Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health

[Paidiske]

Yes but after the abuse has been committed. We need to know before the abuse is committed.

And as I said, screening, say, new parents with a belief inventory would be a great measure. And much better than stereotyping them based on socioeconomic status or household structure.

Do you honestly think that abusive, rigid and controlling hierarchies and roles are the only situations abusers will use to abuse.

It's not the situations; it's the ideology of controlling hierarchies and rigid roles which drives their abuse.

We need a clinical measure not of the ways abuse is expressed but rather a psychological profile of the abuser, the mindset, the psyche, the way they see the world as to why they choose to believe in such destructive and dysfunctional stuff.

But these beliefs are about the mindset, the psyche, the beliefs and attitudes. It's not about the ways abuse is expressed (those are as varied as human creativity allows), it's about the beliefs which drive the abuse.

No not all the time and not particularly that often.

I completely disagree. To the degree that they normalise relationships of power and control, they are very much part of the social norms which support an abusive culture.

Put it this way we spot the abusive control say within the law, politics, business, corporations, relationships and families but all these setups are legitimate, natural and normal for society.

I'm not saying it's not legitimate to have law or politics or whatever. I'm saying it's a cultural norm that in all of these areas, there are relationships of power and control, and that this normalises an ideology in which that kind of power and control is acceptable.

The abuse happens within these same structures but we don't get rid of the hierarchal structure.

No, but we modify it to minimise the power and control element.

Get rid of the chain of command, the power of the law and there will be chaos.

Is this the real fear for you, that if we remove hierarchy from marriage and the family, there will be "chaos"?

You give a 3 word reply without any reasoning explaining why "we have" while you cut off my reply into a 3 word reply leaving out my reasoning.

Much of our conversation is addressing this exact point. I am trying to avoid tedious repetition.

But no we don't have a ground for beliefs simply because belief is subjective.

Belief may be subjective, but we can still demonstrate which subjective beliefs underpin abuse; which attitudes drive abusive behaviour and are not held by non-abusers.

Its self evident that society forms natural hierarchies.

That wasn't the claim for which I asked for evidence. You claimed "The same beliefs in hierarchies and rigid roles can be shown to not be abusive." So where's your evidence that beliefs in hierarchies and rigid roles don't underpin abuse?

No I like this debate its interesting and its not often that people are willing to engage so much that we can explore things.

I find the whole defence of power, control, hierarchy and so on quite distressing, but feel obliged to rebut it, more for the sake of others reading along (if anyone is still persisting with this thread besides us).

 

[stevevw]

It's not that simple. Hierarchies and rigid roles in themselves are providing the foundations for abuse.

But rigid roles and especially hierarchies are natural and normal ways society sets themselves up to run. Including running more effectively and sorting out differences so we have utilise people and systems better.

Your effectively saying all situations in life, in the normal carrying out of living together is a foundation for abuse. Which comes back to what I was saying that its not the hierarchies or roles, the relationships or situation humans find themseves in but the abuse of those situations. Take the abuse out and they are not a problem.

Not really. Any power differential used to control others (with some necessary caveats for the immaturity of small children) is abusive.

The important destinction here is "used to control others" in a way that is intended to deny that person the same rights as every human is entitled to in an unjustifed way.

But there are many situations where differences lead to people gaining more or less control and its not abusive but rather just the natural result of those diffeences being expressed in society.

For example those who work hard or have a natural ability to occupy the top of hierarchies have more control than those at the bottom be it in work, education, sports, trades, politics, social skills, anything.

It's not having power that's abusive. Power - at its most basic, the ability to do things - is not the problem. It's power used to control others that's the problem.

Yes then your agreeing with me that some who gain more power and control through non abusive ways such as hard work or talent is not abusive.

Therefore not all differences in outcomes that give more power, control and advantage over others between people based on race, gender, sex ect are because of abusing others.

If they're negotiable, and open to flexibility and change, by definition they're not rigid.

Yes they can be because they are because they are still agreeing to conform to a role, sacrifice their freedom to follow a basic role. Feminist believe that simply being in the role of housewife with a breadwinner husband is abusive even if they volunteer. Thats a belief and not fact.

Rigid roles - as social prescriptions used to limit and control people - are abusive.

Thats not true. We use ideas about rigid social norms such as behaving in certain ways to be social. Any deviation is frowned upon and condemned and those who dare act differently can be socially, financially destroyed as a result. Thats pretty rigid.

But it's the specific beliefs which underpin abuse that are the problem. Someone could have high levels of demandingness in their psychological mindset, but as long as they don't accept the use of violence, and feel justified in controlling others, then that's not really a problem from the point of view of abuse prevention.

But thats like identifying the health issue by the symptoms and not the core problem within the body or mind. Your bound to get things wrong by misdiagnosing based on assumptions about the symptoms.

People also hold the same beliefs in the same ideas like hierarchies or Trad marriages and they don't abuse. So having the belief itself is not the same thing as abuse. Just as with all human social behavioural problems we identify the underlying mindset and emotional disturbance which actually causes the symptoms such as wanting to control others through rigid roles.

In other words the mind and psyche of a non abuser who believes or naturally uses hierarcies or CP, or Trad marriages is different to the mindset of those who use these situations to abuse. So rather than just simply say hierarchy or rigid role = abusive control.

We say people with a clinical diagnosis of a mindset that is volnurable to believe such destructive ideas like abusive control when in positions of hierachy, roles, marriages, relationships are more open to use abusive control. Thus we don't risk misdiagniosing what may be normal good people engaging in normal a good behaviour which happen in societies.

Well, not necessarily. Rather than screening using a vague measure of "irrational beliefs," we could screen for the very specific beliefs which underpin abuse. That would be far more accurate.

But that very specific belief in CP, hiearchies, rigid roles or Trad marriages ect are not abusive. We can find many people who believe these things and never abuse. We can find entire hierarchal systems within society that don't abuse. I just gave you evidence for this. Many people implicitely promote these setups because they are efficent and beneficial.

Beleif as you said is a subjective judgement. What one persons thinks is abuse another thinks is beneficial. There has to be some factual determination to tell which beliefs are exactly causing abuse and violence.

I can give you an example of a current belief that is said to be good to prevent abuse and violence and is promoted by health and wellbing sectors especially relating to race, sex and identity through policy and laws which is actually causing abuse and violence.

So if we cannot identify which beliefs are negative due to the fact that we use belief itself as the measure and not facts or relaity the only way we can determine what will actually cause abuse and violence is the factual and clinical measures of peoples minds and pysche's as the the factual data as to which people are most supceptible to irrational beliefs.

We use this theory and approach for identifying radicalised youth regarding ganng violence and terrorism. Its more or less psychologically profiling abusers and violent people just like we could understand the criminal mind, the addictive personality, the psychopath. Just like we understand juvenile delinquency and the influence of upbringing on the psyche. Its all proven science and works.

Of course there are. The examples are legion. That's part of what makes these beliefs cultural and social norms.

Social and cultural norms don't come purely from social and cultural norms. Social and cultural norms are variations on innate cognitions, beliefs and behaviours. Abuse is the distorting of this to the point where it harms others by insisting its the only way.

Well, no. That's not the only way, and it's by no means the most potentially accurate way.

It is the only way and its an accurate way because its based in facts, the science and our experience. Whereas using beliefs as the measure has no way of determining whether that belief is actually abusive because its only using unsupported assumptions about those beliefs being abusive in the first place.

No more subjective than measuring people's propensity to irrational beliefs. It's just measuring the very specific beliefs which are relevant for this issue.

No its measuring the mindset that will be supceptible to irrational beliefs perse and not specific irrational beliefs. Specific irrational beliefs come from the same mindset as all irrational beliefs. Its the same principle for how we determine anxious mindsets that may be expressed in various behaviour like suicidal ideation, slef harm, destructive behaviour.

Or other social problems which all have a certain mindset and psyche behind the behaviour. If it works for all other social behaviour problems it works for abusive and controlling behaviour.

 

[Paidiske]

But rigid roles and especially hierarchies are natural and normal ways society sets themselves up to run.

I'd dispute that they're "natural." They're chosen.

That said, just because something is normal doesn't mean it's good. We've normalised many harmful things.

Including running more effectively and sorting out differences so we have utilise people and systems better.

As long as we see people only as resources to be "utilised," rather than human beings whose abundant life ought to be nurtured, that might be enough. But rigid roles limit the fulness of life. Hierarchies which disempower limit the fulness of life. These are not conditions which promote human flourishing.

Your effectively saying all situations in life, in the normal carrying out of living together is a foundation for abuse.

Only if you see all situations in life as being limited by social constructs of power.

The important destinction here is "used to control others" in a way that is intended to deny that person the same rights as every human is entitled to in an unjustifed way.

No, I am not limiting my statement in that way. Control is not just about the denial of rights.

For example those who work hard or have a natural ability to occupy the top of hierarchies have more control than those at the bottom be it in work, education, sports, trades, politics, social skills, anything.

There is a difference between the kind of power that comes with a different scope of work, and the kind of power to control another person that is abusive.

Yes then your agreeing with me that some who gain more power and control through non abusive ways such as hard work or talent is not abusive.

It's not about the way the power is gained. It's about the way it is used. If someone gains power and uses it to coerce or limit the choices of others, that's abusive.

Yes they can be because they are because they are still agreeing to conform to a role, sacrifice their freedom to follow a basic role.

No, if they can change that agreement at any time, it is not what we mean by "rigid roles." Any of us might choose particular roles or habits, and as long as they're freely chosen (and we have the freedom to make different choices at a later time), that's not what we're talking about here.

Feminist believe that simply being in the role of housewife with a breadwinner husband is abusive even if they volunteer.

No, that is not an accurate statement. I would say that being in the role of a housewife with a breadwinner husband is a vulnerable position, and I would urge every woman in that situation to at least make sure she remains employable to reduce that vulnerability, but feminists do not claim that this situation is abusive if it is voluntarily chosen.

Thats not true.

I'm sorry, but it is. Limiting people's agency and autonomy and coercing (controlling) them to conform to particular rigid roles is abusive.

We use ideas about rigid social norms such as behaving in certain ways to be social.

And to do otherwise might be rude. But even so, people are (or should be) free to be rude.

Any deviation is frowned upon and condemned and those who dare act differently can be socially, financially destroyed as a result. Thats pretty rigid.

I'm not saying there are no social consequences for one's choices. But that is a different matter from social coercion.

But thats like identifying the health issue by the symptoms and not the core problem within the body or mind.

Well, no. The actual problem is the abuse. Identifying the very specific drivers of the abuse is more accurate, and more helpful, than identifying less specific cognitive conditions which may or may not ever give rise to abuse.

People also hold the same beliefs in the same ideas like hierarchies or Trad marriages and they don't abuse.

Again, it is the cluster of beliefs - acceptance of violence, hierarchy, power, control, and rigid roles - which is pertinent. If someone only believes in hierarchy, absent the other beliefs, they're unlikely to abuse. If someone believes in trad marriage, (and they don't mean by that a dynamic of hierarchy and control), they're unlikely to abuse.

So having the belief itself is not the same thing as abuse.

No. But if you want a strong, reliable predictor of abuse, then someone holding the cluster of beliefs which underpin abuse is about the best you're going to get.

Thus we don't risk misdiagniosing what may be normal good people engaging in normal a good behaviour which happen in societies.

I'm not even suggesting it's a question of "diagnosis." Nor am I suggesting that these are not "normal, good people" (you might recall that I rejected the idea that an abuser is necessarily not a "good person"). But I am suggesting that identifying that someone holds strongly to this particular cluster of beliefs is the best indicator we could have that they are likely to abuse.

But that very specific belief in CP, hiearchies, rigid roles or Trad marriages ect are not abusive.

The cluster of beliefs - the acceptance of violence, hierarchy, power and control, and rigid roles - translated into action, do become abusive, though. A person with such beliefs will need a very great deal of support in order not to abuse.

We can find many people who believe these things and never abuse.

I've asked you before for evidence of people who hold this cluster of beliefs to a significant degree and yet don't abuse.

There has to be some factual determination to tell which beliefs are exactly causing abuse and violence.

We've done that work. We know which beliefs they are. This is very well established.

So if we cannot identify which beliefs are negative due to the fact that we use belief itself as the measure and not facts or relaity the only way we can determine what will actually cause abuse and violence is the factual and clinical measures of peoples minds and pysche's as the the factual data as to which people are most supceptible to irrational beliefs.

But we have identified which beliefs drive abuse. We can measure the degree to which people hold those beliefs. We are not without helpful clinical possibilities here. We do not need to fall back on the much less directly related measure of "irrational beliefs."

Social and cultural norms are variations on innate cognitions, beliefs and behaviours.

I don't believe in "innate" cognitions and beliefs. You'd need to provide very robust evidence for any such claim.

It is the only way and its an accurate way because its based in facts, the science and our experience.

But we can look at the actual beliefs held by people, and how strongly they measure for the cluster of beliefs which underpin abuse. That is the most accurate way available. And far more directly relevant than measuring much vaguer "cognitions and emotional dysfunction."

Whereas using beliefs as the measure has no way of determining whether that belief is actually abusive because its only using unsupported assumptions about those beliefs being abusive in the first place.

It's not an unsupported assumption! We know this as a result of studying large cohorts of abusers, and examining their belief profiles, and comparing them to those of people who don't abuse. This cluster of beliefs is the difference between those who abuse, and those who don't.

But I am not saying that a belief "is abusive." Behaviours are abusive; but we choose our behaviours on the basis of our beliefs.

No its measuring the mindset that will be supceptible to irrational beliefs perse and not specific irrational beliefs.

And that is why it's not directly relevant to the likelihood that someone will abuse.

Specific irrational beliefs come from the same mindset as all irrational beliefs.

But the beliefs which underpin abuse aren't necessarily irrational. Again, there's only a small area of overlap between what is measured by clinical scales of "irrational beliefs," and the beliefs which drive abuse.

If it works for all other social behaviour problems it works for abusive and controlling behaviour.

I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would think that a one-size-fits-all approach to every problem would be likely to be the most accurate or effective, when each problem is quite distinct in what drives it.

 

[stevevw]

No more subjective than measuring people's propensity to irrational beliefs. It's just measuring the very specific beliefs which are relevant for this issue.

