Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health

[stevevw]

But you are claiming that someone who does something to create distress in others "must" already have such distress within themselves.

Yes I think so. You can inflict distress without being the distress when it comes to abuse.But nevertheless it would not take long before the abusive parent just like everyone else will be effected by the distress and dysfunction in the home.

At this stage they are distressed and participating in the dysfunction. The distress of the child and others feeds into the parents psyche and the entire situation becomes distressed in a self feeding cycle.

And you've presented no evidence for that. To me it's as obvious as anything that we can prompt a range of reactions in others without that being our own mental and emotional state.

Yes but when it comes to abuse which has obvious distress for everyone involved it makes sense that the abuser is the one who introduced that distress by behaving in a way that distresses the victim and everyone else in the situation. I find it unreal that everyone except the abusive parent are not distressed or dysfunctional in some way.

A parent with no distress and an easy go lucky disposition is not going to introduce distress by abuse which is proven to cause distress. It contradicts basic human psychology. I understand that peoples ordinary behaviour that is not intending to abuse can be taken the wrong way and some react over nothing. But this is different. Its proven that abusive behaaaviour causes distress.

You claimed a majority of people hold the beliefs which underpin abuse. Justification of violence is a key one of those.

I clarified this by saying that the statement itself, 'justifying violence' is ambiguous and can be taken as violence is ok. So this is clear cut. But words like 'hierarchy or rigid roles' don't say anything about justifying violence or abuse. So many people believe in hierarchies for example explicitly or implicitly without them being abusssive.

I'd challenge the claim that any social structure is "natural."

Thats because from memory you support social construction theory, all individual and societal differences are a social coinstruction. But there are many natural social structure including hierarchies. Look at mammals especially primates. Look at how society organisese itself economically in class and status, privilidge and control. A wealthy person who works hard to gain that status compared to others is not abusive.

Look at sports and work hiearchies and rigid roles. People being put in specific roles to perform rigid duties that cannot go outside their role to achieve an outcome. Some having more power and control over others in the structure of organisations, military, police, health system ect.

Look at how males dominate strength and power roles at the top with weaker males and some stronger females in the middle and then females in general and very weak males at the bottom. Thats a hiearchy of strength and power that naturally forms due to the way males and females are naturally built.

Firstly, you've just spent a couple of paragraphs telling me that actually, they don't.

I said base belief, they hold the same belief that is being abused and distorted in order to abuse. For example abusive and non abusive parents both believe in psychical punishment as a means to discipline a child. So they have same basic beliefbut the abuser has a distorted view that the same basic belief allows them to cross the line.

But secondly, I asked you for evidence that the majority hold beliefs which accept violence, value hierarchy, power, control, and rigid roles, and you have still not given me any.

Like I said above I am not talking about obvious statements that say violence and controlling others is ok. Or at least leaves things open to be taken as violence is ok.

But as far as belief in hierarchies and rigid roles I gave you the evidence that most people inherently believe in these things as being ok and a normal part of structuring society and people by the fact they live this way everyday.

Provided we are not seeing harm done,

So who is the arbitor of what consitutes harm done.

can we not allow for diversity of views?

These two statements are self contradicting. You say we need to to harm which which implies a certain objective view yet then say we should allow for a diversity of views about what constitutes harm which would undermine having any objective position.

We can allow for a diversity of view so long as no harm is being done. So we ned some objective measure of what constitutes harm being done. As is often the case with issues of rights they clash and one persons rights might deny another persons. So how do we cater for all these diverse views and beliefs without denying some people their rights. Who decides which rights trump other rights.

Evidence still required...

I gave you the evidence for how hiearchies and rigid roles are a natural part of organising society.

Which is exactly what I've been arguing for throughout this thread. That by the evidence of data and research, we know which beliefs underpin abuse, and that we can therefore challenge those beliefs.

You don't need evidence and data to know that people who believe in violence and controlling others is ok is associated with promoting violence and abuse. But how do we tell with beliefs in hiearchies. You can't assume a person who believes in hierarchies is promoting violence or abuse.

I think the beliefs need to be qualified. Obvious beliefs speak for themselves in the statements but many beliefs that may lead to violence and abuse may be normal and accepted beliefs like Trad marriage, belief in controlling peoples behaviour through physical discipline, belief that only a mother and father should play the roles of parents, believing in strict roles to achieve an outcome,belief that people who work hard will have priviledges and more control in life compared to others. These are not abusive in themselves.

Why do you think we all receive the same messages and influences? That is demonstrably false.

If this is false then why do you push that preventative programs are about everyone getting the same message to stop abuse regardless of what message they heard. If these abuseive beliefs become norms then everyone is getting the same message. But not everyone believes that message to abuse.

If everyone doesn't recieve the same message then your prevention strategies are wrong and need to be tailored to the particular messages they recieved that cultivated their beliefs. Which supports what I was saying about the different risk factors and contexts.

We conduct thorough and ongoing research amongst abusers and those who don't abuse, and identify which beliefs the abusers use to justify their abuse, and how those beliefs differ from the non-abusing cohort.

Ok so with all these investigations do they also find out what sort of thinking and emotional and/or psychological states these abusers have. Is it any different to non abusers as well.

Let's be real; most people don't investigate every single aspect of their lives all the time. Even when they do have the faculty of reason.

But we are talking about an obvious aspect that would be important to investigate. Its not trivial especially if they are standing on that belief as true, The greater impact a belief has on others the more people need to justify the behaviour. Its not like say a belief that doesn't cause problems as its not going to be an issue or come up.

But maybe there are reasons why they don't investigate because they don't want to go there. They are in denial. They are unreal. The point is if the abuser is truely believing that abuse is good then they are not going to investigate because thats the nature of belief that they believe in spite of the evidence.

They have the evidence in front of them. A split lip or fractured limb and the child writhering in pain is enough to ring alarms bells. But they still believe its all justified and ok. Thats delusional considering they see the damage in front of them.

To enough of a degree that preventing abuse is about influencing the choices they make.

So if its about making people aware and influencing choises that implies they are making wrong choices based on false or unrealistic thinking. They are either ignorant of the facts to make the right choice or they are not seeing the consequences of their behaviour as wrong.

Imagine that.

A consequentialist argument.

Well of course because the consequences are not surviving, Its not as if they are choosing to survive, their entire body reacts to survive without thinking about it.

But I disagree; there are times when rising above our survival instincts is the only ethical thing to do, and people make those choices, too.

Like I said everyones choices are not the same so we can't judge their choices by what you think they should do as your perception of things may be completely different to someone who is distressed. They are making choices based on unreal thinking and perceptions compared to others who are not distressed.

So a distressed parent may believe that they child will be in danger of growing up to be badly behaved or may even believe that if they are not taught good behaviour be harshly punishing them they will go to hell.

This compared to a parent with emotional intelligence who will see things rationally, know that abusing actually causes harm. So are these two parents making a choice based on the same information and perceptions. No so even though a distress parent may make a choice to abuse their choice is not based on rational information, the facts and reality.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes I think so.

If you want to make arguments about abuse prevention strategies, you're going to have to come with something more substantial than "I think so."

But words like 'hierarchy or rigid roles' don't say anything about justifying violence or abuse.

Well, they do, actually. Because without belief in hierarchy - specifically, that one person has the right to control another - part of the justification for abuse falls away. Without belief in rigid roles - specifically, that the person being abused should conform to particular role expectations - part of the justification for abuse falls away.

Thats because from memory you support social construction theory, all individual and societal differences are a social coinstruction.

I'm not sure that I agree that I "support social construction theory," partly because I'm not sure whether I understand it well enough. I definitely wouldn't say that "all individual and societal differences are a social construction."

But there are many natural social structure

If we're talking bout human social structures, I really don't agree. We choose our social structures, and shape them, and change them over time. There's nothing particularly "natural" about them.

A wealthy person who works hard to gain that status compared to others is not abusive.

No, but if they use that wealth to control others, that's abusive.

But as far as belief in hierarchies and rigid roles I gave you the evidence that most people inherently believe in these things as being ok

No, you didn't. You gave me your opinion. That is not evidence.

So who is the arbitor of what consitutes harm done.

Ultimately, society.

These two statements are self contradicting. You say we need to to harm which which implies a certain objective view yet then say we should allow for a diversity of views about what constitutes harm which would undermine having any objective position.

