into hierarchies built on values such as physical strength, power, influence within the group, skills that matter and the dominance level.
The hierarchy within a family serves as an essential building block that helps to build the foundation upon which a family is constructed.
With a strong foundation that has distinct boundaries between the hierarchical levels, the family can be a stable force with a strong edifice.
Social hierarchies appear to form automatically in both human and nonhuman primates and appear to emerge naturally in social groups.
The ease with which we perceive status cues and assign rank reflects a general preference for a hierarchical social organization,
Understanding where we stand relative to others is essential for defining social roles and promoting successful social interaction.
Organizing social groups in a hierarchical manner is an efficient way to maximize group cohesion and productivity.
One of the most crucial roles of hierarchy is its ability to establish and maintain order within a society.
Hierarchical systems provide a clear chain of command and define the roles and responsibilities.
This structure helps prevent chaos and confusion, allowing for smoother coordination and collaboration among members.
Hierarchies help forge social identities and promote a sense of belonging within groups.
These hierarchies can serve as a basis for social cohesion, helping to unite people under common objectives and values.
Hierarchical systems often encourage individuals to strive for improvement and advancement, fostering a sense of purpose and motivation.
Hierarchies allow societies to manage larger populations, diverse skills, and specialized roles more effectively.
Hierarchy provides a framework for the establishment of authority and accountability of decision-makers.
Clear lines of authority help prevent the abuse of power and foster an environment of trust and respect.

Notice the last couple of points. This stood out for me. Not only can hierarchies be practicaland beneficial ways to organise social they can actually prevent abuse of power because they offer clear lines of responsibilities. When not under a hierarchy those clear chains of command, roles and responibilities will be undermined and the organisation and society will breakdown allowing chaos and abuse.

 

[Paidiske]

Well then this is an example of how a persons own ideological beliefs can distort reality

How so? We are basically discussing hierarchy in the sense of dominance hierarchy. That's not a distortion, that's an observed reality.

I have provided the evidence and you ignored it.

There is absolutely no evidence you can provide, which will refute the reality of the high rates of abuse. Abuse that can only happen because of relationships of control; because of hierarchies.

This is a good example of what I have been talking about in how a belief and assumption is being used to judge whether a belief is positive or negative and underpinning abuse or not in upstream situations.

It's not an assumption. We have the evidence. Abusers point to their belief in hierarchy (in their right to control others) to justify their abuse.

You claim hierarchies are inherently abusive because of your belief that there should not be unequal relationships of any form as this signifies abuse.

Not quite. I claim that dominance hierarchies are (often) inherently abusive because they are relationships of control, and because one person controlling another unnecessarily is abuse.

When not under a hierarchy those clear chains of command, roles and responibilities will be undermined and the organisation and society will breakdown allowing chaos and abuse.

Not necessarily. A hierarchy is not the only way to organise group functions.

 

[stevevw]

How so? We are basically discussing hierarchy in the sense of dominance hierarchy. That's not a distortion, that's an observed reality.

Actually you did not qualify that in those quotes I linked. You said that that hierarchies by definition are abusive control and that they are not neutral but profoundly dangerous on their own.

There is absolutely no evidence you can provide, which will refute the reality of the high rates of abuse. Abuse that can only happen because of relationships of control; because of hierarchies.

But as I keep saying your creating a logical fallacy that because abuse happens within a hierarchy that hierarchies must be an inherently abusive situation.

I just gave you ample evidence that clearly shows in many ways how hierarchies are also an automatic and natural way to setup society and provide many benefits including health and wellbeing and most important actually prevent abuse of power.

So they are not inherently abusive and some be both abusive and healthy and normal promoting non abuse. You choose to see things negatively only which I think is biased and your own assumptions and ideological beliefs around the idea of control is slanted towards the negative and not a balanced view based on the evidence.

It's not an assumption. We have the evidence. Abusers point to their belief in hierarchy (in their right to control others) to justify their abuse.

No one is disagreeing that hierarchies can become abusive. Its the idea that because they can become abusive therefore all hierarchies underpin abuse. This makes out we must get rid of all hierarchies which is unreal and not based on the factual and objective evidence I have linked which shows that hierarchies can also be a means to hnon abuse and healthy and natural ways or organise ourselves ie

Hierarchies allow societies to manage larger populations, diverse skills, and specialized roles more effectively.
Organizing social groups in a hierarchical manner is an efficient way to maximize group cohesion and productivity.
Hierarchical systems provide a clear chain of command and define the roles and responsibilities.
This structure helps prevent chaos and confusion, allowing for smoother coordination and collaboration among members.
Hierarchies help forge social identities and promote a sense of belonging within groups.
These hierarchies can serve as a basis for social cohesion, helping to unite people under common objectives and values.
Hierarchy provides a framework for the establishment of authority and accountability of decision-makers.
One of the most crucial roles of hierarchy is its ability to establish and maintain order within a society.
Clear lines of authority help prevent the abuse of power and foster an environment of trust and respect.

So it is infact ideologies that flasely blame hierarchies as inherently abusive and then trying to dismantle natural, healthy and productive hierarchies just because their hierarchies is what will cause the breakdown of society, of organisation and systems that run society and have been sucessful. This is what will undermine the clear lines of roles and responsibilities and most importantly accountability when it comes to abuse.

The way we prevent abuse is not to dismantle hierarchies perse but to ensure they are not abused. The nature of humans is that there are differences and its unreal to say we should have no differences and make society exactly the same in outcomes. Its about opportunities.

So its about having checks and balances that prevent people and systems from denying the same opportunities for everyone within the necessary hierarchies and that no one abuses their different positions of responsibility making the system run more efficently and productively, maintaining law and order while also as the links I posted said

"essential for defining social roles and promoting successful social interaction, maximize group cohesion, help forge social identities and promote a sense of belonging within groups, help to unite people under common objectives and values and to encourage individuals to strive for improvement and advancement, fostering a sense of purpose and motivation.

Now does that sould like its promoting abusive and violent control. I think quite the opposite. Sounds like it is encouraging society to be promote sucessful and cohesive relationships that help unite people under common values and identity and allowing individuals to strive to be better giving them a sense of identity and purpose. Why would we want to tear down such a way toorganise society.

Not quite. I claim that dominance hierarchies are (often) inherently abusive because they are relationships of control, and because one person controlling another unnecessarily is abuse.

I'd say because they are so common that hierarchies are less often used for abusive control but often used for non abusive control. So conflation them as 'often' is misleading and creates the narrative that all hierarchies because they 'often' that they are always abusive or just labelled 'inherently abusive' perse.

This is part of Post Modernism where language and narratives become what makes reality. Say it enough and it becomes true. Thats why its important to clarify exactly what you mean, what qualifies as relationships of control and what control is normal, natural and necessary and what is not and abusive.

Not necessarily. A hierarchy is not the only way to organise group functions.

 

[Paidiske]

Actually you did not qualify that in those quotes I linked.