I think you will find as part of measuring those specific beliefs there will be data on the mindset and psyche that goes with those irrational beliefs and how it differs from non abusers. It stands to reason that the abusers thinking and psyche ois going to be different to non abusers. Just like the mind of a criminal is different to the mind of a non criminal or an addictive personality.

Not exactly. I was saying that we cannot accurately characterise all abusers as irrational.

I think we can and the evidence supports this whether its about abuse, substance abuse, DV, anti social behaviour or violence in general. The ideations are different, the worldview is different, warped and unreal as to what is really going on. Otherwise they would not abuse and realise thats its destructive. Humans don't believe in destruction and if they do then theres some underlying issues.

So, instead of screening for the actual beliefs which drive abuse, you want to take a step back and screen for the mindset that (you claim) makes it more likely that people might hold such ideas. And you think that will be more accurate? That makes no sense.

Well of course. Otherwise you accuse someone with the same belief who is not abusive in holding abusive beliefs. Oh wait a minute that already happens when someone declares a women is a biological female. Thats regarded as abusive because the right sort of belief we should have is that humans can magically change sex and that somehow subjective identity is now objective reality.

Talk about promoting unreal beliefs in the name of preventing abuse. That actually creates abuse and violence by dividing people into warring groups based on subjective beliefs about how we should order society into some DEI Woke Utopia.

I empahsize this to make the point how subjective belief cannot determine what subjective beliefs are abusive because it is actually happening right now. The only way as a society we have been able to claw some of this ideology back is through the science and factual data exposingf the ideology. Thus we are begining to see the ideology takjen out of health and education policy and practices.

I'm not sure I'd accept that label.

But if you believe that all differences are socially constructed and there is no natural differences then thats a classical social constructivist. Social constructions has become popular because it feeds into the Post Modernist and Woke idea that everything including humans, nature and god are social constructions which can be reconstructed in human image.

That language is the new reality which can be recronstructed and given new meaning to reality.. Reality is subjective and self referential.

I am rejecting the idea of "natural" beliefs, as opposed to learned and socially imparted beliefs. I don't believe we have an inborn propensity to believe certain things.

The evidence shows we do, We are born believers in supernaturalism and morality. We can sense empathy as new borns and have a moral sense about justice, kindness and fairness as infants.

This is expressed in the various cultural beliefs but they all have the same core beliefs about morality, a creative supernatural agent, the soul and afterlife. From this come all expressions of belief whether in Woke, God, paganism or other new age ideas.

We also have innate evolutionary instincts like mating, bonding, coperating, as well as natural differences in sex which have an influence. We also have natural processes and behaviours that have come from our experience in how to survive. Theese are not completely socially constructed but rather are based in natural evolutionary developments and the way humans need to live together.

Of course it's learned. There are cultures where property is held in common, and there's no such concept as "stealing" at all.

Tell me where this place is, I want to live there. Is it like a commune lol. I nearly fell for one of those which offer I think 30k for 10 acreas I think for 30 people with access to 1600 acreas with a river flowing through it. Too good to be true.

Collective societies still have the natural sense that taking stuff that is wrong. They may share their stuff but if another tribe comes and takes and destroys their stuff they are still effected. They don't completely lose the natural instict that working hard for something has a certain value, cost that should not be disrepected by others in treating it like its theirs or nothing.

You can only speak of "evolving" thinking and behaviours as "natural" if those things are genetically determined. But they aren't. They are social and cultural.

Not everything and not the fundemental natural influences which are needed to be a society. We did not socially contruct the idea that stealing or murder or rape is wrong. We discovered that trying to exist using rape and pilage didn't get us far and actually threatened our existence. We had no choice if we wanted to live together.

So it wasn't a socially determined idea it was reality coming to bite us and if we didn't respect those natural orders we would not exist or at least exist in chaos and we as a species are continually looking for stability. All species are instinctually. This goes formuch of our behaviour. The cultural influences are only refinements of these deeper natural forces.

Except, clearly, we don't. I mean, you and I live in a constitutional monarchy. Our king is king not because he is the most competent person to be king, but because he was the previous monarch's firstborn son. And I'd say there's very little evidence of true meritocracy in just about any area of life.

Thats rediculous to say that the British Monarchy has sway over us or even Britain itself. The Monarchy is just a symbol preversed of its former self. Australia is government by its own politics and we at least try to have the best and most qualified in government. Though lately its all about Woke and not merit or qualification.

But we use to have the best treasurers or advice from the best financial advisors, the reserve bank ect. We have called for more polititians to come from business who know what they are doing. The most successful companies have the best heads which is proven in their success and we wish that for our governence.

Or we may want more socially minded people who have the experience and knowledge about helping society. We have continually sought inquiries, reports, scientific data to inform us. Sure it can often be a waste of time or we don't aways act on the findings. But we certainly believe that we want the best people and information to guide us.

If people want a plumber or mechanic they want someone who knows what their doing and who has good service. We don't want an incompetent doctor for our health. So the competent and talented rise to the top because they are in demand and for good reason. Because they can actually make things better, fix stuff, get the job done more efficently ect.

Insofar as they are structures of control, then they are inherently part of abuse.

But anything could be a structure of control, even two people in a relationship on a deserted island. That makes life itself structures of control and inherently part of the abuse.

I suggest its the other way around the structures are just that structures. They exist as natural structures like triangles and ladders. Putting someone at the base of the ladder who is being abused by someone at the top doesn't make the ladder structure abusive.

Ladder structure are also good. they allow people to get to the top, they help save people and build stuff. lol. Just like all structures, they are nothing without an living and breathing conscious being who can think of using such a inanimant object for abuse.

 

[Paidiske]

I think you will find as part of measuring those specific beliefs there will be data on the mindset and psyche that goes with those irrational beliefs and how it differs from non abusers.

That depends entirely on your instrument, but has not been part of the measures I've been familiar with.

Just like the mind of a criminal is different to the mind of a non criminal or an addictive personality.

Not sure I'd agree with that. On a quick search, it seems the main difference for criminals is beliefs around entitlement to act in the way that they do (similar to the beliefs abusers hold which let them feel entitled to abuse). Addiction is a completely different kettle of fish.

I think we can and the evidence supports this

Not any evidence you've presented so far.

Well of course. Otherwise you accuse someone with the same belief who is not abusive in holding abusive beliefs.

But in your case, you accuse someone with a cognitive condition which may (or may very well not) give rise to abusive beliefs, of being a potential abuser. Rather than measuring those beliefs directly.

I empahsize this to make the point how subjective belief cannot determine what subjective beliefs are abusive because it is actually happening right now.

It's completely irrelevant. It's not about the beliefs which drive particular behaviours. It's not about abuse. It's just bringing in a favourite culture-war hobby horse in an attempt to discredit a completely unrelated argument.

But if you believe that all differences are socially constructed and there is no natural differences then thats a classical social constructivist.

I'm not denying biological differences. I'm denying the idea of biologically determined beliefs.

The evidence shows we do, We are born believers in supernaturalism and morality.

I'm not chasing that red herring. If you have any evidence that we have biologically determined beliefs relating specifically to the drivers of abuse, by all means present it.

This is expressed in the various cultural beliefs but they all have the same core beliefs about morality, a creative supernatural agent, the soul and afterlife.

Even a cursory glance at the diversity of cultural beliefs around the world will demonstrate that this claim is completely false.

Tell me where this place is, I want to live there.

Most hunter-gatherer societies live in that kind of way, for a start.

We did not socially contruct the idea that stealing or murder or rape is wrong.

Of course we did. That can be demonstrated in part by the fact that what we mean by those things has changed over time. There are forms of killing that we don't consider to be murder (and some which we debate). It was only 1976 when spousal rape was recognised by Australian law; before that it was assumed that a husband had a right to force his wife to have sex. And in some parts of the world, that remains the case.

Thats rediculous to say that the British Monarchy has sway over us or even Britain itself.

It's just one example of the fact that we simply don't live in a pure meritocracy, in just about any facet of life.

If we did, our head of state would be someone who had demonstrated that they had the skills, wisdom and experience to be the best possible leader. Not someone who happened to have the right parents.

Australia is government by its own politics and we at least try to have the best and most qualified in government.

Anthony Albanese seems like a decent bloke, but if he's the best possible leader our country has to offer, that's a pretty sad indictment of our society.

So the competent and talented rise to the top because they are in demand and for good reason.

It's as if you're blissfully oblivious to all the other forces in play in shaping various forms of social and professional success.

I mean, I just happened to read this article in The Age today, about how people face discrimination based on their names: Would you change your name to get a job?

But anything could be a structure of control, even two people in a relationship on a deserted island.

The issue is not what "could be," but what is, a structure of control. And yes, that is why we deliberately place limits on the power people have over each other in various structures.

I suggest its the other way around the structures are just that structures.

But we shape our structures. We limit the powers employers have over employees. We limit the powers husbands have over wives. We limit the powers the police have over the public. And so on. And we do that because that is how we create structures which do not inherently provide the conditions for abuse.

Putting someone at the base of the ladder who is being abused by someone at the top doesn't make the ladder structure abusive.

But we can put rules around the ladder so that the person at the top can't do that. Or has only very limited scope to do that. We can provide safeguards against bullying, harassment, coercion, and so on. In that way, we make that structure less of a power imbalance, less of a hierarchy, and safer. We shape our structures, and in that way, limit their potential for abuse, and their normalisation of abusive norms.

 

[stevevw]

And as I said, screening, say, new parents with a belief inventory would be a great measure. And much better than stereotyping them based on socioeconomic status or household structure.

The think is you ask a parent do they believe in say CP and they say yes. That doesn't tell us if they are abusive. But a parent who believes in CP and also displays the risk factors and thinking of an abuser will give much more weight to the belief being irrational and associated with abuse.

It's not the situations; it's the ideology of controlling hierarchies and rigid roles which drives their abuse.

The situation and conditions and the individual state has everything to do with it. JUst as a person being subjected to constant stresses on the body will take theeir toll and influence thinking and physical reactions so will the negative experiences due to situations take a toll.

People who ate in these distressed states are more open to irrational and negative beliefs. People who are well adjusted and psychological stable are not volnurable to unreal and irrational beliefs. It takes a certain mindset to believe in and need irrational and destructive ideas.

But these beliefs are about the mindset, the psyche, the beliefs and attitudes. It's not about the ways abuse is expressed (those are as varied as human creativity allows), it's about the beliefs which drive the abuse.

I had to double check that I had not written this until I got to the end and realised it wasn't. Your repeating exactly what I am saying except that its not about the belieefs that drive abuse but the determinants that drive belief. Its one step back from the expressed belief as thats just the symptom. Its what actually drives people to form negative and destructful beliefs in the first place.

I completely disagree. To the degree that they normalise relationships of power and control, they are very much part of the social norms which support an abusive culture.

But the same hierarchies can be productive, beneficial and actually help society. So its wrong to label all hierarchies or any hierarchy for that matter unless it actually contains proven abuse. We cannot just say because a hiearchy has different levels of power and control that its abusive.

There are natural differences in dominance in society to to the natural differences in competencies across various lines of difference between humans. We often use those hierarchies to help not hinder.

I'm not saying it's not legitimate to have law or politics or whatever. I'm saying it's a cultural norm that in all of these areas, there are relationships of power and control, and that this normalises an ideology in which that kind of power and control is acceptable.

Ah this is why the ideologues want to defund the police because the whole systems abusive. They take this position due to the unreal belief that any structure in soiciety that has some power over others is abusive. And they take this position because they see the world in terms of oppressor and victim and all differences as a result of abuse and oppression.

But the majority of the police and other systems that may have some power or sway over us are just how we have to structure society. What is the solution the police have no power, make everyone exactly the same where no one can have an advantage over another like in some totalitarian regime.

Its just a fact of life that people are diufferent and not all differences of priviledge, power and control are abusive or even about abuse, power and control. Most of it is percieved as abuse, power and control because thats the ideological world view or lens in which they see the world as every difference socially contructed and about power and control, oppressor and victims.

No, but we modify it to minimise the power and control element.

Yes but the power and control element is still there for good and natural reasons. I want the law, police to have a certain level of power and control over people.

Look at Covid and how many were objecting to being restricted, said it was a breach or their rights, denying them autonomy. Look at the conflict this caused and how some were putting at risk others. But not just for law but for allowing things to run smoothly and avoid the chaos that would enschew if we didn't have any structure to society that ranks people. We would be able to tell a madman from a sane one or a talent from a trickster.

Is this the real fear for you, that if we remove hierarchy from marriage and the family, there will be "chaos"?

Why did you bring it to marriage and family when I did not mention this. It seems its more on your mind than mine. Like you have preconccieved ideological assumptions about hierarchies.

Its not just a concern for marriages but society, existence, reality. If we attack what is natural or our own experiences then we are attacking ourselves, our own existence. This is being seen in how more and more young people are attacking their own culture as oppressive. Re writing our history as only oppressive and then calling for a new DEI and Marxist Utopia. Not good and unreal and will inevitably lead to chaos and self destruction.

Much of our conversation is addressing this exact point. I am trying to avoid tedious repetition.

Thats rather dismissive to assume what I am saying is tedious repetition rather than dignifying it with a reason. I did not know this. All it comes across to me is being dismissing and not paying respect to my views and efforts or that other people may have different views to you that deserve to be heard.

Belief may be subjective, but we can still demonstrate which subjective beliefs underpin abuse; which attitudes drive abusive behaviour and are not held by non-abusers.

No we can't lol. The same ideologues that call for preventing abuse are the ones promoting it with their oiwn beliefs. If we can't identify obvious beliefs underpinning our own policies that lead to abuse then we cannot identify beliefs period as what is abuse for one is protection and equality for another.

So we have actual live evidence that we cannot demonstrate which subjective beliefs unpin abuse. Many parents believe in using CP to control childrens behaviour. That qualifies under your belief as abuse. Yet the majority are not abusive. Many parents sue authoritive parenting, in fact it was one of the methods on the new parenting show about mnodern parenting. It involves other forms of control.

Is this abusive to believe in. I suggest that the line is rather blurred and apaprt from obvious examples its hard to tell which beliefs actually underpin abuse.

That wasn't the claim for which I asked for evidence. You claimed "The same beliefs in hierarchies and rigid roles can be shown to not be abusive." So where's your evidence that beliefs in hierarchies and rigid roles don't underpin abuse?