No, that's not at all what I said.

So how do we cater for all these diverse views and beliefs without denying some people their rights. Who decides which rights trump other rights.

That is an ongoing discussion within our society. I would argue that in general, we should seek to minimise harm; which might mean that sometimes one group gives way a little to avoid greater harm to others.

I gave you the evidence for how hiearchies and rigid roles are a natural part of organising society.

You gave me no evidence that non-abusive parents hold the same cluster of beliefs which have been identified as underpinning abuse.

But how do we tell with beliefs in hiearchies. You can't assume a person who believes in hierarchies is promoting violence or abuse.

You can look at whether they use their belief in hierarchy to justify controlling relationship dynamics.

Obvious beliefs speak for themselves in the statements but many beliefs that may lead to violence and abuse may be normal and accepted ...belief in controlling peoples behaviour through physical discipline, ...These are not abusive in themselves.

Did you actually write that with a straight face? That is, like, the essence of abuse.

If this is false then why do you push that preventative programs are about everyone getting the same message to stop abuse regardless of what message they heard.

I am not pushing that at all.

If everyone doesn't recieve the same message then your prevention strategies are wrong and need to be tailored to the particular messages they recieved that cultivated their beliefs.

That is literally the kind of work I've been involved in. Tailoring prevention strategies for faith communities and challenging the specific religiously-freighted messages which support abuse. I have never claimed that prevention is about giving everyone exactly the same message, in exactly the same way. On the contrary, it will be about confronting the beliefs which underpin abuse in the many culturally and socially diverse situations in which they exist.

Ok so with all these investigations do they also find out what sort of thinking and emotional and/or psychological states these abusers have. Is it any different to non abusers as well.

The full range of emotional and psychological states is present in both abusive and non-abusive people. Emotional or psychological states are not a good predictor or explanation for abuse.

So if its about making people aware and influencing choises that implies they are making wrong choices based on false or unrealistic thinking. They are either ignorant of the facts to make the right choice or they are not seeing the consequences of their behaviour as wrong.

Well, no, they don't see it as wrong. Because they hold beliefs and values which justify what they are doing.

So a distressed parent may believe that they child will be in danger of growing up to be badly behaved or may even believe that if they are not taught good behaviour be harshly punishing them they will go to hell.

Here's the thing, though; you don't have to be particularly distressed to believe any of that.

 

[stevevw]

If you want to make arguments about abuse prevention strategies, you're going to have to come with something more substantial than "I think so."

You literally cut the rest of my reply off which was the "something more substancial". Which was that even if they are not distressed to begin with they certainly are once abuse starts happening because the distress is now in the home, onto the victim and others including the abuser.

The children are jumpy, anxious, traumatised, everyone is on edge which creates a distressed environment which also effects the abuser. They would not be human to not get effected.

Well, they do, actually. Because without belief in hierarchy - specifically, that one person has the right to control another - part of the justification for abuse falls away. Without belief in rigid roles - specifically, that the person being abused should conform to particular role expectations - part of the justification for abuse falls away.

And as I said before that would make any and every situation where humans are in a relationship or even subconsciously engaging in a normal system or structure within society a vessel for abuse. In other words life is a vessel for abuse. Because even just 2 people can enter into an abusive and controlling relationship even on an deserted island.

I'm not sure that I agree that I "support social construction theory," partly because I'm not sure whether I understand it well enough. I definitely wouldn't say that "all individual and societal differences are a social construction."

Wiki has a pretty good description.

theoretical framework suggests various facets of social reality—such as concepts, beliefs, norms, and values—are formed through continuous interactions and negotiations among society's members, rather than empirical observation of physical reality.[1] The theory of social constructionism posits that much of what individuals perceive as 'reality' is actually the outcome of a dynamic process of construction influenced by social conventions and structures.[2]

Unlike phenomena that are innately determined or biologically predetermined, these social constructs are collectively formulated, sustained, and shaped by the social contexts in which they exist. These constructs significantly impact both the behavior and perceptions of individuals, often being internalized based on cultural narratives, whether or not these are empirically verifiable. In this two-way process of reality construction, individuals not only interpret and assimilate information through their social relations but also contribute to shaping existing societal narratives.

Social constructionism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This fits well with Post Modernism as it is primarily about words, language and narratives being the creator and meaasure of reality rather than nature or objective reality. These together feed into Woke identity ideology which primarily makes the subjective identity the measure of reality rather than objective reality. Social constructionism was also a big part of Feminism and the Critical theories that underpin Woke identity politics.

If we're talking bout human social structures, I really don't agree. We choose our social structures, and shape them, and change them over time. There's nothing particularly "natural" about them.

What do you mean by choose our social structures. Do you mean we create them from scratch.

No, but if they use that wealth to control others, that's abusive.

Yes but see how in each situation like wealth, a hierarchy, rigid role, Trad marriage, disciplining a child, you have to add the qualification that the vessel or position within that situation is being used to abuse. Hense the vessels and situation is not doing the abusing and the same situation can also be a normal and healthy vessel or situation.

So wealth can be good. A person works hard and provides a good life for their family. They are rewarded for their hard work and that reward is not a sign of priviliedge or abusing others. At least in the current accepted economic conditions we are living in at the momnent.

Some call for socialism or communism which makes everyone equal economically so theres no priviledge or chance to abuse. But then that also stifles enterprise, creativity, individuality and freedom of expression and thinking.

No, you didn't. You gave me your opinion. That is not evidence.

I linked the evidence in post #1,559

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 and nonhuman primates, and how status varies across development in humans.

Our review finds that we can rapidly identify social status based on a wide range of cues. Like monkeys, we tend to use certain cues, like physical strength, to make status judgments, although layered on top of these more primitive perceptual cues are socio-cultural status cues like job titles and educational attainment.
Understanding Social Hierarchies: The Neural and Psychological Foundations of Status Perception

Here is some more

Social dominance hierarchy: toward a genetic and evolutionary understanding
In social animals, the formation of dominance hierarchy is essential for maintaining the stability and efficacy of social groups.
https://culture.kissflow.com/the-need-and-inevitable-nature-of-social-hierarchies-c5ec80f8841b

Social Hierarchy: The Self‐Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status
Social hierarchy constitutes a fundamental characteristic prevalent in the majority of existing societies. Hierarchy refers to the ranking of members in social groups based on the power, influence, or dominance, whereby some members are superior or subordinate to others. Notably, the organization of social groups into a hierarchy serves an important adaptive mechanism that benefits the group as a whole.

From the extensive literature regarding hierarchies, there are several important conclusions that can be drawn: (1) social hierarchies are a natural and necessary part of social groups; (2) status has a profound effect on the human cognitive process and behavior; (3) our understanding of the neural mechanisms involved in the processing of status is still limited, leaving a multitude of unresolved questions.
https://medium.com/@STATUSNFT/social-hierarchy-and-why-it-matters-b5b94a581432

The case for hierarchy
In history, efforts to consciously build large scale organizations or societies without hierarchies have failed miserably. The effort to combat all forms of hierarchy will not only fail, but may lead to something even worse from a moral point of view. The only way large human groups can arrive at common course of action is by hierarchically structuring interpersonal connections. The efficiency of hierarchy may help to explain why we like hierarchies at some unconscious level. We defend the claim that hierarchies are necessary and also that some social hierarchies are morally desirable and should be promoted rather than resisted.
The Case for Hierarchy

I think you will like this one as in mentions social norms.

Social hierarchies and social networks in humans
Human, regularly form and navigate both formal and informal hierarchies. The desire to attain social status has been posited as a fundamental human motivation. The corollary here may also be true: those who are relatively marginalized or of lower standing may face greater hurdles to achieving status, regardless of their attributes. They may face a ‘reputational poverty trap’ [199] where they are less able to reap the reputational and status benefits of their actions.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2020.0440

That is an ongoing discussion within our society. I would argue that in general, we should seek to minimise harm; which might mean that sometimes one group gives way a little to avoid greater harm to others.

The problem is even the measure of what a group should give up as to what another group gains is all subjective and underpinned by belief, the very thing we are trying to change to stop the denial of right and oppression.

For example the right to give gender non conforming people recognition that they identity is real and need protection has led to womens rights being wound back where their identity as a unique sex and gender is undermined. This so called change in law comes directly from a belief not fact, an ideological belief that there is no innate biological sex or connection with gender which is unfounded.