I have explained, repeatedly, in this thread, that by "hierarchy" as a value underpinning abuse, we are essentially discussing dominance hierarchies; relationships of control.

But as I keep saying your creating a logical fallacy that because abuse happens within a hierarchy that hierarchies must be an inherently abusive situation.

No, that is not what I am saying, at all. I am saying that relationships of (unnecessary) control, which is what many hierarchies are, are inherently abusive.

No one is disagreeing that hierarchies can become abusive. Its the idea that because they can become abusive therefore all hierarchies underpin abuse.

Hierarchy - control of one person by another - as a value and ideal which normalises relationships of power and control, do underpin abuse.

So it is infact ideologies that flasely blame hierarchies as inherently abusive and then trying to dismantle natural, healthy and productive hierarchies just because their hierarchies is what will cause the breakdown of society, of organisation and systems that run society and have been sucessful.

I would want to critique the idea that relationships in which one person controls another unnecessarily are ever "healthy."

I see your sentence above as essentially saying, "We have to tolerate some abuse (control) for the sake of social order." And I profoundly disagree.

Now does that sould like its promoting abusive and violent control.

I would want to see the link so that I can read the quote in context. I suspect they are not talking about dominance hierarchies in the household.

I'd say because they are so common that hierarchies are less often used for abusive control but often used for non abusive control.

And how do you define the difference between abusive and non-abusive control?

 

[stevevw]

I have explained, repeatedly, in this thread, that by "hierarchy" as a value underpinning abuse, we are essentially discussing dominance hierarchies; relationships of control.

What do you mean by dominance because individuals and groups can dominate a particular sector over other individuals and groups naturally in the way society self organises. A relationship can have a dominant partner personality wise and the other partner is happy for them to take the lead. Natural dominance hierarchies form for say strength where the stronger and more powerful dominate certain sectors of society naturally.

I am not sure what you mean when you put ; relationships of control. This seems like your implying "relationships of control" is a seperate and independent factor in abuse from dominance hierarchies. If this is the case then this is also misleading as "relationships of control" are not automatically or inherently abusive and are more often inherently non abusive.

Control is not a dirty word and signifies abuse. Life is full of controls and is needed to organise society to keep law, order and productivity without breaking down into disorder, anarchy, and chaos.

No, that is not what I am saying, at all. I am saying that relationships of (unnecessary) control, which is what many hierarchies are, are inherently abusive.

Many hierarchies. There is no evidence that the majority are controlling in an abusive way. They are certainly controlling in many ways but control is not abusive perse. You have to clarify what exactly is the measure. You also have to clarify is a hierarchy is abusive does that mean we get rid of that hierarchy.

If not then were should not be saying the hierarchy itself is abusive but rather a good and healthy hierarchy is being abused and we need to put in measures to ensure the same situation is not abused. You don't clarify these things which leaves it open to interpretation and of course some ideologues will run with that and claim all hierarchies and any difference in status, level or control is abusive.

Hierarchy - control of one person by another - as a value and ideal which normalises relationships of power and control, do underpin abuse.

So does a Marriage, partnership or any relationship where "control of one person by another - as a value and ideal which normalises relationships of power and control, do underpin abuse". But we don't get rid of that same marriage setup, relationship or partnership. We fix the broken sysytems and ensure they run better without abuse.

A hierarchy is a way of ranking and categorising people and differences. Not everyone is the same so there will be varying competencies and abilities that we naturally rank in status value according to the benefits they provide and how we value them to organise our lives and society.

So thats the natural hierarchy where people end up in positions of more or less control and power ranking over others because of natural and justified reasons. For example as I mentioned

Now what can happen is that people can use that same hierarchy to control abusively. They may deny certain people for no justified reason such as based on race or gender. But the position they are denying in the upper levels of the hierarchy are not necessarily abusive. Afterall women for example protest that there is not enough women on corporate boards, in business, as high earners and in politics.

Those upper levels of power and control are still required. They were just dominated and controlled based on arbitrary and unjustified reasons. Often though we will find that most situations especially positions at the bottom of hierarchies are not sought. As humans we are competitive and look up to those who have achieved or who have managed to work their way up the tree of life.

I would want to critique the idea that relationships in which one person controls another unnecessarily are ever "healthy."

Can you point out to me where I said controls another person unnecessarily. This is what I mean you find it hard to just support that control is a natural part of society for various reasons and its mostly not abusive. You keep introducing and substitution what I say about good hierarchies with abusive controlling ones.

This is the type of narrative that conflates good and natural ways people organise themselves to abusive ones and actually undermines these good and natural hierarchies. It can do as much damage as abusive hierarchies because it actually can create situations where there are no framework and clear structures that assign people clear positions of responsibility and accountability.

I see your sentence above as essentially saying, "We have to tolerate some abuse (control) for the sake of social order." And I profoundly disagree.

I did not read this part of your reply until after I wrote the above. Its interesting that I addressed this beforehand and infact your reply only reinforces what I said. You have conformed what I am saying in that you cannot help but see things biased always in the direction of negative and abusive controlling and never a balanced position that acknowledges that control can be both good and bad and if often necessarily in organising society.

Lets breakdown what I actually said. I said "people can falsely blame and dismantle natural, healthy and productive hierarchies". Not any hierarchy but natural good and healthy ones. The ones I have been trying to educate you with in the links I just posted again and again that you ignore.

Your biased to the point that you don't differentiate and see the destinction of the words "natural, good and healthy" and only see the words hierarch and control and immediate assume negative, red flag, bad, must be destroyed and we cannot even entertain this.

Cannot even contemplate the idea of natural, positive, healthy and good control and hierarchies. The certain words carry more weight because of your own unsupported ideological beliefs and assumptions. You read into what you see and not what actually is the reality of the situation.

The right answer would have been hierarchies themselves are neutral and can be either be absuive and healthy and non abusive. That they are not abusive perse because they are hierarchies that involve control positive control. That we need to keep watch of people and society abusing the same system but not get rid ofg that system but rather refine it.

I would want to see the link so that I can read the quote in context. I suspect they are not talking about dominance hierarchies in the household.

Lol all those snippets come from the links I previous posted which shows you completely ignored them. Now you want the links in detail after I have to keep banging my head against a brick wall in pointing this out page after page lol. You need to catch up and read what the evdience is saying rather than fob it off.

By the way theres a couple on dominance hierarchies ie
Social groups identify themselves as a part of the group by immediately self-organising themselves into hierarchies. The hierarchy they exhibit is built on values such as their physical strength, power, influence within the group, skills that matter and the dominance level. As we learn to identify people based on their status, dominance, skill and physical strength since the early stage of our neural development it’s quite hard to overlook such learnings. Our brain tends to process every cue that others exhibit and we have a natural affinity for things that match either our subconscious or conscious search.

https://culture.kissflow.com/the-need-and-inevitable-nature-of-social-hierarchies-c5ec80f8841b

To begin, hierarchy refers to the ranking of members in social groups based on the power, influence, or dominance they exhibit, whereby some members are superior or subordinate to others. Social groups across species rapidly self-organize into hierarchies, where members vary in their level of power, influence, skill, or dominance.