I linked plenty of evidence for how hiearchies are natural, beneficial, that humans nbaturally think in terms of ranking people, of dominance hierachies for example based on strength. We cannot help but think in these terms as we derive our identities and ways of running soiciety more efficently. So these are in our minds and we implicitely believe in them because we live them everyday.

I find the whole defence of power, control, hierarchy and so on quite distressing, but feel obliged to rebut it, more for the sake of others reading along (if anyone is still persisting with this thread besides us).

Theres your problem, your ideology is biasing your thinking. To speak in terms of defending our natural inclinations or top assume differences in power, control and competencies is automatically abusive shows a one sides view. You find it hard to accept that life can be hard and cruel and that sometimes people get what they put in. That anyone who succeeds and gains advantage is not doing so because they naturally were better, or warded harder but did so because they wanted to abuse and cvontrol others.

The reality is we don't live in a communist nation where creativity and ability is shackled and so differences in power and control will happen. Now maybe theres a debate about the whole worldly setup as far as how material wealth, capitalism ect is behind much of this. But I don't think theres any easy answers.

 

[Paidiske]

The think is you ask a parent do they believe in say CP and they say yes.

But that's not actually what we're looking for. We're looking for:
- do they accept violence in parenting
- do they have a hierarchical, power/control model of parenting
- do they have rigid role expectations of household members.

Each of those would be broken down further with multiple questions looking at different aspects.

I mean, we do this kind of thing all the time with other measures of various attitudes, it's not really all that difficult or out of the norm.

But a parent who believes in CP and also displays the ...thinking of an abuser

Will hold the beliefs I've just spelled out. You don't need to measure "irrational beliefs" which largely have nothing to do with abuse, to establish that.

The situation and conditions and the individual state has everything to do with it.

Sorry, but it really doesn't. People who hold these attitudes and beliefs will abuse no matter what their situation.

Your repeating exactly what I am saying

No, I'm refuting what you are saying.

except that its not about the belieefs that drive abuse but the determinants that drive belief.

But the main determinant that drives these beliefs is social and cultural norms; not the sorts of things you've been talking about.

But the same hierarchies can be productive, beneficial and actually help society.

That doesn't change the fact that hierarchies are part of the problem, to the degree that they normalise and legitimise relationships of power and control.

So its wrong to label all hierarchies or any hierarchy for that matter unless it actually contains proven abuse.

Well, no. We can look at hierarchies (relationships of power and control) and see how they contribute to social norms around power and control, even if they are not egregious enough to "actually contain proven abuse."

We cannot just say because a hiearchy has different levels of power and control that its abusive.

No, I'd agree that you'd need to see a certain threshold of harm caused before saying a hierarchy is directly abusive. But below that threshold of harm it can still be contributing to a harmful social norm.

But the majority of the police and other systems that may have some power or sway over us are just how we have to structure society.

Well, they're one option among many. I'm not even particularly criticising the police, but I'm not going to claim that they operate in the very best possible way in every instance.

What is the solution the police have no power, make everyone exactly the same where no one can have an advantage over another like in some totalitarian regime.

Wouldn't totalitarianism be the exact opposite of no one having an advantage over another?

That said, no. The solution is to minimise the power and control one person has over another, to the absolute minimum necessary for harm prevention.

Why did you bring it to marriage and family when I did not mention this.

Because this thread is about the physical abuse of children (and other forms of domestic violence are very closely related). That's the topic. If you're defending hierarchy in this thread, I gather it's because you see hierarchy within the household as good and necessary.

It seems its more on your mind than mine.

It's the topic of the flipping thread.

Thats rather dismissive to assume what I am saying is tedious repetition

Well, there's been some of that. But I am attempting to avoid tedious repetition in my own posts. If I've made a point once in replying to your post, I am unlikely to repeat it in the same post.

All it comes across to me is being dismissing and not paying respect to my views

Again, I don't actually owe it to you to respond in the way you want, or even at all. I am free to respond in the way I find constructive.

and efforts or that other people may have different views to you that deserve to be heard.

At 83 pages of back-and-forth, I don't think you can really complain that you've not had opportunity to be heard. If I wanted to just end the conversation, I'd log out, and refuse to read or reply to any further posts.

I must admit I am wondering at what point that might be the best response.

No we can't lol.

Of course we can. That work's been done. That's why we know that acceptance of violence, hierarchy, power, control, and rigid roles, are the beliefs and attitudes which differentiate abusers from non-abusers, and drive abuse.

Many parents believe in using CP to control childrens behaviour. That qualifies under your belief as abuse.

Please do not misrepresent me. I have not said that all corporal punishment is abuse. I have differentiated between corporal punishment which would not meet the legal definition of abuse, and that which would.

Is this abusive to believe in.

Again, it is not abusive to hold a belief. But we choose our behaviours based on our beliefs, and parents who believe that their role as parents is primarily to control their children, and pursue that with an authoritarian style, do run the risk of tipping over into abusive behaviours.

I suggest that the line is rather blurred and apaprt from obvious examples its hard to tell which beliefs actually underpin abuse.

And yet the research results have been very clear and consistent.

I linked plenty of evidence for how hiearchies are natural, beneficial, that humans nbaturally think in terms of ranking people, of dominance hierachies for example based on strength.

That is not what I asked for.

To speak in terms of defending our natural inclinations or top assume differences in power, control and competencies is automatically abusive shows a one sides view.

That is not what I said.

You find it hard to accept that life can be hard and cruel and that sometimes people get what they put in.

That is also not what I said, nor is it true.

That anyone who succeeds and gains advantage is not doing so because they naturally were better, or warded harder but did so because they wanted to abuse and cvontrol others.

Not what I have said, and complete misrepresentation of my position. I am not talking about differences in advantages, or accomplishment, or success in various ways. I am talking about the power one person has to control another, and that is quite a different thing than being naturally better or working harder at something.

 

[stevevw]

That depends entirely on your instrument, but has not been part of the measures I've been familiar with.

Like I said you may have been involved in a particular aspect of the overall approach which was associated with cultural beliefs especially religiously. That shows how complex the issue is as we can have professionals specialising in a number of aspects.

But the risk and proetctive model is what will identify that religious communities have certain thinking that is associated with that community in the first place. They may also identify that perhaps controlling mariages may happen in certain religions more for example.

Not sure I'd agree with that. On a quick search, it seems the main difference for criminals is beliefs around entitlement to act in the way that they do (similar to the beliefs abusers hold which let them feel entitled to abuse). Addiction is a completely different kettle of fish.

Your dismissing the mind behind those beliefs though. The point was it takes a different mind to believe in such destruction of self and others and society as opposed to the majority who do not think this way as evidence that they don't behave this way.

We find that youth who commit crime the vast majority come from problem backgrounds, often with psychological issues and disadvantage.

Not any evidence you've presented so far.

I have. I linked evdience showing that abusive parents have unreal expectations and beliefs. I linked evdience showing that the controlling mindset behind abuse and violence is linked to psychological distress.

But its also logical. If abuse is destructive and we know it is due to the damage it does to children, to women and society then holding a belief in such destruction is irrational. Its irrational to believe that such a destructive belief in reality, not in the rationalisations of the abuser, but in reality how abuse actually permeates out onto children and society.

To believe that this is actually good or not abuse is delusional. Its not recognising or seeing the actual destruction their behaviour is causing. Therefore the abusers thinking and beliefs have been distorted to the point where they detach their thinking from what is really going on.

This was reflected in many of my links that speak about the unreal expectations, parents reading stuff into things that were not there like thinking their child was behaving worse than they really were. Percieving threat where there was none and as one link even said

But in your case, you accuse someone with a cognitive condition which may (or may very well not) give rise to abusive beliefs, of being a potential abuser. Rather than measuring those beliefs directly.

But I am not saying abuse is caused by any particular factor but rather a combination of factors that build towards abuse. In that way we do not attribute abuse to any particular belief, single risk factor or situation but take all into consideration as the the higher risk and liklihood that abuse is more likely to accur.

Whereas your view is that only belief can tell us who is abusive and all other factors are irrelevant. Any idea that narrows behaviour down to one reason or cause should immediately be regarded as simplistic and narrow minded and misrepresenting the problem.

It's completely irrelevant. It's not about the beliefs which drive particular behaviours. It's not about abuse. It's just bringing in a favourite culture-war hobby horse in an attempt to discredit a completely unrelated argument.

The point was, how do we tell which beliefs lead to abuse if we can't tell that current beliefs which lead to abuse are happening. This shows that we cannot use subjective judgements about which beliefs are abusive. They don't have a good track record of proving themselves.

I suggest the only way we can tell which beliefs are abusive is by grounding them in the thinking that breeds these beliefs. Its the only sure way to tell is the belief is irrational and likely to involve destructive or anti social behaviour. But saying that a persons belief in say hierarchies is abusive without any solid evidence grounded in facts is unreal and unfair.

I'm not denying biological differences. I'm denying the idea of biologically determined beliefs.

So for example you mean biological differences in behaviour or thinking or in feelings. Your saying you don't believe in these differences. Like say males are generally stronger and more powerful. Or males think more spacially in terms of things and females more socially in terms of people and relationships. That type of stuff.

I'm not chasing that red herring. If you have any evidence that we have biologically determined beliefs relating specifically to the drivers of abuse, by all means present it.

Why related specifically. All life experiences whether related to abuse or not can influence peoples psyche and behaviour. I have already given ample evidence for this.

As far as specific biological ones we have plenty of evidence of neurological, hormonal and genetic influences and anomelies on propensity to abuse and be violent. Anxiety and depressive orders have a neurological and brain chemical basis. More generally males are more prone to violence partly due to higher testosterone.

The Neuroscience of Violence
Violence, like all human behavior, is controlled by the brain. From everyday road rage to domestic violence to a suicide bombing, the biology of anger and aggression is the root cause of most violent behavior.

The circuits of aggression are part of the brain’s threat detection mechanism embedded deep in the unconscious region of the brain where sex, thirst, and feeding are also controlled.
The Neuroscience of Violence

Even a cursory glance at the diversity of cultural beliefs around the world will demonstrate that this claim is completely false.

I'm talking about the core beliefs of all religions. Your saying that they don't include some sort of revelation of a moral code. a divine source of life, a creative entity or aspect for life, and an afterlife or some sort of soul or spirituality. They may express these ideas in different ways, call these afterlife or gods different names and descriptions but they all have the same core idea as a creative being or power.

Most hunter-gatherer societies live in that kind of way, for a start.

Actually hunter gatherers were tribal, they formed smaller groups and were consumed by food to survive. If another group came and took their stuff they would be upset after all that hard work lol.

I know I would, I am starving and just got back from a week long hunt to only get a small prey that may just keep the group from dying and then some outsider comes along and takes your food which could mean the difference between whether your family survives. It would not be good. If someone in the tribe ate all that food for themselves it would not go down well.

Of course we did. That can be demonstrated in part by the fact that what we mean by those things has changed over time. There are forms of killing that we don't consider to be murder (and some which we debate).

Your conflating the exceptions as the rule. Just because we had changing beliefs about what counts as murder doesn't mean we did not have knowledge of what murder is when it happens. Your thinking because some aspects are relative that there is no knowledge that murder is objectively wrong sometimes or often.

It was only 1976 when spousal rape was recognised by Australian law; before that it was assumed that a husband had a right to force his wife to have sex. And in some parts of the world, that remains the case.

This doesn't negate that humans have knowledge that rape is wrong. A violation. All this is showing is that some denied this truth. God tells us that we all have knowledge of His laws through our conscience. When someone kills another even if justified or rationalised as justified when its not there is a deep imprint on the soul. We sense something very wrong just happened.

Those in the past who raped and pilagged were acting on animal instinct gone wild. Their hearts were hardened as God says as theey reject God. But this does not negate that wronging another, doing to them what we don't want done to ourselves is something we all sense as part of being human.

If we don't them there is some sort of problem, delusion, unrealness, denial going on which is in itself a fallen state of being which brings its own problems ie you reap what you sow. Live by the sword, die by the sword so to speak.

It's just one example of the fact that we simply don't live in a pure meritocracy, in just about any facet of life.

No one is saying that. Its you who keep conflating things and make strawmen and red herrings. I say that hierarchies are a normal part of society, not the only part and you turn that into some meritocracy. I say that the risk factors and determinants are important to understanding abuse and you turn that into a witch hunts sterotyping people.

If we did, our head of state would be someone who had demonstrated that they had the skills, wisdom and experience to be the best possible leader. Not someone who happened to have the right parents.

Are you saying all people in positions of government are there because of their parents. Now your ideology is really slipping out. I just had a friend gain a position in local government who I worked with. He is highly skilled in community development, very socially orientated and has done his apprenticeship working with the community for years.

In fact he was head hunted from our community centre by another local member who happens to have been in the Nursing field for years and also skilled in what she does, Many people working thoughout government are good hardworking people with knowledge and skill and are at least up there with others when it comes to the best.

Anthony Albanese seems like a decent bloke, but if he's the best possible leader our country has to offer, that's a pretty sad indictment of our society.

Often the leader is just the figure head and this involves marketing and public relations and all that. But I am sure he is quite capable and an intelligent man who has the ability to lead. Whether hes the best is not the point. He is of a certain clibre, within a certain standard we expect and not someone who doesn't know what they are doing.

But the bigger point is if polititians or company CEO's or whoever are not up fgor the job, are not perceived to be capable or good enough we get rid of them for someone we think is better. Its the natural inclination that we seeks the best or better and competence generally and not idiots or imcompentents who we know will stuff everything up.

Lol on that note I think I will try and recover from just praising Albernese who I don't like anyway lol.

 

[Paidiske]

Like I said you may have been involved in a particular aspect of the overall approach

Yes, and in which measures of beliefs were highly relevant.

But the risk and proetctive model is what will identify that religious communities have certain thinking that is associated with that community in the first place.

No, not really. All religious communities need to have their own discussions about how they receive traditions around things like power, hierarchy, authority, gender and familial roles, and so on.

Your dismissing the mind behind those beliefs though.

No, I'm just refusing to assume that there is a one-size-fits-all mind behind holding particular beliefs.

The point was it takes a different mind to believe in such

There is no evidence for this claim. Any of us might form such beliefs, depending on the various experiences and influences we have.