So an unfounded and ideological belief is determining policy that causes division and breaches womens rights is being used as the basis for creating a more equal society and yet its actually promoting inequality. So it seems that even the protectors of peoples rights the State depends on the ideology they promote. In this case they are promoting a belief every bit as damaging as any belief that is associated with violence and abuse.

 

[Paidiske]

You literally cut the rest of my reply off which was the "something more substancial".

It was all still just your opinion.

And as I said before that would make any and every situation where humans are in a relationship or even subconsciously engaging in a normal system or structure within society a vessel for abuse.

Not at all. Although it is probably true that many of our institutions have had abusive norms embedded within them, unquestioned, for a long time.

What do you mean by choose our social structures. Do you mean we create them from scratch.

Not from scratch, in the sense that we inherit cultural norms. But we choose how we inhabit those, and how we change them. We are not forced mindlessly into living within social structures as if they could not be any other way than what they are.

Yes but see how in each situation like wealth, a hierarchy, rigid role, Trad marriage, disciplining a child, you have to add the qualification that the vessel or position within that situation is being used to abuse. Hense the vessels and situation is not doing the abusing and the same situation can also be a normal and healthy vessel or situation.

But some situations are much more closely aligned with abusive ideology. Household hierarchy in particular is clearly so.

So wealth can be good. A person works hard and provides a good life for their family. They are rewarded for their hard work and that reward is not a sign of priviliedge or abusing others. At least in the current accepted economic conditions we are living in at the momnent.

And plenty of people become wealthy by exploiting others, also. Or because others have not had access to the same opportunities. So it's not all good and healthy.

I linked the evidence in post #1,559

This is not evidence of what "most people" believe, at all.

The problem is even the measure of what a group should give up as to what another group gains is all subjective and underpinned by belief, the very thing we are trying to change to stop the denial of right and oppression.

I'm not trying to stop people living guided by subjective systems of meaning. I don't think you can. I am only arguing for some social norms which recognise the harm in particular subjective systems of belief and meaning.

 

[stevevw]

You gave me no evidence that non-abusive parents hold the same cluster of beliefs which have been identified as underpinning abuse.

Yes I did for beliefs about using control to abuse others. We went through this many pages ago. I showed that a common Mindset for abusers is one of controlling, black and white and rigid thinking and was different to non abusive parents who have more positive and accommodating thinking.

But that is not what I was talking about. I said that ideas like hierarchies and rigid roles are not abusive in themselves and can be natural and beneficial for society. I have given you evidence for this.

You can look at whether they use their belief in hierarchy to justify controlling relationship dynamics.

Yes thats the BIG difference that turns the situation into an abusive one. But not the belief in the hierarchy itself which may also be used as something positive to help people rather than harm them.

Did you actually write that with a straight face? That is, like, the essence of abuse.

You obviously missed what I was saying. The belief in legal CP punishment is not abuse in itself. The belief in a hiearchy is not abuse in itself. Yet the same belief is what abusers based their abuse on. All they have done is take a norally socialised belief or norm and then exploited it or rather abused it just like they abuse others.

So the abuser takes the socally appropriate belief 'that using physical dicipline is ok in certain situations provided its limited to the law; and they ignore the limitations through their unreal expectations.

I am not pushing that at all.

I thought you said that just targeting the groups with risk factors ignores all the others who don't have the risks so a more universal and general awareness is needed to prevent abuse. Targeting the social norms that apply to society generally rather than specific groups.

That is literally the kind of work I've been involved in. Tailoring prevention strategies for faith communities and challenging the specific religiously-freighted messages which support abuse. I have never claimed that prevention is about giving everyone exactly the same message, in exactly the same way. On the contrary, it will be about confronting the beliefs which underpin abuse in the many culturally and socially diverse situations in which they exist.

Then you should be all for using the Risk factor model as this identifies the different groups and the particular individual, family, environmental, cultural determinants that group experiences compared to other groups so we can better understand the reasons why, what motivates them to abuse.

The full range of emotional and psychological states is present in both abusive and non-abusive people. Emotional or psychological states are not a good predictor or explanation for abuse.

You didn't answer the question. I understand all humans have the same emotions, and a psyche. But we also know that they can be different according to experiences.

I am asking is there any difference in the emotions (regulation) and psyche (psychological state) and the cognitions between an abuser and a non abuser.

Well, no, they don't see it as wrong. Because they hold beliefs and values which justify what they are doing.

Yes and that is the point. That they don't see things the same way as a rational person with insight. Their belief is blinding them from reality. Thats why we need to change their belief because its unreal. We do that by helping them see reality, through facts ad first hand experience of victims.

The point is how can a parent who is blinded to reality and therefore basing their choices on an unreal picture of things be capable of making the right decision if they are blinded by their own beliefs.

Here's the thing, though; you don't have to be particularly distressed to believe any of that.

Yes you do I think. It doesn't have to be distress as in running around crazy distressed. People react to issues they cannot handle facing in different ways. Some internalized things and it becomes distress and others learn to moderate things through controlling situations sometimes in subtle ways but are on edge often and can go off occassionally.

But one way or another to end up believing in something that is unreal and engaging in the behaviour to maintain that unreal belief to the point its effecting yourself, victim and household there is usually some distress and dysfunction. Its a truism that a dysfunctional or chaotic situation reflects the state of the person.

 

[stevevw]

It was all still just your opinion.

Oh ok, I didn't realize as you didn't explain why. I thought it was a good point. Your saying its just my opinion but I think its actually based on some truth.

The idea that people are affected by their environments or the culture they create and live in is well supported by the evidence. The evidence shows all members of a household are negatively effected when a family member is commiting violence in the house.

A person cannot help but not be effected when in an such environment that is abusive or violent. Why should the parent themselves be immune, they are human afterall.

Not at all. Although it is probably true that many of our institutions have had abusive norms embedded within them, unquestioned, for a long time.

My point was the same institutions and systems that ran them and society evolved naturally and then were exploited by people to use the situation to abuse. The institutions are not abusive nor the hierarchies that they are based on which are good and needed. How we structure society based on individual and group benefit status for society. Abusers and controllers are taking these good hierarchies and exploiting them.

Not from scratch, in the sense that we inherit cultural norms. But we choose how we inhabit those, and how we change them. We are not forced mindlessly into living within social structures as if they could not be any other way than what they are.

In some ways we do. We natural value status that we percieve as having some benefits for society rather than not. So the cream rises to the top naturally in that those with valued status due to the particular skills, talents, strengths, organising ability, returning resources, information or other benefits will naturally dominate hierarchies pf status.

For example generally males dominate strength based hierarchies so naturally will be beneficial to any situation that requires strength. Their status as valuable for strength and pwer related tasks or situations are deemed beneficial. The same with all individual abilities which form hierarchies of competence and status.

Forming hierarchies is a natural way societies can structure themselves to function well.

But some situations are much more closely aligned with abusive ideology. Household hierarchy in particular is clearly so.

Is it really. I mean what does it actually mean to have a household hierarchy when there may be just two people. Why can't that same situation happen in a friendship not in the same household. And what exactly is the hierarchy. Like I mentioned with Trad wives who choose to be stay at home mums. Is that a hierarchy. If so is it an abusive hierarchy.

And plenty of people become wealthy by exploiting others, also. Or because others have not had access to the same opportunities. So it's not all good and healthy.

You know what I tend to agree when you think about it. Or at least for how money is associated with some many problems in the world and the god like importance we put on it.

We could right now if we shared so that everyone had enough to live fairly comfortably solve a majority of poverty in the world. That is what Christ would have done and wants us to do. But everyone is so dependent on a system that enslaves them except for a small group.

It id definitely true that those in poverty and low socioeconomic status have their power, control and self determination taken away due to restricted opportunities and avoiding the additional problems with can put them behind the eightball.

This is not evidence of what "most people" believe, at all.

It is evidence in that its a natural part of being human and how societies work. Hierarchies help organise societies in competence hierarchies which can help make everything run more smoothly.

And guess what you only refer to the evidence from my previous post and then as you have done so often completely ignore the other links which definitely show that hierarchies are a natural part of society and people consciously and unconsciously support them and even promote them because they are beneficial for all. Remember I said the more independent articles supporting the same findings makes good science.