Understanding Social Hierarchies: The Neural and Psychological Foundations of Status Perception

Social groups across species rapidly self-organize into hierarchies, where members vary in their level of power, influence, skill, or dominance. In this review we explore the nature of social hierarchies and the traits associated with status in both humans ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

In group-living taxa, orderly, stable dominance relationships minimize aggression and improve efficiency [16,17,98], so self-organizing dominance hierarchies may be common.

Both theoretical and empirical work suggests that maintaining stable social hierarchies is fundamental to successful, long-lasting social groups. Hierarchy stability reduces conflict, saves energy, promotes survival and increases reproductive success.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2020.0450

And how do you define the difference between abusive and non-abusive control?

Like we do for all situations whether within hierarchies, families, mariages, relationships, organisations, partnerships, with animals. When an individual, group, organisation or government uses their position within the hierarchy to exploit and abuse others beyond what the hierarchy is designed and meant to be used.

That basically means unjustified controll and abuse of human rights and equal opportunity within the context of the situation and setup. We have identified certain signs and red flags like lack of transparency, audits, monopolies, concentrations of power, lack of diverse views (groupthink).

Its a case by case basis and abusive control should never by assumed because ots a hierarchy or difference is dominance and control. Thats just a fact or life in how we organise society. Its about being moral and doing what is right by others, treating others the way we wanted to be treated.

But our values are important as a society as we can promote unhealthy and conflicting ways to organise society and believe its good. For example the idea that to be successful is to have a career, good job, to climb the corporate ladder and hierarchy of material success.

The value is material success so that in itself may creating a hierarchy that promotes abusive control and power relationships such as a class society. It seems humans have a tendency to think of self first and we want to gather resources and wealth for ourselves to survive. Like survival of the fittest which overrides the important aspects of life like family, relationsahips and caring for the disadevnatged in society.

So our values can underpin abusive control and we need to have a unified and common good way of organising society with the priorities we make to measure what is of value, what is of benefit and best overall. This is where the holistic approach comes in as it doesn't just assume one dimensional views of society and life but our phsyical and spiritual needs. Our spiritual and wellbeing needs should trump our material needs.

 

[Paidiske]

What do you mean by dominance because individuals and groups can dominate a particular sector over other individuals and groups naturally in the way society self organises.

We've been over this. A dominance hierarchy is one where there are relationships of control. Differences of ability or the like are prestige hierarchies.

I am not sure what you mean when you put ; relationships of control. This seems like your implying "relationships of control" is a seperate and independent factor in abuse from dominance hierarchies.

No; I am basically defining a dominance hierarchy as a relationship in which one person controls another.

Control is not a dirty word and signifies abuse.

I disagree. One person controlling another is basically exactly what abuse is. Remember this?

Life is full of controls and is needed to organise society to keep law, order and productivity without breaking down into disorder, anarchy, and chaos.

That is not what we are talking about. See the above picture.

You have to clarify what exactly is the measure.

I have told you. Any control which is unnecessary or harmful is abusive.

You also have to clarify is a hierarchy is abusive does that mean we get rid of that hierarchy.

That's too vague to be meaningful. We'd need to take each situation on its merits. But it would certainly need to be radically transformed.

You don't clarify these things

Because my main concern in this thread is the abuse of children in the home, and clarifying every other possible situation under the sun is really off topic.

So does a Marriage, partnership or any relationship where "control of one person by another - as a value and ideal which normalises relationships of power and control, do underpin abuse". But we don't get rid of that same marriage setup, relationship or partnership. We fix the broken sysytems and ensure they run better without abuse.

We remove the hierarchy from marriage and make it a partnership of equals. That's how we fix the broken system.

A hierarchy is a way of ranking and categorising people and differences.

Not in the sense we are discussing here. In the sense we are discussing here, it is a power difference used to control.

Can you point out to me where I said controls another person unnecessarily.

If you are not arguing for control (much of which is unnecessary), why are you arguing for hierarchy?

You have conformed what I am saying in that you cannot help but see things biased always in the direction of negative and abusive controlling and never a balanced position that acknowledges that control can be both good and bad and if often necessarily in organising society.

I don't think we are speaking about "control" as the same thing, here. The kind of control that I am talking about can not be "both good and bad." It is inherently bad. It coerces and limits a person based on the will of another person.

The certain words carry more weight because of your own unsupported ideological beliefs and assumptions.

Not unsupported. The outcomes of dominance hierarchies are very well documented.

Dominance hierarchy in a nutshell: why, how, dangers and solutions - PubMed

Life in societies has evolved as a response of organisms to environmental conditions. Dominance hierarchy forms an inner structure of a society which allows society members to stay together without repeated fighting. Access to resources is provided by hierarchical status. In the absence of...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Both high hierarchical disparity and isolation cause stress and health problems."

Hierarchy is Detrimental for Human Cooperation - Scientific Reports

Studies of animal behavior consistently demonstrate that the social environment impacts cooperation, yet the effect of social dynamics has been largely excluded from studies of human cooperation. Here, we introduce a novel approach inspired by nonhuman primate research to address how social...

www.nature.com

"Compared to a condition lacking hierarchy, cooperation declined in the presence of a hierarchy due to a decrease in investment by lower ranked individuals. Furthermore, hierarchy was detrimental to cooperation regardless of whether it was earned or arbitrary."

Hierarchy, Status, & Aggression... - The Mandt System

Human beings rely on group cooperation extensively as a means for survival. Whenever groups form, whether formal or informal, social hierarchies are formed. While the structure of hierarchies can vary, how status is achieved within a hierarchy can best be explained by examining two categories...

www.mandtsystem.com

"In a dominance hierarchy, the ability to cause physical, emotional, economic, or psychological harm to another is the decisive factor for establishing rank within the social hierarchy .... Social groups that have established dominance hierarchies tend to be inflexible, authoritarian, inequitable, and have higher levels of aggression and ingroup violence."

(Note that that last sentence is basically describing a high-abuse environment).

The right answer would have been hierarchies themselves are neutral and can be either be absuive and healthy and non abusive. That they are not abusive perse because they are hierarchies that involve control positive control.

I don't believe in "positive control," in the sense that we are discussing control. The very fact of being controlled undermines someone's dignity and agency. It diminishes them.

Lol all those snippets come from the links I previous posted which shows you completely ignored them.

It suggests that when I looked at them before, I could see they were not actually relevant to the point under discussion. But if you just grab a quote, devoid of context, then it becomes pretty meaningless.

By the way theres a couple on dominance hierarchies ie
Social groups identify themselves as a part of the group by immediately self-organising themselves into hierarchies. The hierarchy they exhibit is built on values such as their physical strength, power, influence within the group, skills that matter and the dominance level. As we learn to identify people based on their status, dominance, skill and physical strength since the early stage of our neural development it’s quite hard to overlook such learnings. Our brain tends to process every cue that others exhibit and we have a natural affinity for things that match either our subconscious or conscious search.

https://culture.kissflow.com/the-need-and-inevitable-nature-of-social-hierarchies-c5ec80f8841b

No, this is discussing a prestige hierarchy. They are talking about differences in status, but not relationships of control.