I have. I linked evdience showing that abusive parents have unreal expectations and beliefs. I linked evdience showing that the controlling mindset behind abuse and violence is linked to psychological distress.

Your evidence did not demonstrate that all abusers are irrational. You are taking a statistical correlation and applying it as an absolute, and inferring a causal relationship where none has been demonstrated.

But I am not saying abuse is caused by any particular factor

Then suggesting that people who score highly on clinical scales of irrational beliefs are potential abusers seems misplaced.

Whereas your view is that only belief can tell us who is abusive and all other factors are irrelevant.

Well, no. Observed behaviour tells us who is abusive. Beliefs tell us who is most likely to engage in those behaviours, since we choose our behaviours based on our beliefs.

The point was, how do we tell which beliefs lead to abuse

By studying abusers and their beliefs. Your off-topic hobby horse is irrelevant, as it is not at all the same sort of behaviour.

I suggest the only way we can tell which beliefs are abusive is by grounding them in the thinking that breeds these beliefs.

Not at all. We tell which beliefs underpin abuse by observing which beliefs are held by the people who abuse.

But saying that a persons belief in say hierarchies is abusive without any solid evidence grounded in facts is unreal and unfair.

I have never said that a person's belief is abusive. Behaviour is abusive, not beliefs. But behaviours arise out of beliefs, and we can study which beliefs are most likely to give rise to abusive behaviours. It turns out that valuing hierarchy and relationships of power and control is one of them.

So for example you mean biological differences in behaviour or thinking or in feelings. Your saying you don't believe in these differences. Like say males are generally stronger and more powerful. Or males think more spacially in terms of things and females more socially in terms of people and relationships. That type of stuff.

I mean biological differences in our bodies. Sure, some people are bigger than others, stronger than others; women bear children and men don't, that kind of stuff. Sure. But I don't particularly believe in biologically determined differences in behaviour or thinking or feelings; I think that is mostly on the nurture side of the nature/nurture ledger.

Why related specifically.

Because otherwise it's far afield from the topic of this thread.

I'm talking about the core beliefs of all religions. Your saying that they don't include some sort of revelation of a moral code. a divine source of life, a creative entity or aspect for life, and an afterlife or some sort of soul or spirituality.

Correct. Not all religions hold these as core beliefs.

Actually hunter gatherers were tribal, they formed smaller groups and were consumed by food to survive. If another group came and took their stuff they would be upset after all that hard work lol.

But the point is that they often did (do) not hold personal or private property within the small group.

Your conflating the exceptions as the rule.

No, I'm pointing out the holes in your claims.

This doesn't negate that humans have knowledge that rape is wrong. A violation. All this is showing is that some denied this truth.

Well, no, sorry, this doesn't wash. I don't agree that people who don't hold your particular view about something are just in denial about the truth. People do actually, really, hold different beliefs on these points.

God tells us that we all have knowledge of His laws through our conscience.

I can't remember whether it was this thread or another one, but I'm sure we've discussed this point before. Our conscience develops and is formed through our experiences. It is not a perfect, infallible knowledge of divine morality.

No one is saying that.

You certainly seemed to be claiming that all differences in outcome were due to differences in either natural talent or hard work. Which is blatantly, demonstrably false.

Are you saying all people in positions of government are there because of their parents.

No; but I'm saying that most people who are very prominent or successful have had significant privilege which has helped them obtain their prominence or success. I'm not saying they don't also work hard and demonstrate high commitment and talent, but that there are many other things besides that which help people get ahead.

Whether hes the best is not the point.

If you want to claim that all social hierarchies are the natural outcome of the distribution of talent and hard work, then it kind of is the point.

I've seen plenty of fools and idiots in high positions, who are there for reasons other than merit.

 

[stevevw]

But that's not actually what we're looking for. We're looking for:
- do they accept violence in parenting
- do they have a hierarchical, power/control model of parenting
- do they have rigid role expectations of household members. Each of those would be broken down further with multiple questions looking at different aspects.

I can understand accepting violence in parents as an abusive belief and parenting but I disgree with the others. For example a parental hierarchal structure with the parents in control over the child rather than the other way around is regarded as a healthy and necessary setup for parents.

The hierarchy that exists within a family serves as one of the essential building blocks that helps to build the foundation upon which a family is constructed. With a strong foundation that has distinct boundaries between the hierarchical levels, the family can be a stable force with a strong edifice. But, without clear boundaries and with a weak hierarchical structure, the family unit can crumble and collapse under the pressure of the diffuse boundaries.
Hierarchy in Family Systems Theory

I mean, we do this kind of thing all the time with other measures of various attitudes, it's not really all that difficult or out of the norm.

But we don't do it like your saying. The first go to model for understanding behaviour and the beliefs and thinking behind it is the eteological model with is a multilevel view of individual, family, community and the wider societal determinants that influence behaviour.

We don't just look at belief. It doesn't tell us anything apart for its a negative belief. It doesn't tell us how people come to believe in these things which is vital to understanding the issues. This can only be done with risk factors or determinants of behaviour.

Will hold the beliefs I've just spelled out. You don't need to measure "irrational beliefs" which largely have nothing to do with abuse, to establish that.

I think we do as parents can hold the same beliefs and not have irrational thinking and not abuse ie both parents hold the belief in CP but one abuses and one doesn't.

The abuser distorts the legal restrictions believing that what they are doing is good for the child when in fact its destructive. They are in denial, percieving things as unrealistic. To be seeing things unrealitically requires cognitive distorted thinking and that requires some psychological problem going on ie over anxious making things worse than they really are.

Sorry, but it really doesn't. People who hold these attitudes and beliefs will abuse no matter what their situation.

Well the evidence clearly contradicts this. Abuse happens in the vast majority of the time where risk factors have gathered. People can hold the same beliefs without the risk factors and not abuse.

No, I'm refuting what you are saying.

If the beliefs are about the mindset and psyche then you must agree that the mindset and psyche of abusers is distorted to believe such things. They go hand in hand.

But the main determinant that drives these beliefs is social and cultural norms; not the sorts of things you've been talking about.

But if they are driven by social norms which everyone follows then how is this abusive. There are no such social norms as abusive CP is acceptable. There is however a norm that we should discipline our kids and CP is part of that. So actual belief of the abuser is taking the social norm and distorting it.

So if society has the same norms and abusers are distorting these we cannot say its the norms themselves but rather we can determine abusers by the distortions they make about the norms and acceptable and normal beliefs society holds.

That doesn't change the fact that hierarchies are part of the problem, to the degree that they normalise and legitimise relationships of power and control.

Thats why I keep reminding you that it is not good to single out hierarchies or certain setups as abusive themselves but rather qualify things by naming exactly what they are "abusive and controlling hierarchies and roles or whatever the situation is like relationship, marriage ect.

Otherwise when you say the structure of a hierarchy is inherently abusive your being misleading because they can also be beneficial and healthy. Its like attributing positive and negative behaviours to a car. The car is just the structure and has no 'will' to abuse. These structures only become a weapon or tool of abuse or of benefit by the humans that occupy them.

Well, no. We can look at hierarchies (relationships of power and control) and see how they contribute to social norms around power and control, even if they are not egregious enough to "actually contain proven abuse."

Yes and we do that, we have internal checks and balances to reduce abuse of power or abuse fullstop like anti descrimination laws. In fact DEI law and policy has become an industry in itself and we have become hyper vigelant regarding equality even to the point of reverse desrimination with affirmative action.

But I am saying the systems and setups that we do these checks on are already hierarchal and they are not abusive in themselves but rather a necessary setup to exist and function as a society and even give everyone some sense of who they are and where they fit in to society so they can participate with rights.

No, I'd agree that you'd need to see a certain threshold of harm caused before saying a hierarchy is directly abusive. But below that threshold of harm it can still be contributing to a harmful social norm.

I think this is the biggest issue facing society today. The determination of what is harm or not and the complex problem of balancing the many conflicting rights of identity politics. One groups rights is another groups abuse. Like I said determining which beliefs are best is not so straight forward.

Well, they're one option among many. I'm not even particularly criticising the police, but I'm not going to claim that they operate in the very best possible way in every instance.

I am not talking about every micro situation. I am talking about the basic idea of a society have law and order which means giving a trained set of law enforcers certain powers. It means giving the department powers. Not just police but also polititians. health professionals, people working in vital industries that run society.

But the police have the most power. So what other way but law and order can we run a society. The Woke want to defund the police but are the first to call them when in trouble. Should we have stress vigelantes or maybe turn a blind eye and let people run wild. NOt sure what these many options are.

Wouldn't totalitarianism be the exact opposite of no one having an advantage over another?

Totalitarianism basically takes peoples rights away, opportunities away. Basically most totalitarian nations the people live in poverty and are oppressed. Some more than others like certain political or religious beliefs. Thats sort of happening in western nations today.

That said, no. The solution is to minimise the power and control one person has over another, to the absolute minimum necessary for harm prevention.

I mean apart from the obvious I think this is impossible because much of the differences in power and control are just a natural consequence. If we start policing nortmal behaviour which is sort of happening now then this is only going to make matters worse by dividing people are making then resentful towards each other.

Because this thread is about the physical abuse of children (and other forms of domestic violence are very closely related). That's the topic. If you're defending hierarchy in this thread, I gather it's because you see hierarchy within the household as good and necessary.

Well actually my main basis for supporting hierarchies as not inherently abusive is the general use of hierarchies, hierarchies as a concept and not in any particular example. If anything I have focused on society itself, hierarchies in organisations, Insitutions to help society function. Or in social settings in how we generally rank others in hierarchies of competence.

It's the topic of the flipping thread.

What hierarchies in marriages.

At 83 pages of back-and-forth, I don't think you can really complain that you've not had opportunity to be heard. If I wanted to just end the conversation, I'd log out, and refuse to read or reply to any further posts.
I must admit I am wondering at what point that might be the best response.

Its not about being heard but about engaging in debate, arguing against evidence with evidence rather than just making unsupported claims. Its hard to even have a debate if there is no way to determine facts from personal opinion or beliefs.

I have forgotten how many times you have just skipped over evidence I have linked, without a word about them. I mean whats the use of even providing evidence if its ignored.

Of course we can. That work's been done. That's why we know that acceptance of violence, hierarchy, power, control, and rigid roles, are the beliefs and attitudes which differentiate abusers from non-abusers, and drive abuse.

No we don't. Acceptence of hierarchies is not violence or abusive. Acceptence of rigid roles is not inherently violent or abusive. You keep conflating these neutral setups as abusive when they can also be normal, beneficial and healtthy. I have given you the evidence.

LIke I said acceptence of violence and abusive control, power and rigid roles yes as it qualifies that its abusive. But hierarchies and even rigid roles as in chain of command and organisations is not violence or abusive.

Please do not misrepresent me. I have not said that all corporal punishment is abuse. I have differentiated between corporal punishment which would not meet the legal definition of abuse, and that which would.

Therefore beliefs in hierarchies and rigid roles like CP is not inherently abusive if it doesn't meet the legal definition of abuse.

Again, it is not abusive to hold a belief. But we choose our behaviours based on our beliefs, and parents who believe that their role as parents is primarily to control their children,

That is not a sign of abuse. All parents see the need to control their childs behaviour, to point out the misbehaviour and discipline when necessary to teach a child to be a responsible adult.

and pursue that with an authoritarian style, do run the risk of tipping over into abusive behaviours.

The authoritarian styleparenting is also not abusive. I mean this was one of the accepted parenting methods on that parenting show so its obviously a recommended alternative and successful form of parenting. Like anything its the management and maturity of the parents to use these methods properly. You can even make a case that non disciplinary method is abusive in that it causes poor behaviour and problems.

And yet the research results have been very clear and consistent.

No they havn't as we have seen the line between what is abuse or not is blurred. You were even arguing that abusers have a rational basis for their beliefs. I have just shown that the difference between someone who believes in CP and doesn't abuse and someone who does have similar beliefs in CP. Its just a matter of distorting the same belief.

I have also said that there are current examples of beliefs which are abusive which are being promoted right now in policy which shows as a society we are incapable of identifying potential beliefs that will lead to abuse and violence. I have also shown that beliefs in hierarchies and rigid roles or Trad marriages which may have rigid roles are not inherently abusive. So the same beliefs about the same things can be both abusive and not abusive. Theres not clear stock standard determination of the core belief itself as to be abusive or not.

That is not what I asked for.

You asked for natural beliefs in hierarchies. If people naturally behave in ways that promote and support hierarchies then they believe in them. Otherwise they would not behave that way.

That is also not what I said, nor is it true.

What did you mean then.

Not what I have said, and complete misrepresentation of my position. I am not talking about differences in advantages, or accomplishment, or success in various ways.

BUt that is what most hierarchies are, thats how they are formed based on differences in competence, accomplishments and being successful. Successful people occupy the top of the hierarchy and they accumulate advantages over others.

These differences in competencies is how we structure society, our institutions, systems of law, health education into hierarchies of competence. This helps make things run smoothly but also ensures effeciency and sorting out problems better and quicker and not ending up in chaos.

I am talking about the power one person has to control another, and that is quite a different thing than being naturally better or working harder at something.

OK I thought prevention, well at least your article on prevention was talking about prevention as in equalizing society. By equalizing society we reduce the imbalances where some rise above others which presents opportunities for people to take advantage and control and abuse others.

Therefore womens rights, improvements in % of work, equal pay, gender, race and sex equality, improving the power of the disempowered such as the disadvantaged so they have more say, more control over their lives and are not in a position where they are subject to others, to the law, the system.

I mean we know when abuse happens, we know the end result but the idea is to nip it in the bud before it develops into abuse. So prevention is about equalizing society, changing beliefs that deny the equalization of society regardless of differences. Restructuring society where those situations of inequality and more equalled out including the insitutions and systems within.

 

[Paidiske]

I can understand accepting violence in parents as an abusive belief and parenting but I disgree with the others.

It's not about whether you agree or disagree. It's about the beliefs which abusive parents hold, and non-abusive parents don't.

For example a parental hierarchal structure with the parents in control over the child rather than the other way around is regarded as a healthy and necessary setup for parents.

Yes, clearly a degree of control is necessary due to a child's immaturity. But it's about a healthy degree of control, rather than one where there is control for the sake of it, or control is valued above other things such as the child's healthy individuation, exploration, development, and so on.