I'm not trying to stop people living guided by subjective systems of meaning. I don't think you can. I am only arguing for some social norms which recognise the harm in particular subjective systems of belief and meaning.

Thats why I think that to really understand how beliefs work and what beliefs we should entrust to guide us to be a more equal and kind society is by actually understanding how those beliefs work in real life situations. We understand the Mindset of abusers, why they believe in abuse and violence. Which is also related to understand humans generally and how they form societies and get along.

I don't think its as simple as 'this or that' particular belief will lead to abuse but actually connecting the thinking and beliefs to the negative behaviour that happens in real life. That way we ground the beliefs and attitudes in factual behaviour observed.

LIke I said its obvious that a belief that 'violence, controlling and overpowering' others is ok speaks for itself. But all the other stuff, like hiearchies are not the reason for cultivating abusive beliefs bit its the abusers using that vessel to abuse.

 

[truthpls]

Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health
Various sources*


A new study by the Australian Catholic University (ACU) has revealed that children who are smacked repeatedly by their parents are nearly twice as likely to develop anxiety and depression later in life.

The study of 8500 18 to 24 year olds found 61% experienced corporal punishment, as children, four or more times.

Females who were hit as kids were 1.8 times more likely to have a major depressive disorder, and 2.1 times to experience anxiety. Males were 1.7 times more likely to develop depression, and 1.6 times more likely to develop anxiety if they’d been smacked.

Professor Darryl Higgins, a lead researcher for the ACU study, believes it paints a clear picture that even infrequent exposure to corporal punishment puts children at risk of mental health disorders.

Professor Higgins is calling for smacking of children to be made illegal in Australia consistent with laws banning corporal punishment in 62 other countries.

According to the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, the evidence that corporal punishment is harmful to children, adults and societies is overwhelming:

“The more than 250 studies included in our review of research on the impact of and associations with corporal punishment show links between corporal punishment and a wide range of negative outcomes, including:​

• direct physical harm
• negative impacts on mental and physical health
• poor moral internalisation and increased antisocial behaviour
• increased aggression in children
• increased violent and criminal behaviour in adults
• damaged education
• damaged family relationships
• increased acceptance and use of other forms of violence”

“The message from research is very clear: corporal punishment carries multiple risks of harm and has no benefits.”​

*Sources:

• Children who are smacked nearly twice as likely to develop mental health disorders later in life (9news.com.au)
• Childhood corporal punishment linked to lifelong mental health issues - ABC Melbourne
• Calls for Aussie parents to be banned from smacking their children | Daily Mail Online
• Shocking impact childhood smacking has on mental health (3aw.com.au)
• Research | Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children (endcorporalpunishment.org)

OB

The bible says loving discipline is wonderful and needed and that God does it also. Overruled. I would question the funding/source/motives...etc of any 'study' that flies in the face of God.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes I did for beliefs about using control to abuse others.

No, you didn't. The sort of evidence I'm talking about would be a study which looked at the prevalence of this cluster of beliefs in the population, and how it related to abusive behaviour, showing that this cluster of beliefs was held by people who were not abusive.

I said that ideas like hierarchies and rigid roles are not abusive in themselves and can be natural and beneficial for society.

I disagree about them being "natural." They might perhaps be beneficial in some settings (that is a discussion beyond the scope of this thread). They are clearly not beneficial in the household.

Yes thats the BIG difference that turns the situation into an abusive one. But not the belief in the hierarchy itself which may also be used as something positive to help people rather than harm them.

If someone says they believe in a hierarchy, but wish to remove any aspect of control from their understanding of hierarchy, is it still really a belief in social hierarchy?

You obviously missed what I was saying. The belief in legal CP punishment is not abuse in itself.

But the belief in "controlling peoples behaviour through physical discipline," I would argue, very much is. Especially when you do not specify there that the "people" being controlled are children.

Yet the same belief is what abusers based their abuse on. All they have done is take a norally socialised belief or norm and then exploited it or rather abused it just like they abuse others.

I disagree. I'd say that it's the cluster of beliefs together - that violence is acceptable, that hierarchy/power and control is good and right, that rigid roles must be enforced - that bring someone to a place where they see their abuse as justified. Any one of those beliefs on its own won't be enough, but together, they provide a complete rationale for abuse.

And society might normalise any one of those beliefs without seeing how it's one leg of an utterly dangerous and harmful tripod, but that's no reason to say that that belief shouldn't be challenged.

I thought you said that just targeting the groups with risk factors ignores all the others who don't have the risks so a more universal and general awareness is needed to prevent abuse. Targeting the social norms that apply to society generally rather than specific groups.

Then you misunderstood me. I have objected to targeting only groups with so-called "risk factors," but I have always maintained the need for prevention strategies to reach every person in a contextually appropriate way. So yes, we target the harmful social norms which underpin harmful beliefs, but we do that in different ways with different people.

There's no point trying to have the same conversation at the mosque as at the fundamentalist Christian church. There's no point trying to have the same conversation in a bikie gang as at the board of an S&P100 company, or the federal cabinet. The conversations need to happen everywhere, but they won't look the same everywhere.

Then you should be all for using the Risk factor model as this identifies the different groups and the particular individual, family, environmental, cultural determinants that group experiences compared to other groups so we can better understand the reasons why, what motivates them to abuse.

As you have been putting it forward, I have found the "risk factor" model to be full of stereotypes, assumptions, and unsupported claims about what causes abuse.

I am asking is there any difference in the emotions (regulation) and psyche (psychological state) and the cognitions between an abuser and a non abuser.

I did answer the question. The answer is no. There is no consistent pattern of emotional or psychological difference between abusers and non abusers. The only consistent point of difference is that abusers hold the cluster of beliefs and attitudes which justify their abuse.

That they don't see things the same way as a rational person with insight.

Having a difference of beliefs, attitudes, and values, does not mean someone is not "rational."

Thats why we need to change their belief because its unreal.

Well, no. We need to change it because it results in harm. We don't are about "unreal" beliefs that don't result in harm.

Yes you do I think.

Well, the evidence says otherwise, so you'll have to come with something more robust than your own opinion.

Your saying its just my opinion but I think its actually based on some truth.

But again, that's just your opinion.

My point was the same institutions and systems that ran them and society evolved naturally and then were exploited by people to use the situation to abuse.

That does not mean that "any and every situation where humans are in a relationship" is a vessel for abuse. Which was a completely ridiculous and overblown claim.

The institutions are not abusive nor the hierarchies that they are based on which are good and needed.

But it's important to acknowledge that some institutions and hierarchies are abusive, well beyond what is good and needed. There are not automatically universal goods.

In some ways we do.

No, sorry. We're not ants or bees. We make choices, as individuals and groups.

Is it really.

Yes.

I mean what does it actually mean to have a household hierarchy when there may be just two people.

It means that one controls the other. The degree of control may vary.

Why can't that same situation happen in a friendship not in the same household.

Well, it can, too, but we are discussing households.

And what exactly is the hierarchy. Like I mentioned with Trad wives who choose to be stay at home mums. Is that a hierarchy. If so is it an abusive hierarchy.

I am defining hierarchy here as a situation where one person controls another. So a "trad wife" and stay at home mum whose husband does not make that choice for her, who is free to choose differently and renegotiate the sharing of household roles at any time, who has full knowledge of and access to the household finances, and so on, is probably not in what we are discussing here as a hierarchy. But a "trad wife" and stay at home mum whose husband coerces her into that situation, who is not free to make different choices, who has limited knowledge of and access to the household finances, who is coerced into submitting to her husband in various ways, is in what we are discussing here as a hierarchy, and an abusive situation.

It is evidence in that its a natural part of being human and how societies work.

Again, the sort of evidence I'd be looking for would be a study examining the prevalence of such beliefs in society.

And guess what you only refer to the evidence from my previous post and then as you have done so often completely ignore the other links which definitely show that hierarchies are a natural part of society and people consciously and unconsciously support them and even promote them because they are beneficial for all.

I ignore them because they are utterly irrelevant to the claim. I am not asking if hierarchies are prevalent in society; we both know they are. I am asking for evidence of your claim about what "most" people believe.