In group-living taxa, orderly, stable dominance relationships minimize aggression and improve efficiency [16,17,98], so self-organizing dominance hierarchies may be common.

Both theoretical and empirical work suggests that maintaining stable social hierarchies is fundamental to successful, long-lasting social groups. Hierarchy stability reduces conflict, saves energy, promotes survival and increases reproductive success.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2020.0450

This is not even discussing humans. But the fact that it talks about the hierarchy being maintained by "punishment, threats and behavioural asymmetry" ought to tell us that this is not healthy human behaviour.

When an individual, group, organisation or government uses their position within the hierarchy to exploit and abuse others beyond what the hierarchy is designed and meant to be used.

But what if the hierarchy is, in fact, abusive and controlling by design? Design can be bad. Design deserves to be critiqued and modified as necessary.

we need to have a unified and common good way of organising society with the priorities we make to measure what is of value, what is of benefit and best overall.

I don't think so. Pluralism and diversity of thought is incredibly beneficial. And who would decide which way we "need" to think?

 

[stevevw]

We've been over this. A dominance hierarchy is one where there are relationships of control. Differences of ability or the like are prestige hierarchies.

Yes and I explained that the differences in ability, talent and competence often puts people in control over others. For example they end up in positions of influence and power where they can control policy, and use their position to influence things which may have negative effects on certain groups.

Or perhaps how males may dominate the building industry thus denying females that opportunity to earn and end up in a situation where they are struggling and subject to poorer health and other problems associated with low socio economic status. This could apply to any industry or group.

No; I am basically defining a dominance hierarchy as a relationship in which one person controls another.

So therefore because hierarchies often involve one person or sector controlling others as a normal part of society you are falsely accusing some people in society of holding abusive beliefs and behaviour. That is what I mean by 'one belief' being used to determine 'another belief' as to what underpins abuse.

This belief is not based in facts and reality and therefore is itself an abusive belief because it forces society to take on something that does not represent the truth and reality and when we distort reality as we know from abusers who distort reality it causes destruction.

I disagree. One person controlling another is basically exactly what abuse is. Remember this?

So when the government controlled people with health restrictions controlling the free movement of people during Covid was abuse. When a mother or father controls the freedom of their child by grounding them this is abuse. When society has a herarchal legal and law system which controls people even to the point of locking them away but also forcing them to conform to various orders and forcing people to behave a certain way or else this is abuse.

View attachment 347815

That is not what we are talking about. See the above picture.

No you keep changing the goal posts, contradicting this and rarely clarify what control actually represents as far as a clear definition of abusive control and non abusive control.

You even contradict your last reply. On the one hand I discribe the good and healthy controls we need for society and you claim that you are not talking about this kind of control. Then above you disagree that 'control' is not a dirty word. In other words control, any control is a dirty word and that means negative and abusive as far as your concerned.

You also said similar like "can there ever be good control" or something like that and that hierarchies perse are inherently abusive control. So I think you believe that control fullstop is bad, is unnecessary and abusive and should be stopped. If we cannot even be clear on what we are dealing with then how can we prevent it.

I have told you. Any control which is unnecessary or harmful is abusive.

And it seems you believe all control is unnecessary and therefore abusive and harmful.

That's too vague to be meaningful. We'd need to take each situation on its merits. But it would certainly need to be radically transformed.

So what are we transforming the hierarchy. We can easily determine whether a hierarchy is needed and whether there is abuse or potential abuse.

Take the legal hierarchy. We known the hierarchy of law is needed as it helps protect society and allows appeal to determine guilt and innocense. So if there is abuse within this system we don't dismantle the entire system. We can identify abuse ironically through the same hierarchy which upholds human rights and Rule of law. Thats obvious.

But we can also identify potential abuse through audits, self checks for transparency, equal access and opportunity, anti descrimination laws, and most importantly at the base of the hierarchy the people who demand justice. There will always be new opportunities created by those who want to abuse but the key to actually preventing abuse is to tighten up the already good hierarchies that allow society to function which will actually identify abuses and make people responsible and acountable.

Because my main concern in this thread is the abuse of children in the home, and clarifying every other possible situation under the sun is really off topic.

I disagree. Its only be clarifying these related issues that we can truely understand and prevent abuse upstream where it develops due t initially being something that society seems to believe at first that its ok. It seems most beliefs that end up causing abuse have been advocated for where people believed it was the best way to order society only to later find that this actually cultivated abuse.

In other words we don't just come to understand the particular abusive ideas and beliefs of the past in particular situations which may have different context. We get to understand why and how society, why a group of people living together can develope such beliefs as a society, as humans and not just in the cultural sense.

We remove the hierarchy from marriage and make it a partnership of equals. That's how we fix the broken system.

So therefore this new trend that is happening at the moment 'Trad Marriages' where couples agree to live in traditional roles as they believe this is more beneficial, more healthy overall would this be part of that broken system because the couple do not have equal status and control over say their careers and opportunities to work and become financially independent.

Not in the sense we are discussing here. In the sense we are discussing here, it is a power difference used to control.

So when you says "a power difference used to control" what about for example the upper levels of people in the hierarchy have gained priviledges due to their position. Or more control over their life, better health and wellbeing ect. Those lower down may have less control, pooer health due to their lower position. Is that the same as abuse or underpinning abuse.

What about if as I mentioned that those people at the top may be in positions where they may have more direct control over those below and can use that to control people, what options they have, what information they get which may make a difference in what control they have over their life.

If you are not arguing for control (much of which is unnecessary), why are you arguing for hierarchy?

This is a good example of how belief and assumptions can dictate how people see the world. Your assuming hierarchy = absuive control. I assume it doesn't and needs to be qualified. So your projecting your assumptions and belief onto me, well into your worldview.

Its also another example of how you keep making contradictory and ambigious arguements. You just said above that the hiearchies and control I was trying to explain as being normal and good to run a society was not the type of control you meant. Now you say that simply because I argue for those good hierarchies and control its wrong and abusive.

I don't think we are speaking about "control" as the same thing, here. The kind of control that I am talking about can not be "both good and bad." It is inherently bad. It coerces and limits a person based on the will of another person.

Yes but you contradict this when you make out that any control or hierarchy = abusive control. Everytime I have presented evidence for these normal, health and good examples of hierarchies and control you resist and make out its all bad. There is no such thing as good hierarchies and control according to you.

Not unsupported. The outcomes of dominance hierarchies are very well documented.

I am not sure about that considering how you keep chopping and changing what control represents.

Dominance hierarchy in a nutshell: why, how, dangers and solutions - PubMed

Life in societies has evolved as a response of organisms to environmental conditions. Dominance hierarchy forms an inner structure of a society which allows society members to stay together without repeated fighting. Access to resources is provided by hierarchical status. In the absence of...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Both high hierarchical disparity and isolation cause stress and health problems."

