Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Paidiske" data-source="post: 77674487" data-attributes="member: 386627"><p>We look at the patterns. We have done this work with statistically significant cohorts of abusers. We know which beliefs drive their abuse. So when we see those beliefs in people who have not abused yet, we can be confident that they are a risk. And we can work to challenge these beliefs in society, so that people don't form them to the same degree. </p><p></p><p>Value judgements are subjective; but this is not a value judgement. It's a measurement of an objective reality; people who hold this cluster of beliefs are much more likely to abuse.</p><p></p><p>We are not talking about any particular hierarchy. We are talking about holding a belief that relationships should be hierarchically ordered. A value of hierarchy as the best or only right way to order human relationships, including in the household. </p><p></p><p>I'm not making any judgement about whether a particular cluster of beliefs is justified. I see that as largely irrelevant. </p><p></p><p>From my point of view, it's much more simple. These patterns of thinking and belief lead to abuse. We can discourage them on that basis, and sidestep the whole question of whether they are irrational or "unreal." Even if they were rational and "real," they would still be leading to abuse, and would still need to be challenged. </p><p></p><p>No; there is no profile of cognition or psychological state which leads to abuse. Abuse happens in people with the full range of psychological states. What abusers have in common is a particular cluster of beliefs; there's no more to it than that. </p><p></p><p>You might think so, but it can be perfectly rational from within their own perspective. And really, the whole thing about irrationality is largely besides the point. </p><p></p><p>You don't need any more basis than, "This cluster of beliefs underpins abuse."</p><p></p><p>I don't know what you mean by this. </p><p></p><p>You keep repeating this kind of question as if this work hasn't been done. But it has been. We know which beliefs underpin abuse. </p><p></p><p>How do we identify beliefs which are not currently held, but which, if they come to be held in the future, might lead to abuse? </p><p></p><p>That's so far off in hypothetical la-la land that it's irrelevant. Let's deal with the known problems now. That's enough to be going on with.</p><p></p><p>It only measures what it's designed to measure. It measures very specific traits. Those traits are mostly not related to the attitudes which underpin abuse. </p><p></p><p>You might argue that's poor design, or maybe our understanding of abuse has advanced since these measures were developed, whatever. The simple fact is that these scales don't measure the attitudes which underpin abuse. Making claims about "irrational thinking" based on scores on these scales, therefore, is only tangentially relevant to someone's risk of abusing.</p><p></p><p>No. You're chasing a mirage, there. </p><p></p><p>Largely because I am very tired of you dragging this thread off topic and distracting from the very real issues this thread was seeking to address. We are dealing with the physical abuse of children. Not every injustice under the sun. </p><p></p><p>No; we can work on primary prevention of abuse. But in order to do that, we need to stay focussed on that issue, not every other vaguely related thing. </p><p></p><p>I think perhaps you have misunderstood me. I am not arguing for abuse. I am arguing that, in deciding whether a particular instance of control of one person by another is necessary, we can relax that control and see whether any harm results. </p><p></p><p>For example, take a workplace's rules about when and how leave may be taken (which just happens to be top of mind for me this week). Are those rules necessary? If we relax them to some degree, does it cause any problems? If yes, tighten them up again. If no, leave them relaxed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 77674487, member: 386627"] We look at the patterns. We have done this work with statistically significant cohorts of abusers. We know which beliefs drive their abuse. So when we see those beliefs in people who have not abused yet, we can be confident that they are a risk. And we can work to challenge these beliefs in society, so that people don't form them to the same degree. Value judgements are subjective; but this is not a value judgement. It's a measurement of an objective reality; people who hold this cluster of beliefs are much more likely to abuse. We are not talking about any particular hierarchy. We are talking about holding a belief that relationships should be hierarchically ordered. A value of hierarchy as the best or only right way to order human relationships, including in the household. I'm not making any judgement about whether a particular cluster of beliefs is justified. I see that as largely irrelevant. From my point of view, it's much more simple. These patterns of thinking and belief lead to abuse. We can discourage them on that basis, and sidestep the whole question of whether they are irrational or "unreal." Even if they were rational and "real," they would still be leading to abuse, and would still need to be challenged. No; there is no profile of cognition or psychological state which leads to abuse. Abuse happens in people with the full range of psychological states. What abusers have in common is a particular cluster of beliefs; there's no more to it than that. You might think so, but it can be perfectly rational from within their own perspective. And really, the whole thing about irrationality is largely besides the point. You don't need any more basis than, "This cluster of beliefs underpins abuse." I don't know what you mean by this. You keep repeating this kind of question as if this work hasn't been done. But it has been. We know which beliefs underpin abuse. How do we identify beliefs which are not currently held, but which, if they come to be held in the future, might lead to abuse? That's so far off in hypothetical la-la land that it's irrelevant. Let's deal with the known problems now. That's enough to be going on with. It only measures what it's designed to measure. It measures very specific traits. Those traits are mostly not related to the attitudes which underpin abuse. You might argue that's poor design, or maybe our understanding of abuse has advanced since these measures were developed, whatever. The simple fact is that these scales don't measure the attitudes which underpin abuse. Making claims about "irrational thinking" based on scores on these scales, therefore, is only tangentially relevant to someone's risk of abusing. No. You're chasing a mirage, there. Largely because I am very tired of you dragging this thread off topic and distracting from the very real issues this thread was seeking to address. We are dealing with the physical abuse of children. Not every injustice under the sun. No; we can work on primary prevention of abuse. But in order to do that, we need to stay focussed on that issue, not every other vaguely related thing. I think perhaps you have misunderstood me. I am not arguing for abuse. I am arguing that, in deciding whether a particular instance of control of one person by another is necessary, we can relax that control and see whether any harm results. For example, take a workplace's rules about when and how leave may be taken (which just happens to be top of mind for me this week). Are those rules necessary? If we relax them to some degree, does it cause any problems? If yes, tighten them up again. If no, leave them relaxed. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health
Top
Bottom