LIke I said its obvious that a belief that 'violence, controlling and overpowering' others is ok speaks for itself. But all the other stuff, like hiearchies are not the reason for cultivating abusive beliefs bit its the abusers using that vessel to abuse.

But a hierarchy is just a structure of control. It is the outward social form that a social norm of controlling dynamics takes. That's why I'm pushing back on the idea that it's just a good thing that abusers misuse. It's not; it's the form their abusive beliefs take, when embedded in social structures, and it becomes the formative experience which perpetuates those beliefs.

 

[stevevw]

No, you didn't. The sort of evidence I'm talking about would be a study which looked at the prevalence of this cluster of beliefs in the population, and how it related to abusive behaviour, showing that this cluster of beliefs was held by people who were not abusive.

The articles did better than that. The beliefs your talking about such as rigid roles and hierarchies are the symptoms of a controlling mind, a Mindset that usues control and abuse which is applied to roles and hiearchal systems.

The articles I linked were about that type of controlling Mindset, that controlling thinking that motivates people to believe in rigid roles and abusive hierarchies. They explained how an abuser thinks, the type of psyche they have that causes them to be primed to believe in control and abusing others.

I disagree about them being "natural." They might perhaps be beneficial in some settings (that is a discussion beyond the scope of this thread). They are clearly not beneficial in the household.

Whether they are natural and beneficial is relevant to this thread because your implying hierarchies themselves are abusive. So its important to clarify this otherwise we are attributing abuse to something that may be a normal and healthy way for society to live.

They are natural in the sense that if a particular skill, ability difference is a natural expression of humans and then benefits society and we happen to give these expressions value and status then we naturally will form a hieratchy of these different abilities and differences.

For example we look up to people who are honest and hard working. We respect them as opposed to those who are lazy and sponging on others. So a natural hierarchy is formed with honest hard working members gaining more respect and responsibility in society.

Elders often are at the top of any hierarchy of wisdom and understanding as far as important decisions say compared to young people without life experience. And an elder who is hard working and hionest will be even more highly respected and honored in many cultures. Or it may be those who resources like food who command more respect and status in a hierarchy of resources. People will give more respect and status to those that can benefit them and society.

These are natural and good hierarchies that we naturally form about many things and people don't even realize it.

If someone says they believe in a hierarchy, but wish to remove any aspect of control from their understanding of hierarchy, is it still really a belief in social hierarchy?

Yes its still a hiearchy but without exploiting it to harm others. But a person can still have some degree of control over others and its not abusive. For example a person may have more resources or information due to hard work. They will have more status compared to someone who has not worked hard to gain any resources but sponge off others. The hard worker has done nothing wrong but utilized their time maybe sacrificing things to achieve that better situation.

But the belief in "controlling peoples behaviour through physical discipline," I would argue, very much is. Especially when you do not specify there that the "people" being controlled are children.

But isn't CP within the limits of the law regarded as legal and not abuse. I know some nations believe this but Australia doesn't at this stage. If we are to go by the law then legal CP is not abuse.

What about belief in controlling peoples behaviour full stop. The idea that one person or a community or society can controll someone, forcing them to do things they don't want to do and even to the point that it may deny them some freedoms and rights. Like with Covid restrictions. Controlling others is not always abusive as is intending to harm someone.

I disagree. I'd say that it's the cluster of beliefs together - that violence is acceptable, that hierarchy/power and control is good and right, that rigid roles must be enforced - that bring someone to a place where they see their abuse as justified. Any one of those beliefs on its own won't be enough, but together, they provide a complete rationale for abuse.

See how you have qualified hierarchy with /power and control is good. A belief in hierarchies is not abusive or bad. Many social scientists believe in natural evolving social hiearchies within a normal society as to how they operate. In fact societies cannot operate without hierarchies and would collaspse or become so controlled like Communism where there is no difference in status.

And society might normalise any one of those beliefs without seeing how it's one leg of an utterly dangerous and harmful tripod, but that's no reason to say that that belief shouldn't be challenged.

Actually they have to combine all those beliefs for them to become abusive and the only belief that is the actual abusive one is the one itself in the idea that 'using any means to abuse and control others'. A hierarchy without that type of person in it is not abusive but in fact often good and beneficial.

So how do we tell which situations are abusive. We tell by the actual outcomes of how that hierarchy is unjustly controlling and abusing others. We don't spectulate that its this one or that one. WE test it to see how it pans out in society as to whether its really abusive or not.

So we qualify things. This hierarchy is abusive and that one is not. We don't just assume all hiearchies are abusive by nature when they could in fact be beneficial and good for society.

PS I noticed once again your awefully quite about the links I posted. They show how hierarchies can be a natural and good part of how society organises itself.

 

[Paidiske]

The articles did better than that.

No, they really didn't.

The beliefs your talking about such as rigid roles and hierarchies are the symptoms of a controlling mind, a Mindset that usues control and abuse which is applied to roles and hiearchal systems.

Evidence required (for each part of that statement) before I would even begin to take it seriously. And your claim that these beliefs are held by people who don't abuse would seem to be undermined by this position, anyway.

Whether they are natural and beneficial is relevant to this thread because your implying hierarchies themselves are abusive.

Not exactly. I am saying that hierarchies are (at least to a degree) one structural expression of abusive beliefs and norms.

They are natural in the sense that if a particular skill, ability difference is a natural expression of humans and then benefits society and we happen to give these expressions value and status then we naturally will form a hieratchy of these different abilities and differences.

This is not the kind of hierarchy that has anything to do with one person controlling another, though.

Yes its still a hiearchy but without exploiting it to harm others.

I would say, if it has absolutely no aspect of one person controlling another, it is not a hierarchy in the sense that we are discussing hierarchies as relevant to abuse.

But a person can still have some degree of control over others and its not abusive.

I would say, only within some very stringent constraints. Such as the controlling relationship being voluntary, the degree of control being very clearly limited, and so on.

But isn't CP within the limits of the law regarded as legal and not abuse.

You didn't specify that, though.

What about belief in controlling peoples behaviour full stop. The idea that one person or a community or society can controll someone, forcing them to do things they don't want to do and even to the point that it may deny them some freedoms and rights. Like with Covid restrictions. Controlling others is not always abusive as is intending to harm someone.

We agree, as a society, to have laws and be bound by them, for the good of society. We can debate the justness of any particular instance, but I think the principle is pretty clearly established.

I would say, though, that in general, laws which prevent people from doing something they might wish to do, are less of a problem than laws which force someone to do something they might not wish to do. Coercing someone to do something is deeply problematic.

See how you have qualified hierarchy with /power and control is good.

Not what I said, at all.

A belief in hierarchies is not abusive or bad.

On its own, no, but it's a necessary prerequisite to a great deal of evil.

Actually they have to combine all those beliefs for them to become abusive and the only belief that is the actual abusive one is the one itself in the idea that 'using any means to abuse and control others'.

But the "right to control" is exactly the part of the situation that's underpinned by belief in hierarchy.

I'm glad, though, that you are now conceding that this cluster of beliefs is what underpins abuse.

A hierarchy without that type of person in it is not abusive but in fact often good and beneficial.

"A structure in which one person gets to control another, without someone in the controlling position who will act to control others, is not abusive" is another way you could express that. And maybe that's true, but it will always have within it the latent right to be that person. Remove that, and you make it much, much harder to abuse.

So we qualify things. This hierarchy is abusive and that one is not. We don't just assume all hiearchies are abusive by nature when they could in fact be beneficial and good for society.

I would argue that hierarchies of control, simply by existing, justify and normalise hierarchies of control (and therefore abuse).

PS I noticed once again your awefully quite about the links I posted. They show how hierarchies can be a natural and good part of how society organises itself.

I still disagree that any human social structure is "natural," and I'm not saying that we don't need social structure. I'm looking at how we build structures to remove dynamics of control.

 

[stevevw]

Well, the evidence says otherwise, so you'll have to come with something more robust than your own opinion.

No I don't ehink so. Its really basic psychology and physics really. As abuse increases stress levels from calm to more intensity that in itself tells us that stress is involved. Abuse is not fueled by calmness and composure but more about putting the body in a tense and stressed state ready for inflicting abuse. That tells us that abuse is already on the increased stress trajectory into more intense stress and distress.

Nevertheless here is evidence showing the link between abuse and stress and distress.