Actually this is a good example of what I am talking about with risk factors being an important determinant of risk of abuse. For example your link mentions the isolation, stress, fear and health problems that are associated with disparities.

Both high hierarchical disparity and isolation cause stress and health problems. Feelings of guilt, fear, and stress can be used as markers of a harmful disparity. Warning signs include the lack of supportive interpersonal relationships, prestige, social norms, and cultural products that could mitigate the hierarchical difference.

So its not the hierarchy itself but the 'high disparity' within the hierarchy that is the problem. That disparity could be seen as socio economic or descriminatory disparity. The 'warning signs' are the risk factors such as low socioeconomic status because it means something within how society is ordered has created such a disparity. You could say the disparity between the lowest which is often the minorities and the highest which may be the upper class underpins abusive ideas that we can accept and tolerate such disparity.

So bringing the lowest up to be more equal is the opposite and reduces the disparity and empowers them compared to the highest. THus reducing opportunities for abuse.

In this review, we address the principles and functioning of dominance hierarchy, describe the structure of hierarchy in modern societies, and explain how the rank of the individual is determined and shapes the life of a person.

This is interesting because it seems we automatically rank others, we cannot help it. In some ways by having this hierarchy of differences we come to know ourselves as we can compare with others. This can be both positive and negative. The positive is that when we have healthy and positive hierarchies that represent the values we expect, look up to then we have positive representations that will foster good mental health.

But negative representations can also lead to poor mental health. Perhaps one example of a negative representation that may be seen as a superficially positive representation is celebs and especially reality TV. If celebs are being promoted as the good and compentent representation for society then no wonder we have poor mental health.

If by how people can artificially create representstaions of positive role models through media then we have lost our ability to control what messages are being taughtto children. Thats just one example of the upstream aspects that link all the way to abusive beliefs and actual abuse.

We briefly summarize the basic patterns of dominant and submissive behaviour. The rank of the individual is predictable and so is the behaviour connected to his/her rank. This allows us to predict where particular aid and attention are required.

Its a pity theres no access to the rest of the article as it would be interesting. It seems to be implying that rank is part of how we see others within society and that we can identify patterns of dominant and submissive behaviour as oppose to cooperative and egalitarian behaviour within the same ranking system.

But not saying we should get rid of ranking altogether as this is like hierarchal thinking a natural and normal way we see people. We just have to make sure we are ranking them in the right sort of way.

I want to read the next article as it has access and looks interesting. So I will leave it here and come back. Regards Steve.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes and I explained that the differences in ability, talent and competence often puts people in control over others. For example they end up in positions of influence and power where they can control policy, and use their position to influence things which may have negative effects on certain groups.

But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about direct control; where one person coerces or limits another.

So therefore because hierarchies often involve one person or sector controlling others as a normal part of society you are falsely accusing some people in society of holding abusive beliefs and behaviour.

Well, firstly, I am not speaking of that kind of hierarchy. And secondly, I do not concede that just because something is "normal," that it is good or right. And thirdly, who says it's a false accusation, that some people hold attitudes which underpin abusive behaviour? This is clearly a very basic truth, given the high rates of abuse in our society.

This belief is not based in facts and reality

It is, though. The research has been done. Valuing hierarchy as the ordering principle for relationships is one of the cluster of beliefs which underpin abuse. That is a fact. That is reality.

So when the government controlled people with health restrictions controlling the free movement of people during Covid was abuse.

Frankly, some of it - that which went beyond what was necessary to prevent harm - was deeply harmful.

When a mother or father controls the freedom of their child by grounding them this is abuse.

It could be part of abuse, depending on the context. I am not arguing against necessary limits for children, given their developmental immaturity.

When society has a herarchal legal and law system which controls people even to the point of locking them away but also forcing them to conform to various orders and forcing people to behave a certain way or else this is abuse.

Again, it can be. The carceral system is deeply flawed.

No you keep changing the goal posts,

To me, it seems like I am trying to keep us on topic, and you keep trying to drag us off topic by bringing in all sorts of unrelated things, like prison and being grounded.

On the one hand I discribe the good and healthy controls we need for society and you claim that you are not talking about this kind of control. Then above you disagree that 'control' is not a dirty word. In other words control, any control is a dirty word and that means negative and abusive as far as your concerned.

Well, we are talking about abuse, so we are not talking about "good and healthy controls." We are not discussing traffic laws here.

But in the sense that we are discussing it - one person controlling another, one person coercing or limiting another - control is a "dirty word." It is basically the essence of abuse. All the rest - the physical violence, the verbal aggression, the threats and destruction of property and whatever else - is all aimed at establishing and maintaining control over someone.

So I think you believe that control fullstop is bad, is unnecessary and abusive and should be stopped.

I would say, kept to an absolute minimum of what is necessary to prevent harm.

We can easily determine whether a hierarchy is needed and whether there is abuse or potential abuse.

Not as easy as you might think, given some of the arguments commonly made, for example, around husbands controlling wives.

Take the legal hierarchy. We known the hierarchy of law is needed as it helps protect society and allows appeal to determine guilt and innocense.

I wouldn't even call it a hierarchy, in a democracy.

I disagree.

Well, I'm not interested in playing games of distraction.

So therefore this new trend that is happening at the moment 'Trad Marriages' where couples agree to live in traditional roles as they believe this is more beneficial, more healthy overall would this be part of that broken system because the couple do not have equal status and control over say their careers and opportunities to work and become financially independent.

As I have said, over and over and over again in this thread, abuse is not about who takes up what role. I would only see "trad marriages" as part of the broken system if either partner is coerced into taking up, or staying in, a role they would not freely choose.

So when you says "a power difference used to control" what about for example the upper levels of people in the hierarchy have gained priviledges due to their position. ... Those lower down may have less control, pooer health due to their lower position. Is that the same as abuse or underpinning abuse.

We're not talking about someone having perks that someone else doesn't. What you're describing here may be systemic injustice, but it's not abuse in the sense of one person directly controlling or limiting another person's behaviour.

What about if as I mentioned that those people at the top may be in positions where they may have more direct control over those below and can use that to control people, what options they have, what information they get which may make a difference in what control they have over their life.

And someone limiting someone else's options may well be a form of abuse.

Your assuming hierarchy = absuive control.

I am defining (dominance) hierarchy as relationships of control. And I have given evidence that much of that control is harmful.

Now you say that simply because I argue for those good hierarchies and control its wrong and abusive.

You are not at all clear in your arguments. Much of what you say seems to be at least implied support for control and hierarchy as necessary, in an unqualified way, to prevent "chaos."

Yes but you contradict this when you make out that any control or hierarchy = abusive control.

I have, repeatedly, made an exception for that which is necessary to prevent harm.

Actually this is a good example of what I am talking about with risk factors being an important determinant of risk of abuse. For example your link mentions the isolation, stress, fear and health problems that are associated with disparities.