A parent who sees their role primarily in terms of control - rather, than, say, as a guide, a teacher, a nurturer, a protector, an opener of potential - is far more at risk of being abusive.

But we don't do it like your saying.

I've come across it in all kinds of areas, not just this one. It really isn't unusual.

The first go to model for understanding behaviour and the beliefs and thinking behind it is the eteological model with is a multilevel view of individual, family, community and the wider societal determinants that influence behaviour.

Please cite a source.

We don't just look at belief. It doesn't tell us anything apart for its a negative belief.

I wouldn't say it tells us anything about whether something is "negative." That's a label we apply. But beliefs do tell us a great deal.

It doesn't tell us how people come to believe in these things which is vital to understanding the issues. This can only be done with risk factors or determinants of behaviour.

I would argue it can't be done in that way at all. You can't look at a profile of risk factors and reliably predict people's beliefs from that.

I think we do as parents can hold the same beliefs and not have irrational thinking and not abuse ie both parents hold the belief in CP but one abuses and one doesn't.

I have asked you repeatedly for evidence of someone holding the cluster of beliefs that are understood to underpin abuse, and yet not being abusive. You have not provided it.

To be seeing things unrealitically requires cognitive distorted thinking and that requires some psychological problem going on ie over anxious making things worse than they really are.

No, not at all. People can be unrealistic, in denial, or whatever, in all sorts of ways, and yet not have some psychological problem. We do this all the time. (I see it in the life of congregations all the time! I've currently got a good proportion of a congregation in denial about a building safety issue, because they don't want to face the implications).

Well the evidence clearly contradicts this.

Not any you've provided.

Abuse happens in the vast majority of the time where risk factors have gathered.

It's not the "vast majority." Abuse happens across all demographics. Eg: see here: Child Abuse in Affluent Families

If the beliefs are about the mindset and psyche then you must agree that the mindset and psyche of abusers is distorted to believe such things.

But I don't accept your first premise here. I don't agree that "beliefs are about the mindset and psyche."

There are no such social norms as abusive CP is acceptable.

For a lot of people, this is still their normal. We see this view experessed by several posters in this very thread.

Its like attributing positive and negative behaviours to a car.

No, it isn't. A hierarchy is not a car. It is a social structure, one in which we define its powers and limits. And to the extent that we define those powers and limits in ways which allow one person to exercise control over another, that is part of the problem we are talking about here.

But I am saying the systems and setups that we do these checks on are already hierarchal and they are not abusive in themselves but rather a necessary setup to exist and function as a society and even give everyone some sense of who they are and where they fit in to society so they can participate with rights.

To the extent that they are taken as normalising relationships of power and control, though, they contribute to the problem.

Totalitarianism basically takes peoples rights away, opportunities away.

Except for those at the top, making the decisions, which was my point.

I mean apart from the obvious I think this is impossible because much of the differences in power and control are just a natural consequence.

Again, just because something is "natural" (even if we agree it's natural, and often I wouldn't), doesn't mean it's good, or healthy, or the way we actually want our society to operate.

What hierarchies in marriages.

Hierarchies in the household, which underpin abuse. Without hierarchy - without someone in control, and someone being controlled - there is no abuse.

I have forgotten how many times you have just skipped over evidence I have linked, without a word about them. I mean whats the use of even providing evidence if its ignored.

And I have explained to you that I am not going to respond in detail to so-called evidence that is irrelevent or off topic or doesn't actually demonstrate the point being made. I could well ask, what's the point of providing so-called evidence that doesn't even relate to the point being made?

Acceptence of hierarchies is not violence or abusive. Acceptence of rigid roles is not inherently violent or abusive.

No; but they are two necessary prerequisite beliefs to being violent and abusive. In that sense, they are not neutral; they are profoundly dangerous.

That is not a sign of abuse.

It would certainly be a red flag.

All parents see the need to control their childs behaviour, to point out the misbehaviour and discipline when necessary to teach a child to be a responsible adult.

Sure. But you can see that necessity without seeing control as the primary task or role of a parent.

The authoritarian styleparenting is also not abusive.

On its own, no, but it is very close to being abusive, in that it is rigid, controlling, demanding, and so on, and generally has poor outcomes in child wellbeing. It's obvious how closely related this is to the beliefs which underpin abuse.

I mean this was one of the accepted parenting methods on that parenting show so its obviously a recommended alternative and successful form of parenting.

You're taking parenting advice from a show now? Sounds totally robust and sound. (/sarcasm).

No they havn't as we have seen the line between what is abuse or not is blurred.

You've claimed that. I don't agree that it's blurred at all.

You asked for natural beliefs in hierarchies.

No. I asked for evidence for your claim that "The same beliefs in hierarchies and rigid roles can be shown to not be abusive."

What did you mean then.

I meant that, frankly, the way you are arguing that corporal punishment can be good, power and control can be good, hierarchy can be good, rigid roles can be good, and so forth, you are arguing for exactly the beliefs which underpin abuse. And I find that so dangerous that I feel the need to continue to refute those arguments, because they should not go unchallenged in this forum, even though I find the fact that anyone would make these arguments, and that I would need to argue against them, deeply distressing.

BUt that is what most hierarchies are,

That is not what we mean by hierarchies in the context of abuse. We are talking about relationships of power and control, where one person controls or limits the choices and behaviours of another.

OK I thought prevention, well at least your article on prevention was talking about prevention as in equalizing society. By equalizing society we reduce the imbalances where some rise above others which presents opportunities for people to take advantage and control and abuse others.

No, greater equality is not about removing the opportunities for achievement and advancement. It's not about removing all differences between people. But it is about opening those opportunities up to everyone. And that is important when we consider domestic violence, because (for example) an economically empowered woman is harder to trap in a situation of abuse.

 

[stevevw]

No, not really. All religious communities need to have their own discussions about how they receive traditions around things like power, hierarchy, authority, gender and familial roles, and so on.

OK so what if they believe in Trad marriages or that males should only hold positions as priests or authority in certain positions. Are their beliefs abusive.

No, I'm just refusing to assume that there is a one-size-fits-all mind behind holding particular beliefs.

There has to be a degree of cognitive distortion because the belief is unreal, its distorting what is really going on. That is a common mindset with abusers in the literature that they "have unrealistic expectations of their child".

There is no evidence for this claim. Any of us might form such beliefs, depending on the various experiences and influences we have.

Firs your acknowledging what I have been saying that positive or negative experiences cause the beliefs. So if its negative beliefs about abusing then those experience must be negative from negative experiences which also effect the thinking.

Second anyone may form these unreal beliefs but not everyone has the ability to recognise this due to their better emotional maturity and not abuse. Some persist with the beliefs to the point they abuse.

Your evidence did not demonstrate that all abusers are irrational. You are taking a statistical correlation and applying it as an absolute, and inferring a causal relationship where none has been demonstrated.

Its not just stats. The articles also explained how an abusers mind works. What sort of thinking it takes to control and abuse and what causes people to think that way.

Its simple psychology and logic. An abuser cannot have the same thinking as a non abuser because if behaviour is linked to thinking and beliefs then logically the different behaviour means there is different beliefs and thinking behind the behaviour. We don't say a thief has the same mindset as a non thief. There is something different in the thinking that causes the different behaviour.

As the behaviour is negative, anti social and destructive as opposed to someone that behaves socially appropriate, positive and constructive. Its simple psychology. You are (behave) what you think and believe.

Then suggesting that people who score highly on clinical scales of irrational beliefs are potential abusers seems misplaced.

Then it logically follows that saying someone scores high on subjective scales of belief itself as potential abusers is misplaced. Except the clinical scales as opposed to subjective determinations is more accurate.

Remember the clinical scale is measuring 'Parental beliefs and attitudes' about how to parent their child. The beliefs or I should say the MIndset that holds the belief is directly linked to abuse. They give the clinical definition of the type of mindset that holds controlling and abusive beliefs about parenting which includes abusive and controlling behaviour.

To say that the most widely used clinical measure for parental beliefs does not include the beliefs underpinning the most important behaviours relating to parental behaviour and beliefs about their child is rediculous.

Well, no. Observed behaviour tells us who is abusive.

It only tells us who is abusive according to a belief, a subjective value judgement about what is abuse or not. Remember some societies completely ban CP and others like Australia don't. Who is right. How do we tell. What we think is acceptable such as 3 lights smacks on a padded bottom they say is abuse.

As I said right now within society there are beliefs that are causing abuse and violence and yet they are promoted to health and wellbeing law and policy.

Beliefs tell us who is most likely to engage in those behaviours, since we choose our behaviours based on our beliefs.

Not really. Not unless its linked to the thinking. Its the cognitive distortions, unreal expectations that the belief is based on. Because the abusers thinking and perceptions of their child, the situation and the world is unreal they believe stuff thats unreal.

If you believed monsters were in your house and you refused to go in there while others thought this is unreal then your thinking, perhpas some bad experience you had about the house is causing the belief. But a rational person with insight will realise there no such thing as ghosts and see through this.

By studying abusers and their beliefs. Your off-topic hobby horse is irrelevant, as it is not at all the same sort of behaviour.

And if there is something different about their beliefs from the norm what exactly is it. If they both believe in CP or hierarchies how do we tell which one will be the potention abuser before they behave.

Like I said linking abuse to behaviour or beliefs doesn't explain why people abuse because others have the same beliefs and don't abuse.

Not at all. We tell which beliefs underpin abuse by observing which beliefs are held by the people who abuse.

But the same beliefs may be non abusive. There has to be more than that. That is why we need the risk factors and the clinical diagnosis. Otherwise your linking and condemning people who believe in the same ideas who are not abusive.

I have never said that a person's belief is abusive. Behaviour is abusive, not beliefs. But behaviours arise out of beliefs, and we can study which beliefs are most likely to give rise to abusive behaviours. It turns out that valuing hierarchy and relationships of power and control is one of them.

No it doesn't. Valuing or believing in hierarchies is not one of them. You have tp qualify that the belief is abusive and violent by linking it to abuse and violence. But the belief itself is not abusive. The belief is normal and natural. The abuser takes these natural beliefs and distorts it. This simplistic and narrow view is dangerous and unhelpful.

I mean biological differences in our bodies. Sure, some people are bigger than others, stronger than others; women bear children and men don't, that kind of stuff. Sure. But I don't particularly believe in biologically determined differences in behaviour or thinking or feelings; I think that is mostly on the nurture side of the nature/nurture ledger.

I have debated you on these lines before and from what I see your a hard social constructivist because whenever or whatever natural factors that are suggested you shoot them all down. You may pay token acknowledgement like you have just done. But if any evidence is given you deny it.

The fact is that brain sex hormones influence thinking between genders, this is a proven fact. Males are stronger and more agreesive naturally and thats why they have the vast majority of violence, crime, successful suicides, dangerous risks and end up in jail. This is also why they are more competitive and like to compete in work, sports, achievements just about everything.

Correct. Not all religions hold these as core beliefs.

Which ones are these. I cannot find any.

But the point is that they often did (do) not hold personal or private property within the small group.

This is a non sequitor that because they held things in common they did not regard stealing as wrong. If it was held in common and someone took it for their own that it could not longer be held in common it would be recognised as wrong in some way. I am sure these people also had their own personal belongings like necklace or something senitimental that is someone took they would be unset.

No, I'm pointing out the holes in your claims.

No your creating a non sequitor again. Your saying that because people have different beliefs about say murder or rape or stealing that there is no such moral truth that murder, rape and stealing are wrong.

The differences in beliefs around what murder, rape and stealing doesn't mean that they are right. A terrorist or extremist can have a belief that raping women or stealing is ok against certain people or in certain situations. But the minute you rape, murder or steal from the extremist or to his immediate circle of friends and family they will react like its wrong.

We all have the moral sense that these things are wrong because of the simple fact we are humans who can empathise and we don't want that to happen to us. If we don't then we are either mentally ill or have denied these truths to the point our hearts are hardened.

Well, no, sorry, this doesn't wash. I don't agree that people who don't hold your particular view about something are just in denial about the truth. People do actually, really, hold different beliefs on these points.

Then tell me why do we impose Universal HUman Rights on everyone, all cultures. We recognise these rights as inalienable meaning they are are above cultural beliefs and any belief that is in contradiction is regarded as a breah of human rights.

That is how we held the Nazi's accountable when they claimed they were just following orders in gassing the Jews. We held these truths that taking an innocent life unjustly is a crime against humanity above any cultural belief or view. We did this because we recognised the universal truth of these rights as humans.

I can't remember whether it was this thread or another one, but I'm sure we've discussed this point before. Our conscience develops and is formed through our experiences. It is not a perfect, infallible knowledge of divine morality.

We are born with a natural sense of empathy, justice, kindness and fairness. We can lose touch with this in life but its in all humans. This has been verified scientifically througfh studies across different cultures.

You certainly seemed to be claiming that all differences in outcome were due to differences in either natural talent or hard work. Which is blatantly, demonstrably false.

No I have alwaaays maintained that behaviour is a complex combination of factors. I didn't even mention the biological aspects until now. But this is another area of influence. It is you who want to reduce everything down to one factor 'Belief'.

It is you who are denying the biological, natural influence, merit, hard work, individual talent and characteristics, risk and protective factors and the negative experiences which cause disordered thing and beliefs and simplying things into one unreal view of the world.

No; but I'm saying that most people who are very prominent or successful have had significant privilege which has helped them obtain their prominence or success. I'm not saying they don't also work hard and demonstrate high commitment and talent, but that there are many other things besides that which help people get ahead.

Like what. What are these "many other things". I think its more about ideology than reality. The truth is most ideologues who complain about priviledge and inequality complain about the successful and hard workers like they got there through disadvantaging others. Thats their mentality, their world view that all differences are the result of oppression.

If you want to claim that all social hierarchies are the natural outcome of the distribution of talent and hard work, then it kind of is the point.

I am losing count of the number of fallacies you come up with. Show me where I said that all social hierarchies are the result of natural outcomes. I have been painstakingly explaining this. A hierarchy is just a vessel, often natural or believed and supported due to the beneifs it brings (not the abuse). But a hierarchy being a vessel can be used to abuse, just like a car, a belt, a relationship ect.