Although many parents believe in physical punishment as a means to an end, when they use it, they are typically stressed, frustrated, or angry with their child.
Why Do Parents Physically Punish their Children? 5 Useful Analogies from Sedimentary Rocks

Parental stress was found to play an important role in abusive families. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/014521349190072L#:~:text=Parental stress was found to,be abusing alcohol or drugs.

Specialized literature points consistently to the relevance of parental stress in parenting practices and in the risk of child abuse. Thus, reducing parental stress may constitute an effective way to prevent child abuse by parents.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368613664_Parental_Stress_and_Risk_of_Child_Abuse_The_Role_of_Socioeconomic_Status

Our results underscore the importance of parental stress for the risk of physical violence against children

Parental stress and physical violence against children during the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic: results of a population-based survey in Germany - Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health

Background Parents and caregivers belonged to those with the highest burdens during the COVID-pandemic. Considering the close link between parental stress and child maltreatment, identifying families with high parental stress is of utmost importance to prevent violence against children. Within...

capmh.biomedcentral.com

Research suggests a strong link between parental stress and child abuse and helping parents with contextual factors that may contribute to their stress can significantly reduce that risk.
Using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) to Characterise Parenting Interventions to Prevent Intergenerational Child Abuse - International Journal on Child Maltreatment: Research, Policy and Practice

The abusive parents experience higher stress levels. Parents experiencing parental burnout are more likely to engage in abusive behavior toward their children. These parents tend to lack the resources to handle the stressful demands of parenting.

Child Abuse Potential and Parenting Stress Within Maltreating Families | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

Abusive mothers reported more stress due to frequent life events, and had a more negative perception of these events. Further, these mothers had higher rates of both depression and state anxiety.
The role of parental stress in physically abusive families - PubMed

As expected, both studies revealed parenting stress and anger expression and were individually positively correlated with child abuse potential; the major finding involved the strong joint contribution of parenting stress and anger expression in predicting Child Abuse Potential Inventory scores.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223214324_Parenting_stress_and_anger_expression_as_predictors_of_child_abuse_potential

Parental stress is a well-established risk factor for adverse child outcomes, evidence links parental stress to abuse potential,
Parental Stress and Children’s Social and Behavioral Outcomes: The Role of Abuse Potential over Time - Journal of Child and Family Studies

The following article is interesting. It seems that for high risk parents just seeing their child distressed is enough to provoke distress in them to provokes an aggressive reaction such as physically hitting but not for perspective taking.

Parents who have high levels of personal distress, as is often the case with parents deemed ‘at risk’, often have information processing difficulties which makes perspectivetaking more difficult. High-risk mothers appear to be at an increased risk of using physical aggression due to high levels of personal distress when observing the suffering of their child. This is thought to be just enough distress to incite an aggressive response but not enough to facilitate perspective-taking.

Indeed, the research notes that being subjected to another person’s distress incites emotions such as anxiety in high-risk parents, when compared to more positive feelings of warmth and compassion in low-risk parents, and leads to an egotistical reaction (such as aggression).6 Furthermore, it is suggested that perspective-taking inhibits aggression under conditions of low-moderate, but not high, levels of arousal.

https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/321630/researchnotes_parental_empathy.pdf

Considering the close link between parental stress and child maltreatment, identifying families with high parental stress is of utmost importance to prevent violence against children.
capmh.biomedcentral.com

 

[Paidiske]

No I don't ehink so....

Just replying to note that none of your links are demonstrating that distress is required to believe "that they child will be in danger of growing up to be badly behaved or ... that if they are not taught good behaviour be harshly punishing them they will go to hell." (Your claim in post #1,561).

Shifting the goalposts does not establish your point.

 

[stevevw]

But again, that's just your opinion.

No its not. Its a fact that humans are effected by the environments they live in. If the environment has become tense, dysfunctional and causing psychological distress to the victim, other members of the household and the home itself then the abusive parent will also be negatively effected in some way.

That does not mean that "any and every situation where humans are in a relationship" is a vessel for abuse. Which was a completely ridiculous and overblown claim.

Actually abuse and control can happen between just two people anywhere. So all situations that involve two people interacting potentially can be used to control and abuse people. Two people can be in a controlling and abusive relationship even on a deserted island where there are no social systems or hierarchies.

But it's important to acknowledge that some institutions and hierarchies are abusive, well beyond what is good and needed. There are not automatically universal goods.

Yes istitutions and hierarchies or roles can be made abusive. But we have to be careful in thinking institutions, hiearchies and roles themselves are abusive by default when they are not. Even when the hierarchy made divide people into lower and higher status with less and more control and power this still doesn't make them abusive if the control is a natural part of organising society.

No, sorry. We're not ants or bees. We make choices, as individuals and groups.

Actually we do behave in similar ways and so do all creatures thanks to evolution. Ever heard of the saying "people are like sheep". They just follow others unconsciously. There are many processes and behaviours that are subconsciously driven that we don't question including the hierarchies we develop just living together.

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

Social status hierarchies are a fundamental dimension of social life and critical to social system survival, to be sure. The mechanisms of action of social behavior reside in the subconscious mind.
Social Status – Man in the Middle.

Now, researchers for the first time have used brain imaging techniques to investigate how people respond to others of higher and lower status. The study suggests that our responses to these hierarchies are hard-wired into our brains.
Social Status is Hard-Wired into the Brain, Study Shows

Humans flock like sheep and birds, subconsciously following a minority of individuals. It takes a minority of just five per cent to influence a crowd's direction -- and that the other 95 per cent follow without realising it.

Sheep In Human Clothing: Scientists Reveal Our Flock Mentality

Have you ever arrived somewhere and wondered how you got there? Scientists believe they may have found the answer, with research that shows that humans flock like sheep and birds, subconsciously following a minority of individuals. It takes a minority of just five per cent to influence a crowd's...

www.sciencedaily.com

Yes.

But a hierarchy within a household is not itself abusive. Like I said with Trad marriage trending at the moment. Though each person doesn't occupy the same status or level as each other they choose to structure the household that way because they see it as beneficial for all.

You may also have a hiearchy of age within an extended household where the elderly are more respected and hold higher status as elders. Kids are at the bottom as they lack knowledge and wisedom with elders at the top. People may occupy higher status due to having a lot of knowledge that is beneficial. Hiearchies can be formed on a number of competencies within small or large groups.

It means that one controls the other. The degree of control may vary.

But thats not really a hierarchy as there is no upper or lower levels to compare with where one sits within the hierarchy as to near the top or bottom. Two people is more like a partnership setup. But we can say that a hierarchy can be formed as a social institution and norm which promotes and gives males control. But that is different to an individual household. Unless like I said there are several people involved.

Well, it can, too, but we are discussing households.

The point is when its just between two people you don't need a household to have an abusive and controlling relationship. It may be at work, in a business partnership, any two people that will interact in any situation.

I am defining hierarchy here as a situation where one person controls another.

So long as you seperate the hierarchy from the abuse. Hierarchies, roles and institutions don't have minds or emotions to abuse and control. It takes a human person to abuse and control. Its like a tool like a baseball bat that is used to abuse. The baseball bat doesn't abuse but the person behind it does.

So a "trad wife" and stay at home mum whose husband does not make that choice for her, who is free to choose differently and renegotiate the sharing of household roles at any time, who has full knowledge of and access to the household finances, and so on, is probably not in what we are discussing here as a hierarchy. But a "trad wife" and stay at home mum whose husband coerces her into that situation, who is not free to make different choices, who has limited knowledge of and access to the household finances, who is coerced into submitting to her husband in various ways, is in what we are discussing here as a hierarchy, and an abusive situation.

So you agree that the idea or setup of Trad Wife is itself not abusive, the structure or setup is neutral and not inherently abusive itself. But as you have qualified it takes a human to use that situation for better or worse.

Again, the sort of evidence I'd be looking for would be a study examining the prevalence of such beliefs in society.

I already linked this showing how hierarchies are a natural way people organise society based on compentence, ability and status. We are wired to think this way. If we did not organise our society as hiearchal in how we function then society would collaspe as hierarchies are an effeicent way to organise companiers right up to society as a whole.

I ignore them because they are utterly irrelevant to the claim. I am not asking if hierarchies are prevalent in society; we both know they are. I am asking for evidence of your claim about what "most" people believe.