Both high hierarchical disparity and isolation cause stress and health problems. Feelings of guilt, fear, and stress can be used as markers of a harmful disparity. Warning signs include the lack of supportive interpersonal relationships, prestige, social norms, and cultural products that could mitigate the hierarchical difference.

So its not the hierarchy itself but the 'high disparity' within the hierarchy that is the problem.

The point here, which you seem to have spectacularly missed, is that the hierarchy is what causes the "high disparity." It is, as they state here, "hierarchical disparity" (emphasis mine). No hierarchy; no disparity.

The positive is that when we have healthy and positive hierarchies that represent the values we expect, look up to then we have positive representations that will foster good mental health.

This has nothing to do with dominance hierarchies, or relationships of control, though. "Ranking" does not have to mean control of one person by another.

 

[stevevw]

Hierarchy is Detrimental for Human Cooperation - Scientific Reports

Studies of animal behavior consistently demonstrate that the social environment impacts cooperation, yet the effect of social dynamics has been largely excluded from studies of human cooperation. Here, we introduce a novel approach inspired by nonhuman primate research to address how social...

www.nature.com

"Compared to a condition lacking hierarchy, cooperation declined in the presence of a hierarchy due to a decrease in investment by lower ranked individuals. Furthermore, hierarchy was detrimental to cooperation regardless of whether it was earned or arbitrary."

This is about animal species and not humans who are much more dynamical in their relkationships such as valuing and ranking honesty or competencies in social relations and wellbeing. Humans are able to understand human behaviour beyond the base instincts into the psychological and value/moral realms.

On that basis social hierarchies are vital for how humans can understand themselves within the group and what qualities are of value for benefiting how humans get along and form societies. THis was mentioned in the links I provided.

Using your link to deny all social hierarchies as being detrimental to society is misleading and damaging to society as its casting a negative light on natural and healthy human behaviour as being bad and abusive is an example of what I mean by people using their own ideological beliefs to determine what is the best way we should order society. An example of how a belief is being used to deny reality.

For example

Social groups identify themselves as a part of the group by immediately self-organising themselves into hierarchies. The hierarchy they exhibit is built on values such as their physical strength, power, influence within the group, skills that matter and the dominance level. As per neural findings, the status has an immense impact on one’s attention, memory, social interactions, and even on their physical and mental health.

As we learn to identify people based on their status, dominance, skill and physical strength since the early stage of our neural development it’s quite hard to overlook such learnings. Our brain tends to process every cue that others exhibit and we have a natural affinity for things that match either our subconscious or conscious search.

Assigning ranks and perceiving status cues come with ease for humans.

An adult who grew up in the middle of a city full of modern infrastructure will instantly make status perception when he/she notices sports cars or big houses. The rate in which we perceive status cues reflects the choice for hierarchical organisation within communities.

The better we understand our place in a community it helps us organise ourselves as per needs and to promote advantageous social interactions. Analysing and recognising one’s social status helps us to know where we stand compared to others, which is necessary to find the meaning of one’s actions and existence.

Each one of us varies in skills and we are in constant search for people who can combine their skills with ours to make it a better combo. To coordinate and live in unison and to thrive in situations where group organisation is required, social hierarchies lead the way into aligning people with needed skills in line, for perfect victory.

Like other skills such as communication, problem-solving, and the ability to work under pressure, social skills are considered primary. Social skills and the ability to organise groups in a hierarchical manner is important and it is directly proportional to group productivity and group cohesion.
https://culture.kissflow.com/the-need-and-inevitable-nature-of-social-hierarchies-c5ec80f8841b

So it seems for humans social hierarchies are vital to promote advantageous social interactions, meaning of one’s actions and existence, coordinate and live in unison and is directly proportional to group cohesion.

Hierarchy, Status, & Aggression... - The Mandt System

Human beings rely on group cooperation extensively as a means for survival. Whenever groups form, whether formal or informal, social hierarchies are formed. While the structure of hierarchies can vary, how status is achieved within a hierarchy can best be explained by examining two categories...

www.mandtsystem.com

"In a dominance hierarchy, the ability to cause physical, emotional, economic, or psychological harm to another is the decisive factor for establishing rank within the social hierarchy .... Social groups that have established dominance hierarchies tend to be inflexible, authoritarian, inequitable, and have higher levels of aggression and ingroup violence."

The first thing I notice is that you are using 'aggression' as a marker for how dominance hierarchies are unhealthy and inappropriate. This is similar to how I used 'aggression' as a marker for the psychological state of abusers for which you dismissed as irrelevant. I agree 'aggression' is a marker but you have to be consistent in your logic.

I disagree that hierarchies just fall into dominance and prestige as human relationships are far more dynamic. We can form all sorts of value hierarchies of human qualities even good and healthy ones thus promoting good and positive relationships as to off hierarchical relationships.

I also disagree that dominance and prestige hierarchies fall into a specific set of behaviours like being rigid or completely prestigious. There are many degrees of dominance and prestige which cannot easily fall into abusive or non abusive.

I have already mentioned dominance hierarchies where for example certain groups dominate sectors of society due to having whatever qualities of abilities they have and not because they intended to dominate those groups to deny and abuse others. They reap benefits and privilegde as a result and will be in higher positions as a result where they have more control indirectly over others.

(Note that that last sentence is basically describing a high-abuse environment).

Yes a dominance hierarchy can be a high abusive environment. With todays awareness we should spot these pretty quickly because they are "high-abuse environments". They are red flags, they have markers like violent agression, rigidity, purposeful dominance of others to gain benefits over others.

But like I said we can have dominance hierarchies that form naturally and are not intending to abuse and don't display the markers. I think its all in the intention. I agree that concepts like dominance when it comes to human relationships should be discouraged. But like you said thats a particular type of relationship that is fueled by someone abusing, using violence against another, dominating them personally and socially.

That is why we need to have a compehensive understanding of how humans think and nehave in context and not assume that this or that behaviour is wrong.

I don't believe in "positive control," in the sense that we are discussing control. The very fact of being controlled undermines someone's dignity and agency. It diminishes them.

Yes in the sense your talking. But the fact that you say your not talking about "control" in another sense that is not abusive or undermining to a persons agency shows that we cannot just assume control perse is a bad thing. Like we have agreed, voluntary control is a natural part of society and relationships.

In fact in some ways this sort of self sontrol, agreed control and even sometimes reluctant control is healthy for wellbeing as it allows people to feel secure and gioves them a sense that everything is under control and being ordered to avoid chaos. Deep down we like belonging to something that tells us what to do and makes us responsible.

It suggests that when I looked at them before, I could see they were not actually relevant to the point under discussion. But if you just grab a quote, devoid of context, then it becomes pretty meaningless.

Well actually the snippets came from a more detailed summary. I guess I could have just put the title and link. But if your not recognising the snippets then your not reading the summaries I don't think your going to ever read the actual articles in any detail. Whats the use of evidence ah.

No, this is discussing a prestige hierarchy. They are talking about differences in status, but not relationships of control.