I've seen plenty of fools and idiots in high positions, who are there for reasons other than merit.

Ok but there are qualifications, and competencies in place. Your personal beliefs that some people should not be in those positions doesn't negate the fact that we try to put people of competence in those positions because we regard and value having people knowing what they are doing in these positions as important.

You always refer to these outliers and exceptions as though they are the rule. If they were then society would be in chaos. It seems to me though there are problems we manage to run cities with millions of people fairly well. We could do better but then that would require better people which is what I am saying that we naturally want the best and most competent people running things.

 

[Paidiske]

OK so what if they believe in Trad marriages or that males should only hold positions as priests or authority in certain positions. Are their beliefs abusive.

Any beliefs which normalise gender hierarchy contribute to a culture of abuse.

There has to be a degree of cognitive distortion because the belief is unreal, its distorting what is really going on. That is a common mindset with abusers in the literature that they "have unrealistic expectations of their child".

You don't have to have any particular cognitive distortion going on to have unrealistic expectations. Again, that's pretty normal for a lot of people, a lot of the time.

Firs your acknowledging what I have been saying that positive or negative experiences cause the beliefs.

No, I wouldn't say that, at all. It's not about "positive" or "negative" experiences. It is often just about what is normalised in our environment.

The articles also explained how an abusers mind works. What sort of thinking it takes to control and abuse and what causes people to think that way.

Except there is no common cause. Different people form their beliefs through different influences and experiences.

An abuser cannot have the same thinking as a non abuser because if behaviour is linked to thinking and beliefs then logically the different behaviour means there is different beliefs and thinking behind the behaviour.

This has been my argument; abusers hold a cluster of beliefs which non-abusers do not. But you cannot, from that point, generalise about the underlying "mindset" which gives rise to that cluster of beliefs.

Then it logically follows that saying someone scores high on subjective scales of belief itself as potential abusers is misplaced. Except the clinical scales as opposed to subjective determinations is more accurate.

The clinical scales of irrational beliefs are not measuring something directly related to abuse. Measures of beliefs which underpin abuse, are.

Remember the clinical scale is measuring 'Parental beliefs and attitudes' about how to parent their child.

Not directly. Awfulising is not directly about parenting. Downing is not directly about parenting. These things play out in how we parent, but they are not attitudes about parenting.

The beliefs or I should say the MIndset that holds the belief is directly linked to abuse. They give the clinical definition of the type of mindset that holds controlling and abusive beliefs about parenting which includes abusive and controlling behaviour.

But of the traits measured by the PRIBS, only demandingness relates to the beliefs which underpin abuse. The others do not.

To say that the most widely used clinical measure for parental beliefs does not include the beliefs underpinning the most important behaviours relating to parental behaviour and beliefs about their child is rediculous.

And yet, when you scrutinise what it's actually measuring, that is the case. The PRIBS does not measure acceptance of violence, for a start.

It only tells us who is abusive according to a belief, a subjective value judgement about what is abuse or not.

There is no other way to tell what is abuse or not, than by making a subjective value judgement.

Who is right. How do we tell.

We do the best we can with the information we have, based on observed outcomes.

Not really.

Yes, really. We do what we believe to be right or best or necessary in the moment, based on our assessment of the situation, which is filtered through our belief and value systems.

Its the cognitive distortions, unreal expectations that the belief is based on.

You just simply have not demonstrated this to be the case. "Unreal expectations" do not lead to acceptance of violence. "Unreal expectations" do not lead to an ideology of power and control. They might relate to rigid roles, but it's not enough to explain the cluster of beliefs which underpin abuse.

And if there is something different about their beliefs from the norm what exactly is it. If they both believe in CP or hierarchies how do we tell which one will be the potention abuser before they behave.

You look for the cluster of relevant beliefs. If all three are there - acceptance of violence; hierarchy, power and control; and rigid household roles - then we know that that person is very likely to act on those beliefs in an abusive way.

Like I said linking abuse to behaviour or beliefs doesn't explain why people abuse because others have the same beliefs and don't abuse.

I keep asking for evidence...

But the same beliefs may be non abusive.

No; we are talking about the distinct cluster of beliefs held by those who abuse, and not held by those who don't.

There has to be more than that.

You might think so, but that's not what the reserach shows.

No it doesn't. Valuing or believing in hierarchies is not one of them.

Yes, yes it is. This is an old article, but it helps explain some of what i am saying: Submission to your husband is a dangerous doctrine

"But ideas have consequences, and one of these, in any hierarchical relationship (especially one configured on a fixed difference like gender), is an abuse of power."

Incidentally, this article makes a nice distinction between dominance hierarchies and prestige hierarchies; I am talking in this thread about dominance hierarchies, but it might be helpful to clarify the difference: Hierarchy, Status, & Aggression... - The Mandt System

But the belief itself is not abusive.

Belief by itself is not abusive; but it leads to abusive behaviour.

The belief is normal and natural.

Normal, maybe. Natural? I've told you many times, I don't accept the idea of a "natural" belief. And even if it were, that wouldn't mean it was automatically good!

I have debated you on these lines before and from what I see your a hard social constructivist

What I would say is that I'm someone with an academic background in genetics and human development, who finds the arguments for biological causes to things like complex behaviour scientifically unfounded.

Which ones are these. I cannot find any.

Good grief. Do you realise that not even all Christians would accept the idea of a disembodied soul?

This is a non sequitor that because they held things in common they did not regard stealing as wrong.

My point is that "stealing" is entirely a cultural construct, not some sort of universal, instinctive ethic.

Your saying that because people have different beliefs about say murder or rape or stealing that there is no such moral truth that murder, rape and stealing are wrong.

I'm saying our ideas about what murder or rape or stealing even are, are not consistent. There's no universal, instinctive ethic about any of these things.

We all have the moral sense that these things are wrong because of the simple fact we are humans who can empathise and we don't want that to happen to us.

Except this is clearly false! if we all had that moral sense, nobody would do these things. But they do.

If we don't then we ...have denied these truths to the point our hearts are hardened.

Or our consciences weren't formed to recognise these things in the first place. You can't be in denial about a truth you never knew.

Then tell me why do we impose Universal HUman Rights on everyone, all cultures.

Because we have majority social agreement that we are better off that way.

We recognise these rights as inalienable meaning they are are above cultural beliefs and any belief that is in contradiction is regarded as a breah of human rights.

Not quite. The OHCHR says: "Human rights are inalienable. They should not be taken away, except in specific situations and according to due process. For example, the right to liberty may be restricted if a person is found guilty of a crime by a court of law."

We are born with a natural sense of empathy, justice, kindness and fairness. We can lose touch with this in life but its in all humans. This has been verified scientifically througfh studies across different cultures.

It's off topic, so I don't want to pursue it at length, but I will just note that I don't accept this claim as true at all.

It is you who are denying the biological, natural influence, merit, hard work, individual talent and characteristics, risk and protective factors and the negative experiences which cause disordered thing and beliefs and simplying things into one unreal view of the world.

We were discussing whether "merit" would automatically give rise to relationships of power and control (hierarchy), but you seem to have lost track of that point there.

Like what. What are these "many other things".

Seriously? Here's an example. I'm going to claim that I have some natural talent and work hard (I have a measure of merit). But I've also had the benefit of not growing up in a war zone. Of living in households affluent enough that secure shelter, food, clean water, and access to resources has always been available to me. Of having access to a really good education, through to Masters' level, without crippling debt. Of growing up in a multi-lingual, multicultural home. Of being literate and numerate. Of being born white in a time and place where that gave me incredible advantage. And so on. (I've also had disadvantages, but they're a separate question).

There are plenty of people in this world with just as much merit as I have, who don't have the other advantages I've had, and who won't achieve as much in external "success," through no lack of merit or hard work, but through lack of opportunity and privilege.

The truth is most ideologues who complain about priviledge and inequality complain about the successful and hard workers like they got there through disadvantaging others. Thats their mentality, their world view that all differences are the result of oppression.

I can recognise that others have had privileges I have not had, (and that I have had privileges others have not had) and that there are systemic oppressions in place, without blaming the individuals concerned or claiming that they, personally, are disadvantaging others.

Show me where I said that all social hierarchies are the result of natural outcomes.

Isn't that what you're trying to claim? That hierarchies are just the normal, natural result of differences in merit?

Ok but there are qualifications, and competencies in place.

Sometimes surprisingly few.

You always refer to these outliers and exceptions as though they are the rule. If they were then society would be in chaos.

Ahem, well. I think we don't have to look far to see the fruit of a lack of "merit" in many people exercising power.

we naturally want the best and most competent people running things.

Maybe, but in practice we reward many things other than competence and merit.

 

[stevevw]

It's not about whether you agree or disagree. It's about the beliefs which abusive parents hold, and non-abusive parents don't.

If non abusers have different beliefs to abusers then they must have different mindsets.

Yes, clearly a degree of control is necessary due to a child's immaturity. But it's about a healthy degree of control, rather than one where there is control for the sake of it, or control is valued above other things such as the child's healthy individuation, exploration, development, and so on.

Yes and I am saying there are lots of examples like this of normal and legitimate controls over people, over society that are required to ensure society runs without chaos.

So therefore just like parents believe in a healthy degree of control over kids and its not abusive so are other beliefs we have in the differences which may lead to some having more control over others.

A parent who sees their role primarily in terms of control - rather, than, say, as a guide, a teacher, a nurturer, a protector, an opener of potential - is far more at risk of being abusive.

Yes that is the difference in the minset between an abuser and a non abuser. They believe in the same idea but the abuser is unable to be protector and opener of potential but the opposite. That requires a different worldview and mindset that rather than see the healthy and positive sees the negative and destructive.

I've come across it in all kinds of areas, not just this one. It really isn't unusual.

Yes when we look at why people behave the way they do we look at beliefs because the way people behave despite what they claim they believe reveal what they truely believe deep down.

But belief is the last stage or result of experiences and the effects this has on the psyche and mind. Belief is really a state of mind, the mind is all there is and all behaviour come positive or negative come from the mind. The state of the mind.

So you cannot understand abuse just by the belief. You have to understand the mindset behind the belief.

Please cite a source.

First any model that attempts to understand human behaviour needs to be multilevel including the individual, family, community and societal factors. Do you agree or disgree with this.

I wouldn't say it tells us anything about whether something is "negative." That's a label we apply. But beliefs do tell us a great deal.

So what does a belief in a hierarchy tell us.

I would argue it can't be done in that way at all. You can't look at a profile of risk factors and reliably predict people's beliefs from that.

Yes we can. Just like we can determine the risk factors for obesity. We use this basis for health and wellbeing policy like diet and healthy options (protective factors) to mitigate those risk factors. If it works for all other behaviour relating to health and wellbeing issues then it works for abuse and violent behaviour.

But the actual risk factors for belief itself they are to do with factors or as in your link says "Determinants of belief and attitudes" regarding inappropriate parental behaviour, they are the factors that cause the cognitive dirtortions which beliefs stem from. They happen to also align with the risk factors for abuse itself. Its a self feeding circle where distress causes irrational thinking and beliefs and irrational thinking and beliefs cause distress.

I have asked you repeatedly for evidence of someone holding the cluster of beliefs that are understood to underpin abuse, and yet not being abusive. You have not provided it.

Thats because your request is unreal. Your rejecting the evidence which shows the mindset for beliefs like the specific ones you request because they don't specifically name the specific beliefs you insist on.

I have repeatedly explained that the scales, the articles are all explaining the mindset, they type of thinking behind the specific beliefs you want and that it is the mindset and not the specific beliefs that are at the root of understanding the abuser. But you keep repeating this false analogy.

No, not at all. People can be unrealistic, in denial, or whatever, in all sorts of ways, and yet not have some psychological problem.

BUt we are talking about destructive behaviour as a result of the thinking and not the everyday thinking that may be unrealistic realised before the point of effecting behaviour to the point of abuse, self abuse or other inappropriate behaviour.

But quite often even everyday unrealistic thinking does cause problems by the fact that if people persist in them they will cause some sort of problem, social problem, in relationships, at work, in debates causing people to believe things without facts, fad diets, money scams, where ever.

So its really a matter of degrees in which unrealistic thinking will effect humans in one way of another and when persisted in and with increased severity can lead to destructive beliefs and behaviours.

We do this all the time. (I see it in the life of congregations all the time! I've currently got a good proportion of a congregation in denial about a building safety issue, because they don't want to face the implications).

Yes so even everyday unrealistic thinking, denial will cause problems, social problems, problems for others and themselves.

So imagine that unreality and denail 10 times for some and you begin to see how the mindset behind beliefs works. How people don't want to face things due to an unreal fear and threat which then dictates their thinking and beliefs. How that is inappropriate and destructive behaviour to varying degrees.

In this case these people don't want to know about the costs perhaps, or that God will keep the building safe lol. I don't know. BUt like child abuse has limits for CP so does safty of others. These people are being unrealistic about the safety of others. They are in denial that their church is unsafe and may harm someone.

 

[Paidiske]

If non abusers have different beliefs to abusers then they must have different mindsets.

It seems to me that you use the word "mindset" to mean something like "psychological state." But that doesn't follow. People can have different psychological states but similar beliefs. Or similar psychological states but different beliefs. Because these things are not dependent on one another.

Yes and I am saying there are lots of examples like this of normal and legitimate controls over people, over society that are required to ensure society runs without chaos.

Nobody is arguing against this, though. Only against control beyond what is necessary for preventing harm.

Yes that is the difference in the minset between an abuser and a non abuser.

Well, not entirely. Someone could see their role as primarily one of control, but still not believe they should enforce this with violence. It's the cluster of beliefs which underpin abuse.

They believe in the same idea but the abuser is unable to be protector and opener of potential but the opposite.

Well, no, they don't really believe in the same idea. They have different ideas of what the parenting role entails.

Yes when we look at why people behave the way they do we look at beliefs because the way people behave despite what they claim they believe reveal what they truely believe deep down.

I could have sworn you were arguing against this earlier.

Belief is really a state of mind,

No, it really isn't. One's state of mind - one's mood or mental state - might colour one's beliefs, but belief is far more complex than this. And we can see this by the way people's beliefs can be relatively stable despite changes in mood or mental state.

First any model that attempts to understand human behaviour needs to be multilevel including the individual, family, community and societal factors.