Then why didn't you mention this instead of just remaining silent. I don't know what your thinking. But the fact you just dismissed this without question shows your not even reading them to begin with to really know what the articles are about.

If you would have read them you would have found that it does talk about humans subconsciously believing in hierarchies and that they are the thinking is hard wired into us. Thus we automatically believe in them as natural because they are part and parcel of how humans think and organise themselves.

You tend to do this al lot in dismissing the evidence which is important to the point and assuming its irrelevant.

But a hierarchy is just a structure of control. It is the outward social form that a social norm of controlling dynamics takes. That's why I'm pushing back on the idea that it's just a good thing that abusers misuse. It's not; it's the form their abusive beliefs take, when embedded in social structures, and it becomes the formative experience which perpetuates those beliefs.

Hierarchies are not just about control and when they are they are not always about negatively controlling or abusing people. Hiearchies are primarily about how society percieves and categorises competencies, abilities and difference in society.

I gave you examples of how organisations have a hiearchal setup because its more efficient. The same with society. They both have elements of control such as the line of authority. We organise society along these lines where some have more control due to their competencies and the status given by others.

Elders are seen at the top of wisedoim and knowledge hierarchies, business people at the top of economic hierarchies, professional atheletes at the top of sports hierarchies, ect. Society as a whole is broken down structures and hiearchies so it can run efficently. Certain control is given to certain people, organisations, givernment departments, charities, ancillaries, ect ect all the way to the local neighbourhoods households.

 

[Paidiske]

No its not.

Repeating it without providing any evidence really doesn't advance your argument.

Even when the hierarchy made divide people into lower and higher status with less and more control and power this still doesn't make them abusive if the control is a natural part of organising society.

I'm still not finding anything credible about claims of "naturalness" in social structures. Power, control and abuse might all be natural and still be harmful.

Actually we do behave in similar ways and so do all creatures thanks to evolution.

Humans have choices. In ways that ants and bees etc. do not.

But a hierarchy within a household is not itself abusive. Like I said with Trad marriage trending at the moment. Though each person doesn't occupy the same status or level as each other they choose to structure the household that way because they see it as beneficial for all.

If everyone is choosing freely, and can choose to change if they wish, I'd argue it's not really a hierarchy.

But thats not really a hierarchy as there is no upper or lower levels to compare with where one sits within the hierarchy as to near the top or bottom.

If there's a power and control dynamic, I'd say it's a hierarchy. It doesn't have to be highly formalised.

So long as you seperate the hierarchy from the abuse.

I'd argue that hierarchy - in the sense that we're talking about it here - is about power and control. And abuse is about power and control. These are not entirely separate things.

Hierarchies, roles and institutions don't have minds or emotions to abuse and control.

But they can certainly legitimise, normalise, and even idealise, those dynamics. They can condition both the abusers and the victims to abuse.

So you agree that the idea or setup of Trad Wife is itself not abusive, the structure or setup is neutral and not inherently abusive itself.

It depends entirely how you define it, was my point. A set up where two parents split the roles of breadwinning and homemaking isn't abusive by default. But a set up where one person is disempowered and controlled within that, is. It's not about who does what, it's about how much agency they have.

I already linked this showing how hierarchies are a natural way people organise society based on compentence, ability and status.

Not relevant to what I was asking for.

Then why didn't you mention this instead of just remaining silent.

I thought I was very clear. I have already told you multiple times that I am not going to reply to every irrelevant link.

Hierarchies are not just about control

In the sense that we are talking about, in terms of abuse within a household, yes, that is what they are about.

 

[stevevw]

Just replying to note that none of your links are demonstrating that distress is required to believe "that they child will be in danger of growing up to be badly behaved or ... that if they are not taught good behaviour be harshly punishing them they will go to hell." (Your claim in post #1,561).

Shifting the goalposts does not establish your point.

You honestly want me to find evidence for that exact statement. Talk about making people jump through loops. You do realise that that was an example of an unreal belief or expectation which could apply to any idea like the unreal fear of a ghost in the house, or aliens coming or that everyones out to get me.

So in that sense those articles more than prove the point that stressed and distressed parents have this unreal thinking that creates these beliefs. That their basing their choices on unreal perceptions, expectations and beliefs about their child and the world.

Most of the articles mention how abusive parents thinking and beliefs become irrational and unreal thinking because of the stress and distress. Plus I already provided evdience of the link between distress and irrational and unreal beliefs. So together this is ample evdience. For example

I mean abuse parents have unreal expectations of their child believing that if they don't make their child behave in certain ways they will end up having problems or in the case of religion that their child will be lost. That is common knowledge. But at least one thing, I have clearly shown that parental abuse involves stress and distress the majority of times if not in all cases.

Here are the parts from the same articles you once again ignore and dismissed which link the distress to unreal beliefs and expectations of their child.

The results of study showed that the irrational beliefs about parenting were significantly associated with level of parental stress (Graeves, 1997; Mcdonalt, 1993; Starko, 1991) and depression (Eryüksel & Akün, 2003), perceived parenting efficacy (Ackerman, 1991), parent-adolescent conflict (Robin ve Foster, 1989).
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ936304.pdf

As expected, the interaction of parenting stress and belief in the value of corporal punishment was significant. Level of parenting stress was positively associated with physical child abuse potential among parents who reported high levels of belief in the value of corporal punishment.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213400002568?via%3Dihub

Parents who are particularly rigid in their beliefs and attitudes about their children may be more insensitive to their child’s emotional cues, and that even when they do pick up their child’s cues, there may be an increased likelihood they generate distorted and negative attributions about the child’s behaviour.

The research notes that physically abusive parents have deficits in their perceptions, expectations, interpretations and evaluations of their child’s behaviour. Furthermore, parents who have high levels of personal distress, as is often the case with parents deemed ‘at risk’, often have information processing difficulties which makes perspectivetaking more difficult.5

https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/321630/researchnotes_parental_empathy.pdf

Parents can become immensely overwhelmed by their child’s experiences resulting in parent anger, anxiety, and/or depressed mood. These unhealthy negative emotions can have a significant impact on their parenting and their family unit. Rational emotive and cognitive behavioral therapy (RE-CBT) can be an invaluable therapeutic approach to helping parents manage their emotions by changing their irrational beliefs.
APA PsycNet

Parents at risk of abuse toward children tend to experience higher stress levels, depression, self-blame, and social isolation.8 They have unrealistic expectations of their children and are usually rigid and inflexible in their thinking. They are more likely to use coercive disciplinary methods and believe that harsh punishment is the only way to discipline.7

Why Do Parents Physically Abuse Their Children

Abuse from parents can take many forms. The five types of abuse are physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, and medical neglect.

www.parentingforbrain.com

Abusive mothers reported more stress due to frequent life events, and had a more negative perception of these events.

The role of parental stress in physically abusive families - PubMed

This study examines the role of several components of parental stress in physically abusive and nonabusive families with conduct-disordered children. The 123 families studied were seen in a parenting clinic aimed at improving parent-child interactions in families with a highly oppositional...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Here are the links I supplied earlier showing the link between stress and distress and irrational and unreal beliefs and expectations.

Elevated levels of parent dysfunctional/irrational cognitions are associated with parental distress
Investigating Irrational Beliefs, Cognitive Appraisals, Challenge and Threat, and Affective States in Golfers Approaching Competitive Situations

There is a positive significant correlation between “mothers’ perceived stress and their feelings of entrapment” and also between “mothers’ feelings of entrapment and their irrational beliefs”. Moreover, a significant correlation was observed between irrational beliefs and a sense of entrapment.
https://www.cjmb.org/uploads/pdf/pdf_CJMB_551.pdf

Lets not forget your link as well which was about the determinants of parents attitudes and beliefs about child abuse and a higher risk for abusing their child.

Parental stress has been correlated with more negative indices of parenting, including higher rates of physical punishment.
Parental attitudes are thought to be the by-product of these factors: parents own personal and psychological resources such as their own prior family experiences and functioning, child characteristics including temperament and behavior, and contextual sources of stress and support such as quality of their social relationships and degree of outside stressors.

Caregivers with higher levels of depressive symptoms and more stressful life events corresponded with more inappropriate and negative parenting attitudes
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213419304594

So as you can see I have linked the evidence showing stress and distress is linked to parental abuse and irrational and parental unreal beliefs, attitudes and expectations.