I actually answered this one above.

This is not even discussing humans. But the fact that it talks about the hierarchy being maintained by "punishment, threats and behavioural asymmetry" ought to tell us that this is not healthy human behaviour.

I put this in to show how natural dominance hierarchies are throughout nature. At the most basic level humans are similar but we also have higher ordered thinking especially emotions which motivate our attention and valuing and morals.

Its a fact of life that punishments and consequential threats for bad behaviour with any society is vital for law and order. Its nice to believe that we humans can be empathic and kind natured. But the fact is we are often not so we need to have controls to stop a complete breakdown of society.

But what if the hierarchy is, in fact, abusive and controlling by design? Design can be bad. Design deserves to be critiqued and modified as necessary.

I am not sure there is such a thing. I guess you can get a Cartel or religious group who setup a system of rule but these are usually obvious abusive examples like cults and radical groups with extreme ideology.

But for the most part hierarchies form because people value a quality, ability, that is beneficial to making things more stable and producing good results. Otherwise they would not value it. As they involve larger social interactions they are usually the majority and become norms.

Like say how males dominated work in early history because it was suited to males being labor intensive. That put males in the dominate position due to the natural evolution of society from hunter gatherers to town and city dwellers. But once in that position males used that position to deny women the right to also work. The hierarchy naturally formed but then it was abused.

I think most abusive hierarchies are like this. They begin as natural evolutions but then get exploited and abused. THe hierarchal law system is another example. It has been abused over theyears such as descriminating against blacks, too many whites occupying positions of power. But the hierarchal setup is not wrong and was created as a natural system for oganising society. It just needs policing itself where each level is more transparent and reflects equality and responsible administration of law and order.

I don't think so. Pluralism and diversity of thought is incredibly beneficial. And who would decide which way we "need" to think?

Yes this is an important aspect of knowledge of cultural differences but there are also common human aspects that play an important role in helping a society live together. The saying united we stand and divided we fall comes to mind. A basic truth principle.

If you push differences then you divide society. If you make identity the measure of reality and how society should be ordered you not only divide society because differences become everything and in reality we are all humans with natural "Human Rights". But we also promote indifference and pit identity groups against each other thus cultivating abuse and violence.

 

[Paidiske]

This is about animal species and not humans

I don't think you can really have it both ways, steve. If you post articles about animals to support your arguments, then you probably ought consider articles about animals which offer a different perspective.

On that basis social hierarchies are vital for how humans can understand themselves within the group and what qualities are of value for benefiting how humans get along and form societies.

That is about prestige hierarchies, not dominance hierarchies.

Using your link to deny all social hierarchies as being detrimental to society

This is not at all what I have said. I have argued against the type of hierarchies in which people directly control others.

The first thing I notice is that you are using 'aggression' as a marker for how dominance hierarchies are unhealthy and inappropriate.

On its own, not necessarily. In the context of the rest of what I quoted, which also mentioned physical, emotional, economic and psychological harm; inflexibility, authoritarianism, inequity and violence, then the whole picture becomes problematic.

I disagree that hierarchies just fall into dominance and prestige as human relationships are far more dynamic.

It is, however, useful to be able to make a distinction between the kinds of hierarchies which are about control (dominance), and those which are not (prestige).

I have already mentioned dominance hierarchies where for example certain groups dominate sectors of society due to having whatever qualities of abilities they have and not because they intended to dominate those groups to deny and abuse others.

That's not a dominance hierarchy.

But like I said we can have dominance hierarchies that form naturally and are not intending to abuse and don't display the markers.

By definition, a dominance hierarchy is one in which some people control others. That is the key attribute of abuse.

I agree that concepts like dominance when it comes to human relationships should be discouraged.

Why, since you're so busy advocating for the benefits of dominance hierarchies? On what grounds would you discourage them, if not that they incubate abusive control?

Yes in the sense your talking.

Well, any other sense is profoundly off topic.

Deep down we like belonging to something that tells us what to do and makes us responsible.

Please don't presume to speak for anyone other than yourself. I certainly do not like "belonging to something that tells us what to do." I would avoid any such situation as profoundly dangerous, and likely abusive.

Whats the use of evidence ah.

I keep telling you, keep it relevant to the topic, or I'm not going to waste my time with it.

Its a fact of life that punishments and consequential threats for bad behaviour with any society is vital for law and order. Its nice to believe that we humans can be empathic and kind natured. But the fact is we are often not so we need to have controls to stop a complete breakdown of society.

But we are not talking here about law and order. We are talking about one person directly controlling another through these behaviours.

I am not sure there is such a thing.

Oh good grief. There are so many that this seems wilfully blind.

But for the most part hierarchies form because people value a quality, ability, that is beneficial to making things more stable and producing good results.

Once again, that is a prestige hierarchy, not a dominance hierarchy.

I think most abusive hierarchies are like this. They begin as natural evolutions but then get exploited and abused.

They develop over time, sure. But there's no reason to think that abuse was not a feature, rather than a bug, even from their earliest beginnings.
Your last comments are, again, off topic, but I profoundly disagree. Diversity is a gift, not a threat.

 

[stevevw]

But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about direct control; where one person coerces or limits another.

Actually we are not and you have referred to the system of control. How hierarchal systems can control people indirectly. Which by the way will accommodate situations where one person will directly control another. This cannot happen unless there is some wider hierarchal setup that allows individuals to take advantage of.

Well, firstly, I am not speaking of that kind of hierarchy.

Saying "not that kind of hierarchy' implies there are other kinds including good kinds and therefore hierarchies are not automatically abusive.

And secondly, I do not concede that just because something is "normal," that it is good or right.

Often when we say normal it means it is thinking and behaviour that we normally fall under, have an inclination or default way of thinking and behaving. So its not something subject to good or right. It just happens like bonding happens.

The value judgements come in later as to how that natural thinking and behaviour should be. But what got us there in the first place, the natural ways we value and rank differences in people, we cannot help that as we pay attention to them for good reasons associated with getting along and survival.

And thirdly, who says it's a false accusation, that some people hold attitudes which underpin abusive behaviour? This is clearly a very basic truth, given the high rates of abuse in our society.

I am not saying there are no true examples and perhaps lots of abusive control in society, within hierarchies and insitutions. I am saying to assume that all social hierarchies that form within society are inherently aaabusive control is to falsely accuse some hierarchies of being abusive when they may actually be the opposite.

Its akin critical race theorists claim that all whites, and institutions are inherently racist or when feminist claim mascullinity is toxic. It subverts the truth by assuming people are a certain way based on an ideology rather than how they actually relate to each other.

It is, though. The research has been done. Valuing hierarchy as the ordering principle for relationships is one of the cluster of beliefs which underpin abuse. That is a fact. That is reality.

Its one fact taken out of context to be made into a false reality presented about the world. Thats because we can show as already done that valuing hierarchies as the ordering principle for relationships is also normal and healthy way to organise society.