I will just note that I asked you to cite a source, and you did not.

So what does a belief in a hierarchy tell us.

It tells us that the person is likely to tolerate, accept, and promote, relationships of power, control, and dominance.

Yes we can.

Of course you cannot. People with exactly the same risk factors believe vastly different things. This is so obvious, I am gobsmacked that I need to point it out.

regarding inappropriate parental behaviour, they are the factors that cause the cognitive dirtortions which beliefs stem from.

I'm sorry, but you still have not demonstrated that people hold the beliefs which underpin abuse due to "cognitive distortion." There is no sound basis for this claim.

Thats because your request is unreal.

So you claim something is true, you cannot provide any evidence for it, and then instead of simply acknowledging that you have none, you characterise the request as "unreal."

Your rejecting the evidence which shows the mindset for beliefs like the specific ones you request because they don't specifically name the specific beliefs you insist on.

Well, if they don't measure the specific beliefs which are relevant, then they are not evidence pertinent to those beliefs.

I have repeatedly explained that the scales, the articles are all explaining the mindset, they type of thinking behind the specific beliefs you want and that it is the mindset and not the specific beliefs that are at the root of understanding the abuser.

And yet when we have looked at the specific things those scales measure, we find that in fact, they do not measure the specific beliefs, or the determinants of the specific beliefs, which underpin abuse. "Demandingness" is the area of overlap, but those scales measure other unrelated traits, and do not measure traits which relate to, for example, the acceptance of violence.

So these scales do not explain the mindset which underlies abuse. At best - for people who score highly on demandingness - they are partially related, and at worst, they are not related at all.

BUt we are talking about destructive behaviour as a result of the thinking and not the everyday thinking that may be unrealistic realised before the point of effecting behaviour to the point of abuse, self abuse or other inappropriate behaviour.

What makes you think everyday unrealistic thinking, or denial, doesn't lead to inappropriate behaviour? Again, I see plenty of it, often.

This is not something that needs some clinical level of cognitive distortion, brought about by high distress or "risk factors," to be in play.

 

[stevevw]

Any beliefs which normalise gender hierarchy contribute to a culture of abuse.

Ok so saying that the Pope should only be a male is abusive.

You don't have to have any particular cognitive distortion going on to have unrealistic expectations. Again, that's pretty normal for a lot of people, a lot of the time.

But its not normal if that cognitive distortion leads to abuse or violence or any destructive of self destructive behaviour.

No, I wouldn't say that, at all. It's not about "positive" or "negative" experiences. It is often just about what is normalised in our environment.

But abuse is not or should not be normnalised behaviour. Beliefs in abuse are destructive and that can only be something negative and not positive. To believe in such negative and destructive ideas takes a negative mindset. People who are positive and constructive don't think is detructive ways that abuse.

Try smiling when your full of negativity and destruction. They don;'t even physically belong in the same category. Negative stress and distress brings physical and psychological problems and positive and contructive thinking brings health and wellbeing. You can't be an abuser and be thinking positively and constructively.

Except there is no common cause. Different people form their beliefs through different influences and experiences.

It is common sense in that basically negative experiences form negative thinking and beliefs and positive experiences and influences form postive beliefs.

This has been my argument; abusers hold a cluster of beliefs which non-abusers do not. But you cannot, from that point, generalise about the underlying "mindset" which gives rise to that cluster of beliefs.

Why, if the beliefs of abusers is different to the beliefs of non abusers then it stands to reason that the cognitions which the beliefs are based on are also different. They cannot be the same otherwise they would not be abusers.

We don't just say believers have the exact same thinking as non abusers. Of course their thinking is different because their behaviour is different and different behaviours have different thinking behind them.

The clinical scales of irrational beliefs are not measuring something directly related to abuse. Measures of beliefs which underpin abuse, are.

Yes they are. They are measuring the controlling mindset of someone who comes up with ideas like abusive hierarchies and roles or violent behaviour. Their taking a step back from the particular example that controlling beliefs are applied to like roles and hierarchies and examining what sort of mind thinks up these ideas. They then have created a clinical measure of how this mindset thinks to believe such things.

Not directly. Awfulising is not directly about parenting. Downing is not directly about parenting. These things play out in how we parent, but they are not attitudes about parenting.

I noticed you kept quiet about the other core beliefs of Demandingness and Low Frustration Tolerence because I linked independent evdience that they are directly related to abusive parenting. I can do the same for these other core beliefs is you want.

A common theme through most of the articles I linked was that parents have low self esteem and unreal self efficency and expectations. These are related to self downing and awfulising in that abusive parents make things far worse than they really are, making the child's behaviour worse than it is, making the world more threatening than it is (awfulizing) and always comparing themselves to others thus always feeling inadequate and unworthy (self downing).

The self downing feeds into the downing of the child, of others, the situation which feeds into the frustration and demandingness. But Demandingness is said to be the basis for all these other beliefs that are also associated.

But of the traits measured by the PRIBS, only demandingness relates to the beliefs which underpin abuse. The others do not.

They all relate. You just have to understand first the mindset of someone who will form unreal beliefs no matter what they are or what inappropriate behaviour. Then the particular thinking of the abuser. Many of the same cognitions that underpin all other irrational beliefs and behaviour are the same for abusers. Thats why the PRIBS is based on the General RIBS with the particular refinements for parents.

So the other core beliefs also relate and are part of the mindset. Its just that Demandingness and Low Frustration Tolerance to a lesser degree directly relate to the mindset of control and abuse. But the other core beliefs also relate to the same overall mindset but measure the other beliefs that spring out of Demandingness.

If someone is demanding they are usually an anxious and stressed type. Little tolerance but also over anxious and insecure in themselves and thats why they are demanding because they are trying to compensate, bring control to a percieved threat to their status and world which they are so overly worried about. Thats when the awfulising and self downing come in. That is why the PRIBS works so well because its comprehensive, it measures all the aspects of the controlling and abusive mind.

And yet, when you scrutinise what it's actually measuring, that is the case. The PRIBS does not measure acceptance of violence, for a start.

Thats because clinical measures are not looking at the specific examples of behaviour or beliefs that are applied out in the world but the mindset behind this. The mindset that creates those examples that are applied to the world. You just don't see it because you don't want to see it. But believe me its there.

We can tell its there because every article I have linked that are directly about parental abuse and violence contain all those core beliefs in the language they use. Ie just about all say that abusers have low self esteem (self downing). Just about all have said the parent has unreal expectations making things far worse than they really are (awefulizing).

There is no other way to tell what is abuse or not, than by making a subjective value judgement.

So a parent knocks a childs front teeth in and its a subjective determination that its wrong. Someone with an alternative subjective belief who thinks its ok and we have no way to tell which behaviour is inappropriate. Then we are really in trouble then.

That maybe your ideology but its not mine. We can tell that kicking a kids teeth is negative and abusive because we can measure the phsyical and psychological damage it does to the human.

Yes, really. We do what we believe to be right or best or necessary in the moment, based on our assessment of the situation, which is filtered through our belief and value systems.

Filtered through our beliefs and value systems. So what about the cognition and emotional systems. What about the biological and neurological systems.

You just simply have not demonstrated this to be the case. "Unreal expectations" do not lead to acceptance of violence. "Unreal expectations" do not lead to an ideology of power and control. They might relate to rigid roles, but it's not enough to explain the cluster of beliefs which underpin abuse.

Unreal expectations are the cognitive distortions that form the belief. The parent has unreal expectations of their child. Thats why they physically beat them because they believe that normal developmental behaviour is bad behaviour. They often beat a child for doing nothing wrong or nothing wrong that warrented such a harsh punishment.

Recognising Child Abuse, Harm and Exploitation
Parent/caregiver has unrealistic expectations of age appropriate behaviour of the child;

https://tfhc.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/1216314/recognising-child-abuse-harm-and-exploitation.pdf

Risk Factors of Child Abuse
Parents have unrealistic expectations of the child and lack parenting knowledge

Risk Factors | Parents, Home Environment, Health

Risk Factors of Child Abuse - -

www.childmatters.org.nz

The abusive parents have unrealistic expectations of their children who show developmentally appropriate behavior.4
Why Do Parents Physically Abuse Their Children

The following factors in the life circumstances of the child or young person are relevant when considering indicators of abuse and neglect:
The parent or caregiver has unrealistic expectations of age appropriate behaviour in the child or young person

Indicators of abuse and neglect

Information on the impact of abuse and neglect on a child or young person. These have been developed from research and clinical experience.

education.nsw.gov.au

Child abuse is thought to be caused by a number of factors, including the parent’s problems with coping and self-control, inadequate knowledge of child development resulting in unrealistic parental expectations,
Walker, Gayann; Ensor, Jane --- "Understanding the victims of child abuse" [2014] PrecedentAULA 51; (2014) 124 Precedent 46

Unrealistic expectations: Controlling parents typically have high expectations, which puts a lot of pressure on their children to live up to these impossibly high and unachievable standards. Controlling parents are often perfectionists with unnatural demands and expectations from their children.

How to Deal with Controlling Parents as a Teenager

Controlling parents are often hard to be around. This is especially true when they exert their strict control over your adulthood. Here is how to deal with controlling parents as a teenager.

www.medicinenet.com

The cognitive style is absolutistic and dogmatic, usually expressed in “black and white,” “I must be right thinking because I said so,” unrealistic expectancies that others want to threaten their self-esteem.
Irrational Beliefs and the Experience and Expression of Anger - Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy

We postulate that parents’ expectations and perceptions of child attributes strongly influence their responses to their children, and thus may be important predictors of risk for physical abuse.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213418301248

If I was to go over all of the articles I have linked so far that are directly about child abuse and highlight the parts relating to the PRIBS core beliefs you would find their fingerprints all over those articles showing the direct links between the PRIBS core beliefs and the language used describing the abusive parent.

Thus providing independent evidence that they all converge on the same measure and understanding of the abusive and controlling mindset behind those who abuse and use violence against others..

 

[stevevw]

You look for the cluster of relevant beliefs. If all three are there - acceptance of violence; hierarchy, power and control; and rigid household roles - then we know that that person is very likely to act on those beliefs in an abusive way.

I am not sure how you have worded this as you have named 4 things here. Acceptance of violence, then also hierarchies, power and control and finally rigid roles.

Or is this acceptance of violent as in qualifying the 3 beliefs in 1)hierarchies, 2) power and control and 3) rigid household roles as having to be violent as part of qualifying them as beliefs in abuse.

I keep asking for evidence...

I gave you that evidence showing people believe in CP, rigid roles and hierarchies and don't abuse. We know that many parents believe in CP and don't abuse. We know that hierarchies are a natural part of families and society and by people using them shows they believe in them. What more evidence do you need.

No; we are talking about the distinct cluster of beliefs held by those who abuse, and not held by those who don't.

We are coming back to the same point as before about the seperation and qualification of two of the core beliefs as being conflated as being abusive and why those particular examples are highlighted above all other possible situations that may involve control, abuse and violence.

What ideologues tend to do is conflate hierarchies and rigid roles such as Trad marriages as abusive perse. Thats why I keep questioning what exactly qualifies as an abusive belief because like I said a couple who believe in Trad marriages which involves a degree of rigid roles and control or loss of control as far as autonomy and its not abusive.

So I find it hard to understand the logic of conflating these specific beliefs in hierarchies and rigid or set roles with abuse. Because this would mean where ever we see a hierarchy for example people will assume its abusive because its been conflated as abusive.

You might think so, but that's not what the reserach shows.

Actually it doesn't and thats why I said there has to be more to it. Anyone who claims they know that there is "no more to it" when it comes to a complex issue like human behaviour should be viewed with skepticism because of the simple fact that they are restricting all possibilities down one thing. When in fact complex issues involve more than one thing.

A brief skim over the evidence I linked shows there is much more. I just filled pages of information directly talking about belief linked to abuse and violence that mention much more than "which beliefs people hold" that are all linked to abuse and violence. About the factors and determinants that influence the mindset, emotions and the psyche which influence beliefs.

Beliefs don't exist in the world in isolation. They are a cognition so the mindset if relevant, emotions, perceptions, biology, psychology, genetics its all associated and influential to why people believe.

Actually its getting late and I just spotted another article you linked so I will finish up and have a read and get back to you. Thankyou.

 

[Paidiske]

Ok so saying that the Pope should only be a male is abusive.

Not in itself. But it contributes to a culture which denigrates women, and which promotes male power over women.

But its not normal if that cognitive distortion leads to abuse or violence or any destructive of self destructive behaviour.

Now we're quibbling about what's "normal," which is pretty meaningless. My argument all through the thread is that you don't have be "irrational" in a way that would show up significantly on a clinical measure, to hold these beliefs or behave in this way. You haven't provided anything to demonstrate that this is, indeed, a necessary condition.

But abuse is not or should not be normnalised behaviour.

Should not be, sure. But it's hard to argue that it's not. Look at the responses to violence against women in Australia today; I have seen so many people basically saying, "domestic violence has always existed, there's nothing we can do about it."

It is common sense in that basically negative experiences form negative thinking and beliefs and positive experiences and influences form postive beliefs.

Firstly, it's not that straightforward, and secondly, "positive" and "negative" are just subjective value judgements.

Why, if the beliefs of abusers is different to the beliefs of non abusers then it stands to reason that the cognitions which the beliefs are based on are also different.

That hasn't been shown to be the case, though.

Yes they are. They are measuring the controlling mindset

No, steve, they're not. Awfulising has nothing to do with a controlling mindset. Neither does downing or low frustration tolerance. Demandingness does, but it's only one aspect among several.

I noticed you kept quiet about the other core beliefs of Demandingness and Low Frustration Tolerence because I linked independent evdience that they are directly related to abusive parenting.

Demandingness, yes, I have agreed from the first relates to abuse. Low frustration tolerance, on its own, I don't agree, because there are various ways of dealing with that frustration, and abuse is not the only or a necessary response.

A common theme through most of the articles I linked was that parents have low self esteem and unreal self efficency and expectations. These are related to self downing and awfulising in that abusive parents make things far worse than they really are, making the child's behaviour worse than it is, making the world more threatening than it is (awfulizing) and always comparing themselves to others thus always feeling inadequate and unworthy (self downing).

And that might mean a parent feels terrible, but it does not in any way relate to acceptance of violence, hierarchy, power, control or rigid roles.