 

[Paidiske]

You honestly want me to find evidence for that exact statement.

If you want it to be taken seriously as part of your argument, yes.

I will note again, in response to your many links, that measures of irrational beliefs are not measuring the beliefs which underpin abuse.

 

[stevevw]

No, they really didn't.

Evidence required (for each part of that statement) before I would even begin to take it seriously. And your claim that these beliefs are held by people who don't abuse would seem to be undermined by this position, anyway.

Why would you need evidence for each part of the statement when the articles actually explained the type of Mindset that is behind the belief in controlling hierarchies, roles and situations that lead to abuse.

Let me ask you, do you think people can believe in hierarchies and rigid roles without believing in abusing and controlling others.

Not exactly. I am saying that hierarchies are (at least to a degree) one structural expression of abusive beliefs and norms.

This is wrong then according to the evidence I linked which shows that hierarchies are normal and natural expressions of how people organise others and society itself to be more efficent.

Hierarchies without any humans in them are just geometric structures for which we can structure anything into. A hierarchy itself has no mind to control. It has to have a human mind to control. So minus the human its a benign and neutral structure and no more abhusive then a square or triangle lol.

If your saying a hierarchy itself without humans is abusive to a degree then a ladder is abusive because it has higher and lower runs or precious stone hiearchy of value is abusive. A hierarchy becomes abusive only because a human makes it so. But they have turned a natural hierarchy into an abusive one or created an abusive one.

This is not the kind of hierarchy that has anything to do with one person controlling another, though.

Yes it is, thats how all hiearchies work. For example males are valued for their strength and power and form a natural hierarchy of strength and power. Society will value and give status to males with strength and power such as in the trades and construction. So males dominate the top of the strength and power hierarchy with less stronger people to varying degrees decending tothe bottom.

Thisd was the case in our early days moving from hunter gatherers to building towns and cities. As males dominated this good and naturally evolving hierarchy (natural evolution from H&G to Industrial revolution) some began to take advantage of being in those dominant positions and gradually this natural hierarchy began to be unnaturally controlled by males to mainatin that dominance and control.

So a natural and healthy hierarchy that was formed as a natural evolution of the progression of society and the need for humans with power and strength to farm and build our towns and cities and then run them was changed into a controlling and oppressive one. But the males got to that position within the hierarchy as a natural evolution. They did not set out to create such a hierarchy but rather took advantage of an existing natural hierarchy.

I would say, if it has absolutely no aspect of one person controlling another, it is not a hierarchy in the sense that we are discussing hierarchies as relevant to abuse.

Its still a hierarchy as far as structure where people are valued and given different levels of status, priviledge and control in a natural sense as I just explained above. Males would have had a degree of control when they dominated the workforce as we built our towns and cities including the layouts and infrastructure and how it operated. But thast was not abusive but rather a natural part and parcel of the fact that they suited the work at that time just like women suit the types of work we have today.

I would say, only within some very stringent constraints. Such as the controlling relationship being voluntary, the degree of control being very clearly limited, and so on.

We have many hierarchies where we agree to be controlled or accept as part of society. Heres a simple definition
Social hierarchies are means by which societies rank, classify, and distribute privileges and roles to their members.

Theres nothing abusive or controlling in a negative way in this definition. Its just categorising. It may rank the financial experts as best for economic aspects of society. It may classify people under 18 as not able to do certain things. Or priviledge certain people with positions of power and status like polititians, artists or celebs and all that goes with it which may give them a priviledged life.

Work and industry is based on hiearchies of command, fixed roles, controlling factors on humans and none is abusive. In fact most of society is this way. People with money have more control than those without. The monetary system controls people forcing them to work and sacrifice stuff and some are more controlled than others.

Of course we have regulations and controls especially where moneyis concerned. But people still end up in different categories of greater or lesser status, power, control and privildge as a matter of the natural way humans value others, differences and the benefits they bring or in how hierarchies help organise society to run better. We are not a communist country where everyone is forced to be exactly the same and have the same status.

 

[stevevw]

If you want it to be taken seriously as part of your argument, yes.

Taken seriously by who, someone who dismisses and ignores everything and doesn't understand the human mind and behaviour and provides no evidence or feedback or arguement. I would rather trust in the abundent evidence already supplied which is at academic level.

I will note again, in response to your many links, that measures of irrational beliefs are not measuring the beliefs which underpin abuse.

If you read the articles some do. It specifically says parents with distress are at more risk to develop irrational beliefs such as black and white and rigid, coercive and controlling thinking, That is the Mindset behind beliefs in controlling hierarchies and rigid roles.

For example rigid roles stems from thinking in rigid ways as a mindset and not just for roles but in many situations. Its not the role or hierarchy but the Mindset that causes one to believe in making things rigid and controlling.

So believing in rigid roles and controlling hierarchies are just the symptoms of a Mindset that thinks in controlling, coercive and rigid ways. The papers I linked say exactly this.

Another example is the article on the rational and irrational belief scale. They don't single out beliefs in specific things like rigid roles but look at the Mindset, the thinking such as Demandingness and Frustration tolerence because this thinking is what causes people to think rigidly and controlling.

Your demands for this specific evidence shows your thinking is narrow and limiting and will miss much of how abusers think.

 

[Paidiske]

Why would you need evidence for each part of the statement when the articles actually explained the type of Mindset that is behind the belief in controlling hierarchies, roles and situations that lead to abuse.

Because the articles have not demonstrated that the beliefs which underpin abuse are "the symptoms of a controlling mind," at all.

Let me ask you, do you think people can believe in hierarchies and rigid roles without believing in abusing and controlling others.

I think they can believe in hierarchies and rigid roles as an ideal, but not believe they should take any action to enforce or impose that ideal. But once they do believe that those ideals should be enforced or imposed, then I think it's crossed a line.

This is wrong then according to the evidence I linked which shows that hierarchies are normal and natural expressions of how people organise others and society itself to be more efficent.

Can something not be normal and natural, and also a harmful?

That said, I still don't believe in such a thing as a "natural" social structure.

Hierarchies without any humans in them are just geometric structures for which we can structure anything into. A hierarchy itself has no mind to control. It has to have a human mind to control. So minus the human its a benign and neutral structure and no more abhusive then a square or triangle lol.

No, I disagree, and I shall illustrate with an example.

Take hierarchy in marriage; the kind expressed in having a wife vow to obey her husband (but not the other way around). The husband may never use that vow to force his wife to do anything against her will, but the mere fact of the vow, and the marriage structured by the vow, means that that marriage is not benign and neutral. It has husbandly control and coercion built into it.

Yes it is, thats how all hiearchies work.

We are not talking here about arbitrary judgements of particular traits. We are talking about dynamics of power and control.

Its still a hierarchy as far as structure where people are valued and given different levels of status, priviledge and control in a natural sense as I just explained above.

I asked: "If someone says they believe in a hierarchy, but wish to remove any aspect of control from their understanding of hierarchy, is it still really a belief in social hierarchy?"

You replied: "Yes its still a hiearchy but without exploiting it to harm others."

I replied: "I would say, if it has absolutely no aspect of one person controlling another, it is not a hierarchy in the sense that we are discussing hierarchies as relevant to abuse."

Now you reply that it's still a structure where people are given different levels of control.

That is not what we were discussing. We were discussing so-called hierarchies without any aspect of control.

Social hierarchies are means by which societies rank, classify, and distribute privileges and roles to their members.

Theres nothing abusive or controlling in a negative way in this definition.

It depends on what is contingent on those ranks, classifications, privileges, and roles.

Work and industry is based on hiearchies of command, fixed roles, controlling factors on humans and none is abusive.

Well, some are abusive. But more to the point, workplace control is voluntary, has boundaries and limits, and has various protections. Someone who takes on a job agrees to (limited, particular) control from their superiors, and can leave whenever they want, can renegotiate the terms of their employment, and has protections if their employer goes beyond what is agreed.

That helps to mitigate the potential for abuse.

We are not a communist country where everyone is forced to be exactly the same and have the same status.

No, but when we are discussing abuse, we are discussing the control one person has over another, not the degree of power and control a person has over their own circumstances.

 

[Paidiske]

If you read the articles some do.

Nope. We've been over this. There's only a small segment of overlap in the Venn diagram, remember?