So here we have a hierarchy sometimes being detructive and sometimes being constructive but not inherently destructive or constructive in itself. Its just a way of organisation, categorisation, that happens in life. But as humans have a sinful and selfish nature they will abuse and exploit others for selfish reasons.

Frankly, some of it - that which went beyond what was necessary to prevent harm - was deeply harmful.

Yes some of it but not all of it. So we have to work out which "some of it" was beyond necessary and keep pushing back against this as a society. But we also recognise that in many ways we are controlled so that society can function without destablising and breaking down law and order or creating unsafe and unhealthy situations for society as a whole. That will inevitably encroach on peoples freedoms to varying degrees and I think is accepted by most people as part of society.

It could be part of abuse, depending on the context. I am not arguing against necessary limits for children, given their developmental immaturity.

Yes it could be. But when you keep saying it could be, it also could not be and is not for the majoirty of the time within the same hierarchal family structure thaat puts the parents at the top. Which is based on the same principle as having competent and authorative positions overall in society to maintain stability so that the inmates and lunatics don't end up running society lol.

Again, it can be. The carceral system is deeply flawed.

Maybe so but we still need it. Even Gods own Law demands punishment for sin. We need to control our fleshly desires. But we also recognise rehabilitation so its not all just punitive. But rehab is based on the idea that we value certain behaviour over others which will be pro social rather than antisocial and for good reasons, not just subjective beliefs or determinations but factual ones which show society will breakdown otherwise.

To me, it seems like I am trying to keep us on topic, and you keep trying to drag us off topic by bringing in all sorts of unrelated things, like prison and being grounded.

We have to be grounded to tell whether what you are offering is realitic and based on the evidence. So far you have conflated a lot of what is normal and healthy beliefs and ideas as abusive. So thats exactly why we need some grounding.

Well, we are talking about abuse, so we are not talking about "good and healthy controls." We are not discussing traffic laws here.

We can only talk about what is abuse by understanding what is not abuse. Otherwise we misinterpret things. Your own language is contradictive and implies any control is abuse. So obviously I am going to disagree and then go into detail as to why not all control is abusive. The fact that you keep conflating different forms of control and don't clarify is why we need to discuss things in more detail.

But in the sense that we are discussing it - one person controlling another, one person coercing or limiting another - control is a "dirty word." It is basically the essence of abuse. All the rest - the physical violence, the verbal aggression, the threats and destruction of property and whatever else - is all aimed at establishing and maintaining control over someone.

Its the problem that you don't specify this and you keep conflating all control as abusive. No one is disagreeing that there are contextes that involve abusive control. But this is only one aspect of how control works in society.

I would say, kept to an absolute minimum of what is necessary to prevent harm.

But what is an absolute minimum. What does that even mean in the wider societal context. We have so many controls that it would be hard to know where to start.

I think the best policy is transparency and support networks as they will expose abuse. Rather than deconstructing every system and assuming they are abusive we are open with our relationships. That way we will see them in context rather than by any preconscieved ideas.

Not as easy as you might think, given some of the arguments commonly made, for example, around husbands controlling wives.

I am not sure any arguements for husbands controlling wives would ever get off the ground in todays Woke society. In fact we are busily finding micro waves people are allegedly abusing others lol. You only have to look at someone the wrong way or say the wrong word and its abuse. In some ways thats abuse in itself.

I think those oldfer stereotypical beliefs though still around are a dying breed. There are new ways people are abusing that we don't even recognise today. We have moved way before the bad old days into some new bad days. People seem to be always looking for ways to exploit others as we become more self centered.

I wouldn't even call it a hierarchy, in a democracy.

Of course its a hierarchy, even hierarchies within hierarchies. Overall we have the different levels of jurisdiction and legal power. Thats the administration side but theres also the legal side as in levels of legal recendents, criminal law, civil law, family law, corporate law. Then you have all the local laws and regulations. If it wasn't for hierarchal organisation we would not be able to know what was what.

As I have said, over and over and over again in this thread, abuse is not about who takes up what role. I would only see "trad marriages" as part of the broken system if either partner is coerced into taking up, or staying in, a role they would not freely choose.

So heres the problem. To many in society today the Trad Wife scenario of male earning and out there developing career and wife stuck at home with kids looking after home may look like an abusive situation. So we cannot tell if anyone is coerced on the surface view. But that is what ideologues do. They assume those setups are abusive without knowling the context.

That is whay I keep going on about the context for which you say is a waste of time. The only way we can know that what may look similar to an abusive situation is not actually an abusive situation is knowing the context instead of assuming so.

What some will do is they will project an unconscious abuse that no one else can see expect for them to claim that healthy and chosen setups are really abusive and everyone just cannot see this expect for a chosen few who are more Woke.

We're not talking about someone having perks that someone else doesn't. What you're describing here may be systemic injustice, but it's not abuse in the sense of one person directly controlling or limiting another person's behaviour.

Then why do advocates who promote abuse prevention talk about equalising womens pay, job status, be on corporate boards and financially stronger as part of preventing abuse against women.

And someone limiting someone else's options may well be a form of abuse.

It may well be or it may well be not. How do you tell. That is why its important to not just assume it is but to ground this in its conext and other factors before making judgement. You seem to just fall down on it being abuse automatically which will inevitably make non abusive situations into being assumed abusive which cannot be good.

I am defining (dominance) hierarchy as relationships of control. And I have given evidence that much of that control is harmful.

No you havn't. You gave one article about dominance hierarchies in animals. I gave 10 plus articles in how hierarchies are normal, health and even prevent abuse of power and make people more responsible and get along better.

You are not at all clear in your arguments. Much of what you say seems to be at least implied support for control and hierarchy as necessary, in an unqualified way, to prevent "chaos."

I've been very clear and used factual evidence as the guide to ensure things are clarified. Its not clarifying and assuming control is inherently abusive that causes the confusion. I have clearly shown that hierarchal setups that include degrees of control are natural and normal aspects of society.

The difference is I acknowledge that there can be abusive and healthy setups in conext and you assume all conext of control is inherently abusive.

I have, repeatedly, made an exception for that which is necessary to prevent harm.

But then you contradict your position when you make out all control is abusive with statments like "is there any good or non abusive control" ect. You make the exceptions because I bring them up and I have to keep bringing them up when you revert back to those assumptions that they are inherently bad.

The point here, which you seem to have spectacularly missed, is that the hierarchy is what causes the "high disparity." It is, as they state here, "hierarchical disparity" (emphasis mine). No hierarchy; no disparity.

But you miss the overall point that its the same hierarchy that can have the high or law disparity. The hierarchy is still in operation except its not promoting high disparity. But it still supports disparity. There is no such thing as a non disparity in a hierarchy for the simple fact there everyone is not the same in many different ways and we will value and rank those differences to varying disparities. Its only natural as we don't value everything the same.

This has nothing to do with dominance hierarchies, or relationships of control, though. "Ranking" does not have to mean control of one person by another.

Exactly so a hierarchy that may organise people and society in ranks doesn't mean its abusive control.