They all relate.

I don't agree. Nor have you presented evidenced for this claim.

But the other core beliefs also relate to the same overall mindset but measure the other beliefs that spring out of Demandingness.

Where is your evidence that they "spring out of demandingness"?

Thats because clinical measures are not looking at the specific examples of behaviour or beliefs that are applied out in the world but the mindset behind this.

But somebody could score highly on every trait in the PRIBS, have low acceptance of violence, and not be any real risk of abusing. This is why I say they it is not measuring the things which drive abuse.

We can tell its there because every article I have linked that are directly about parental abuse and violence contain all those core beliefs in the language they use.

(Demonstrably false).

So a parent knocks a childs front teeth in and its a subjective determination that its wrong.

Yes, because "wrong" is always a subjective judgement.

Someone with an alternative subjective belief who thinks its ok and we have no way to tell which behaviour is inappropriate.

We can set agreed community standards based on our understanding of harm. But it's still subjective.

Filtered through our beliefs and value systems. So what about the cognition and emotional systems. What about the biological and neurological systems.

Sure, those are all part of who we are. But our emotions don't dictate our behaviour. We can be scared, but brave. Hurt, but generous. Angry, but gentle. And so on. Our biology doesn't dictate our behaviour. We have free will, and we make choices.

Unreal expectations are the cognitive distortions that form the belief.

You have not shown that "cognitive distortions" form these beliefs, at all. Unrealistic expectations are not only formed by cognitive distortions. We have far stronger evidence of social norms forming these beliefs, than cognitive distortions.

I am not sure how you have worded this as you have named 4 things here. Acceptance of violence, then also hierarchies, power and control and finally rigid roles.

Or is this acceptance of violent as in qualifying the 3 beliefs in 1)hierarchies, 2) power and control and 3) rigid household roles as having to be violent as part of qualifying them as beliefs in abuse.

No, I am grouping hierarchy, power and control, as one related dynamic.

I gave you that evidence showing people believe in CP, rigid roles and hierarchies and don't abuse.

You have not provided any evidence of people holding the cluster of beliefs which underpin abuse, but not abusing.

What ideologues tend to do is conflate hierarchies and rigid roles such as Trad marriages as abusive perse.

And I have said, over and over, that unless they are actually situations of one person controlling another, they are not.

So I find it hard to understand the logic of conflating these specific beliefs in hierarchies and rigid or set roles with abuse.

It's not conflating. It's been demonstrated that abusers hold, and are driven in their abuse, by this particular cluster of beliefs.

Actually it doesn't

The research on the attitudes held by abusers is very clear. You can see it reflected here: Community attitudes towards domestic violence - SAFER (a resource to help Australian churches deal with domestic and family violence)

"Common attitudes that underpin violence towards women

“Violence against women isn’t good but it’s understandable”
This is the idea that it is excusable for men to use violence in certain circumstances like if they lose control, that they cannot always be held responsible for their actions, or that some kinds of violence (such as sexual harassment) are not serious.

“It’s ok for men to control their household and their wife’s public life and relationships”
This is the idea that men should be the head of the household, decide how money is spent, control who their female partner can or cannot see and specify how she should spend her time.

“Women and men are just naturally different and women are more suited to domestic tasks while men should be the breadwinners”
This is the idea that women and men, and girls and boys, should act in certain ways or fulfill certain roles, in the home and outside of the home. It includes double standards concerning what is acceptable for men and women.

“Aggressive behaviour is just natural for men”
This is reflected in the way some groups of men ‘bond’ or seek to prove their ‘manhood’ through actions that are negative, hostile or aggressive towards women, like ‘pickup artists’ or catcalling/wolf-whistling, or speaking disrespectfully about women generally or their female partners in the company of other men."

That resource is looking at violence against women, but for "women" substitute children and it's the same attitudes which drive abuse of children.

There's another example here: Ten harmful beliefs that perpetuate violence against women and girls | Oxfam International

This article is helpful: Community attitudes

It unpacks what shapes attitudes of accepting violence (note: it's not all about irrational thinking or cognitive distortion!):

"Attitudes toward violence can be shaped by a range of individual characteristics, personal experiences, interactions with family, peer-groups and networks, culture and religion, social media and education campaigns, criminal justice policies and social movements."

 

[stevevw]

It seems to me that you use the word "mindset" to mean something like "psychological state." But that doesn't follow. People can have different psychological states but similar beliefs. Or similar psychological states but different beliefs. Because these things are not dependent on one another.

Your still thinking in either/or terms. Human thinking is a dynamic process, cognition, emotions, feelings and beliefs and the psyche operating more like an intwining dance. So each individuals mix will be different, though some basic thinking patterns, emotions and beliefs can be determined especially for negative affect and cognitive distortions.

So people can't have different psychological states and the same positive or negative beliefs as far as negative behaviour. Negative and distorted thinking goes with unreal beliefs whether in fairies or terrorism. Rational or realistic thinking will go with rational and realistic beliefs even if thats about God or diets.

The important point is that the beliefs are grounded in rational or irrational thinking and the result behaviour.

Nobody is arguing against this, though. Only against control beyond what is necessary for preventing harm.

But when people say hierachies and certain fixed roles are abusive perse by the language they use it gets confusing and is misleading.

I know the ideology that wants to paint this picture. Its the same one that once said marriage itself was an absuive institution, that mascullinity is interently toxic, that whites are inherently racist. We need to be clear on whats actually abusive and not within such a biased social narrative at present.

Well, not entirely. Someone could see their role as primarily one of control, but still not believe they should enforce this with violence. It's the cluster of beliefs which underpin abuse.

Yes but the one ingredient that qualifies it as abuse is as you say "still not believe they should enforce this with violence". The belief in violence and abuse full stop. Add that ingredient to any human interaction, not just hierarchies or roles but business partnerships, and relationships in general wherever they may form even on a deserted island with no hierarchies, marriage institutions or societal institutions.

But take that ingredient away then all these situations are not violent abuse. Yet up until the point that someone chooses to control with violence everyone believes in the same institutional and societal setups of non violent and abusive control as its part of society. So basically people believe in the same ideas but some abuse that. The only different belief they have is the one about using violent control.

But they share the same beliefs in the basic idea of control in those situations. They just took advantage and exploited this.

Well, no, they don't really believe in the same idea. They have different ideas of what the parenting role entails.

Yes but its the same basic belief that children's behaviour should be controlled. In that sense we all share the same belief. The only destinction for the abusing parent is that they take this social norm and they add 'violence and abusive control' to the control we all agree is necessary.

So saying that belief in control itself is wrong. Its belief in violent and abusive control of what is normal control that is the problem. Some get all political that society cannot have a hint of anyone controlling others like its a virus to the point that we have allowed our children and society to become poorly behaved.

I could have sworn you were arguing against this earlier.

No I was arguing that belief alone is not how we understand behaviour. Belief is part of human cognition. Why would I be making many arguements about the stages of cognition leading up to belief. Why would I be arguing that cognitive distortions is what causes irrational beliefs if not including belief in the processes If I was arguing against belief being part of how humans behave.

No, it really isn't. One's state of mind - one's mood or mental state - might colour one's beliefs, but belief is far more complex than this.

Once again your now supporting my case that beliefs are more complex that just beliefs and involve cognitions, emotions, experiences ect. Its the mental state due to experiences is what colours the world for which beliefs are based on in the first place.

Its also personality, temperament, and others factors. That humans believe in metaphysical and transcedent ideas in the first place is based on natural cognitive states.

And we can see this by the way people's beliefs can be relatively stable despite changes in mood or mental state.

And we can see how beliefs can be unreal due to negative experiences. A person traumatised by an event depending on their consssitution and emotional ressilence will see the world distorted to varying degrees until they overcome the experience and in some ways will never and will carry some aspects that effect their views and beliefs about the world and others.

So scary, negative, oir at least percieved that way as some are more sensitive than others. But this will influence their perceptions and beliefs are based on perceptions. Unreal and distorted perceptions brred unreal and distorted beliefs about the world.

I will just note that I asked you to cite a source, and you did not.

I thought I asked you a question first. I am not sure I have seen the answer because this may avert the need to show evidence as what I am saying is commonsense and accepted science.

Before I post evidence I will ask again. Do you think that human behaviour should be understood on a multilevel of individual, family, community and the wider society.

It tells us that the person is likely to tolerate, accept, and promote, relationships of power, control, and dominance.

So doesn't that tell you something about their mindset, their psyche compared to others that don't accept and tolerate even promote destruction of others. I know that a kind and gentle heart and mind would not think this way. Someone who had the insight into themselves to see through this destructive view of the world.

Of course you cannot. People with exactly the same risk factors believe vastly different things. This is so obvious, I am gobsmacked that I need to point it out.

But your faulty reasoning is causing you to think in either or terms that because non abusers experience risk factors the risk factors don't built to inappropriate behaviour like abuse or other negative behaviours.

People can experience the same risk factors where some due to protective factors don't go on to abuse. While others who don't have the protective factors (don't have insight and are unrealistic) can go onto abuse as the culminative effect builds towards unreal thinking to the point it effects behaviour.

Abuse is the culmination of risk factors minus any protective factors.

I'm sorry, but you still have not demonstrated that people hold the beliefs which underpin abuse due to "cognitive distortion." There is no sound basis for this claim.

I just literally gave you several links stating that abuse is the result of the unreal expectations of the parent.

So you claim something is true, you cannot provide any evidence for it, and then instead of simply acknowledging that you have none, you characterise the request as "unreal."

Ok so I have provided evidence for belief in 2 of the 3 core beliefs you are on about ie belief in hierarchies and rigid and fixed roles such as in Trad marriages or in chain of command and control such as institutions like the law and family and in society more generally.

As I keep repeating that just leaves the belief in violent control and abuse. But there is no such evidence for showing normal societal beliefs of violent control and abuse because the very language used leaves no ambiguity. Its definitely a belief in violence and abusing others. So its self evident in its language.

But the other two beliefs are not inherently violent or abusive and most people support these ideas, believe in them and are not abusive. So if someone believes in say a family hierarchy of control this is not automatically abusive. Yet it can be the same belief that abusers use to by then farcing things beyond the boundaries of what is acceptable.

So two of your cluster of beliefs are not inherently violent or abusive and can be actually health and beneficial. What would you say if someone said belief in hierarchies is healthy and should be promoted.

 

[Paidiske]

Human thinking is a dynamic process, cognition, emotions, feelings and beliefs and the psyche operating more like an intwining dance.

None of this changes the fact that our beliefs are not dependent on our emotional state.

So people can't have different psychological states and the same positive or negative beliefs as far as negative behaviour.

Well, first of all, the labels "positive" and "negative" here are just subjective value judgements. And secondly, of course people can have different psychological states but hold basically the same beliefs. Heck, one person's psychological state can vary significantly over time while their basic beliefs remain stable.

But when people say hierachies and certain fixed roles are abusive perse by the language they use it gets confusing and is misleading.

Well, that is not an argument being put forward in this thread, so how about we ignore it.

Yes but the one ingredient that qualifies it as abuse is as you say "still not believe they should enforce this with violence". The belief in violence and abuse full stop.

Well, no, they need all three. They might accept violence, but not have any belief that they have a right to control another person, so they won't use violence in that situation. Or they might accept violence, but have no belief in rigid roles and thus see no need to enforce them. It's the three together which underpin abuse.

Yet up until the point that someone chooses to control with violence everyone believes in the same institutional and societal setups of non violent and abusive control as its part of society.

No, that's not true. The rigid roles, hierarchy and control, and so on, can be deeply damaging and harmful even if violence is not involved. Many of us do not buy into an ideology of hierarchy, control and rigid roles.

Yes but its the same basic belief that children's behaviour should be controlled.

No, seeing one's parental role primarily in terms of control, and seeing one's parental role primarily in other terms, are not the same basic belief.

The only destinction for the abusing parent is that they take this social norm and they add 'violence and abusive control' to the control we all agree is necessary.

No, the abusing parent will also typically want to exercise a far higher degree of control than many people will see as necessary. Controlling where others would be quite content to let a child make choices.

Once again your now supporting my case that beliefs are more complex that just beliefs and involve cognitions, emotions, experiences ect. Its the mental state due to experiences is what colours the world for which beliefs are based on in the first place.

No, I'm sorry, our beliefs are not based on our mental states. This is clearly demonstrable from the way our mental states can change significantly even over the course of a day, but our beliefs are much more stable.

I thought I asked you a question first.

You did. You asked me a question instead of responding to the request for a source. I am not interested in the question, so I am just noting that you did not respond to the request for a source.

So doesn't that tell you something about their mindset, their psyche compared to others that don't accept and tolerate even promote destruction of others.

Not really. All sorts of people tolerate, accept, and promote, relationships of power, control, and dominance. I've seen you doing some of that in this very thread.

But your faulty reasoning

And you expect me to take anything you say after that seriously?

is causing you to think in either or terms that because non abusers experience risk factors the risk factors don't built to inappropriate behaviour like abuse or other negative behaviours.

The point is, you cannot look at a list of someone's risk factors and protective factors, and tell me accurately what they believe, from that information alone. There is no direct, clear, causal relationship, and there are far too many other variables and influences in play.

Abuse is the culmination of risk factors minus any protective factors.

As if people don't actually choose their behaviour.

I just literally gave you several links stating that abuse is the result of the unreal expectations of the parent.

Unrealistic expectations are not only or always or even mainly due to cognitive distortion. People hold unrealistic expectations all the time. It's just part of being human.

But that some idea is within organisations and society generally.

Yes, that's why it's called a social norm. It has become normalised within our society and culture. That doesn't mean it's not harmful.

But there is no such evidence for showing normal societal beliefs of violent control and abuse because the very language used leaves no ambiguity.

Of course there's evidence. I've linked some of it before. Here is a good example: https://www.unicef.org/georgia/media/1191/file/Social Norms Analysis.pdf

But the other two beliefs are not inherently violent or abusive

I disagree. Anything which promotes the control of one person by another is promoting something which is inherently abusive.

Thats the only belief we need to be looking at

If that were true, why are so many primary prevention strategies tackling the other beliefs as well? The evidence is that those beliefs, in hierarchy, power and control, and rigid roles, are just as important, because they provide the justification for violence.