I just literally gave you evidence with the links you ignored.
My point is that there are many problems in modern society, and without wishing to downplay mental health issues, there are many other problems which could reasonably be considered for the claim of "biggest problem."
War, including that between Russia and Ukraine; between Israel and Palestine; internal conflict in Myanmar, Syria, Mali, Ethiopia, Yeman and Somalia; drug war in Mexico, Haiti and Colombia; and conflict on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan; would surely deserve consideration.
How else are we to have a coherent discussion if you keep dismissing the evidence.
There's no real point in a discussion based on things like claiming that depression and anxiety are the "biggest problem" facing modern society. That's just you throwing opinions around.
Thats what you keep claiming so I am pinning you down on this to see if your claim stands up. So I'm asking you about the APA's claim not mine.
Ok; APA definitions.
"Stress is a normal reaction to everyday pressures, but can become unhealthy when it upsets your day-to-day functioning. Stress involves changes affecting nearly every system of the body, influencing how people feel and behave.
By causing mind–body changes, stress contributes directly to psychological and physiological disorder and disease and affects mental and physical health, reducing quality of life."
"Psychological distress: a set of painful mental and physical symptoms that are associated with normal fluctuations of mood in most people. In some cases, however, psychological distress may indicate the beginning of major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, schizophrenia, somatization disorder, or a variety of other clinical conditions. It is thought to be what is assessed by many putative self-report measures of depression and anxiety."
"Depression: a negative affective state, ranging from unhappiness and discontent to an extreme feeling of sadness, pessimism, and despondency, that interferes with daily life. Various physical, cognitive, and social changes also tend to co-occur, including altered eating or sleeping habits, lack of energy or motivation, difficulty concentrating or making decisions, and withdrawal from social activities. It is symptomatic of a number of mental health disorders."
These are clearly not the same thing.
They are the ones that said psychological maladaptation is linked to abuse.
Which stands to reason, since by definition, maladaptation is shown by behaviour patterns which are detrimental or counter-productive. But what was meant by "psychological maladaptation," in context of that quote?
Then why does the APA, the ones that give the diagnostic criteria for stress and distress say they are variations on the same thing.
That's not what I see when I look at their definitions.
That it is part of why people abuse. We can say that stress and distress contributes to why people abuse. This is fact. Its part of the mix of why people abuse.
I disagree.
We wouldn't accept this argument of a man who beat his wife. We wouldn't allow him to argue that his stress "made" him hit her. We recognise that he made choices about his behaviour, even if he used his abusing as a way to soothe his stress. Why do we accept such a ludicrous claim from a parent who beats their child?
But this doesn't follow that there are people who cannot handle stress that do abuse.
Isn't that basically your argument? That the poor abusive parents are so stressed that they can't help but abuse their kids?
Actually as your link states unreal and inappropriate beliefs and attitudes about abusing and controlling others are caused by distress.
They might be heightened by distress, but distress isn't what causes people to find violence acceptable. It isn't what causes people to believe in hierarchy, power and control. It isn't what causes people to believe in rigid relational and household roles.
Wanting to control and abuse others comes from experiences that are negative and distressful to the abuser. You can't get such a destructful belief from a positive place.
Then why do campaigns aimed at changing social norms work? Because those social norms shape people's beliefs.
I just gave them a few posts ago. I am beginning to think you either refuse to acknowledge this or you are really don't understand what they are saying.
I think you are claiming they say something they don't really say.
I also linked the articles on the Parental Rational and Irrational Belief Scale which explains the mindset of those who have beliefs in abuse and control such as "Demandingness" ect.
And we went through them point by point, and found that those scales measure quite a lot that is not related to abuse, and only a small portion of the beliefs which do drive abuse. (That small area of overlap in the Venn diagram). So no, they don't explain the mechanisms for how people come to hold the very specific beliefs and attitudes which underpin abuse.
What do you mean by "quantifying the causative contribution".
I mean that if you claim that a, b, and c, all contribute to something, we ought to be able to demonstrate how, and measure how much, each of those things contribute.
Not just say, "Oh, we tend to see a, b and c more often near this other thing, so of course they're what causes it!"
But the risk factors combine to cause abuse and I have provided evidence for this. I will only re-link it if you ask for it or dispute this.
I do dispute it. You have not demonstrated that most claimed risk factors cause abuse in any way.
I have also provided evidence for this and will only re-link it if tyou dispute this. Your saying that of all the links I have provided none state how these contribute to abuse. Say with data and studies.
This is very vague. At this point it's not even clear exactly what you're claiming.
Are you kidding, your own link provided this evidence.
I don't believe so. Where does it demonstrate that abusers hold the beliefs they do because of distress?
In other words the Parental Rational and Irrational Belief Scale when measuring parental beliefs and attides is not done in isolation but is closely linked with the measures of irrationality and negative emotions and parental stress.
But does not measure the specific beliefs which underpin abuse. We've been over this...
And I have never said this so your creating another Strawman to knockdown.
This is exactly what many of your arguments amount to. This thing happens more often alongside abuse, so it must cause abuse. It's nonsense.
In fact initially you were the one who made the unsupported claim that the article "was not" about abuse without knowing the content of the article.
It's not about abuse. That is very clear from the abstract. If it were about abuse, it would be mentioned.
But the belief in CP itself is not abusive.
It's one necessary leg of the tripod, in that it demonstrates acceptance of violence, even if at a level not severe enough to meet the legal definition of abuse. But I was not discussing non-abusive corporal punishment.
So something else has caused the abuser to move from the socially acceptable belief to a negative and abusive one.
It's just acceptance of a more severe level of violence.
No this is just your take on its.
Yeah, no. I'm confident enough in my professional experience and expertise, not to be dismissed by someone without the same experience and expertise, metaphorically patting me on the head and telling me I don't understand my own work.
Its not what the majority of the industry think.
I had to explain to you what primary prevention was, and now you claim to know what the majority of the primary prevention industry think?
But considering these beliefs are detructful and most people don't go along with them its not the result of society telling them to be abusive but more the personal negative experiences that make the person relate to abusive and controlling thinking in the first place.
I'd disagree. "Most" people in society hold attitudes which accept violence, at least at some level. Most people hold attitudes which accept hierarchy, power and control, rigid roles, at least to a degree. The depth of conviction might vary, but it would be a very rare person who held none of these values to any degree. They are deeply embedded social and cultural norms.
As I said it takes a lot of cultivate belief in parents and its not just because they hear some message telling them its ok.
Of course not. I have never made such a ridiculously simplistic claim.
They have to be primed to want to abuse others and anyone primed to abuse others has psychological issues that cause them to turn abuse into something good.
You need evidence for claims like that. Dismissing people with whom you disagree as "nut cases" is neither accurate nor helpful.