Pope Francis: parents can smack their children for bad behaviour

[FollowChrist34]

Again I think it depends on why the spanking it being done .Whenever I was spanked(on occasion) I usually had it coming to to misbehavior of some sort.I knew I was bing disciplined.However,My Mom hit me over the head with a hairbrush when I was around nine because she was frustrated with me for not getting my math problems,while she was trying to help me.Now that incident hurt me more than any spanking I ever received,obviously,since I still remember the details at 62 years of age!

I believe the real secret of successful parenting is when your kids know you loved them. Of course, more mundane, practical parental guidance and discipline are necessary; I am not just getting hippy dippy here. My point is that parents are vulnerable; they make mistakes, sometimes hurtful ones. The greatest damage of all is when your kids don’t know you loved them. (I am speaking generally here with the ‘you’) I always knew my dad and mom loved me; that is what carried me through. You can really see the difference, when you look at kids who come out of homes where that is questionable or there was a lot of abuse.

 

[Jeanne_S]

I believe the real secret of successful parenting is when your kids know you loved them. Of course, more mundane, practical parental guidance and discipline are necessary; I am not just getting hippy dippy here. My point is that parents are vulnerable; they make mistakes, sometimes hurtful ones. The greatest damage of all is when your kids don’t know you loved them. (I am speaking generally here with the ‘you’) I always knew my dad and mom loved me; that is what carried me through. You can really see the difference, when you look at kids who come out of homes where that is questionable or there was a lot of abuse.

Agree!

 

[RGCheek]

Oh, I’m sorry. Why don’t you add some “reality” by sharing some of the reference materials you used in your research to come to this conclusion?

Animals do not engage in higher order analysis and thought.

I cannot prove a negative, but if you think some do then provide the data.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Animals do not engage in higher order analysis and thought.

I cannot prove a negative, but if you think some do then provide the data.

I really don’t care. You’re the one making the assertions; I’m asking where you get them. If you don’t want to back them up, fine.

 

[RGCheek]

I really don’t care. You’re the one making the assertions; I’m asking where you get them. If you don’t want to back them up, fine.

I am stating that there is no proof that animals are capable of rational thought due to them not doing it.

Do you really think I have to canvas the whole planet and prove that not one animal can think rationally?

No, for those who believe that animals can think rationally and do analysis of any sophistication then the proof is on them and you.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I really don’t care. You’re the one making the assertions; I’m asking where you get them. If you don’t want to back them up, fine.

The fact that animals and humans are different and that animals are not rational beings is not something to “prove or disprove” It falls under common knowledge. Even my children watch shows with talking animals and get that it is funny because animals are different than people…

You have to know this right?

 

[Darryl1958]

But we have had the answer for nearly 4000 years; ‘spare the rod and spoil the child’ is the summary of it.

Why is that answer suddenly not acceptable to you? Have you evolved beyond the values of God’s Word?

I am not sure how you got that from my post.
What I find is that the pope is being chatty, like someone discussing things over an afternoon tree, and nothing is too trivial in such a discussion.
Not even spanking.
For once actually, I think I have figured out how to take what this pope has to say on anything. He does not come off as a booming voice of authority and awe as from on high, but as an old opinionated uncle shooting the breeze at the kitchen table at ten o clock in the morning. From anything to global warming to our relationship with atheists, maybe the way we should take what he says is not to bow down and defer, but to speak up and make the argument, just as if you would with anyone else you agree or disagree with.

I never once gave my opinion on the ‘spare the rod spoil the child’ verse. I think though if that is the extent of a person’s parenting skills, the child has a lot more of a challenge than just being spoiled.

 

[kelvinf]

I found this video interesting … it wasn’t what I was looking for. I was looking for a video where a whole tribe surrounds a person who has done wrong and they sit around and tell the kid all of his strengths, ending in a hugfest and better behavior.

But since I didn’t find that one, here is this other I found interesting:

Parenting - Kids and Discipline Across Cultures

Interesting. There is no universal solution to child discipline. Different countries have different regulations on this issue.

There are just some kids that can’t be disciplined by any method. But corporal punishment usually has an immediate effect in certain cases, like where there is danger.

 

[kelvinf]

And I think that 6000 years of parental experience across the globe and stored in the traditions and moral values of the vast majority of the worlds cultures and the teaching of the church far outweigh pop psychology and the latest whimsical fads.

No one is advocating ‘hitting’ our kids. Why do you critics keep falling back on overly broad terms instead of specific terms? What does it benefit you to obscure the actual act under discussion?

We are talking about ‘spanking’ not whacking a child over the head with a 2x45 or a sledge hammer.

Why do you persist in ignoring the difference? You think the Pope might have been implying that hitting a kid with a hammer is OK?

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

I am stating that there is no proof that animals are capable of rational thought due to them not doing it.

Do you really think I have to canvas the whole planet and prove that not one animal can think rationally?

No, for those who believe that animals can think rationally and do analysis of any sophistication then the proof is on them and you.

The fact that animals and humans are different and that animals are not rational beings is not something to “prove or disprove” It falls under common knowledge. Even my children watch shows with talking animals and get that it is funny because animals are different than people…

You have to know this right?

“Common knowledge” once held the earth was flat. And now that behaviorism in psychology has given way to more recent research, and especially now that we have the technology to “watch” the brain in action in various ways and not just make assumptions based on external behavior.

So I thought I’d take a quick look at what’s being said now – I’m not really very good at searching for these things so I could certainly come up with many more examples given more time or some help. This is just what I found in about 10 minutes.

Last year, a 40-year old psychological journal changed its name from “The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes” to “Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition.” to reflect the more recent studies about “how animals think.” When you say animals are “not rational beings,” I have no idea what you mean. Apparently scientists think it’s worth the effort to investigate this thing that you say doesn’t exist because we just all know it so it’s true. Turns out we often find things to be true that we never knew before, because as a human species, we learn things.

Here is why they changed it:
Title:
Editorial Explaining the Change in Name of This Journal to Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition

By: Ralph R. Miller
State University of New York at Binghamton;

The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes started publication in 1975 as a result of a major reorganization of the American Psychological Association’s basic science journals. It was intended to serve as the new consolidated outlet for basic psychological/cognitive-oriented research, largely but not exclusively with nonhuman species, that heretofore had appeared in both the Journal of Experimental Psychology and the Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology. Most of the articles that have appeared in Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes since its inception have been in the associative tradition that had been initiated by Pavlov and Thorndike. This tradition continues to thrive, but the field of animal learning has grown well beyond the boundaries of traditional learning theory. Investigations in behavioral ecology, cognitive neuroscience, and most critically, comparative cognition have brought new vitality to the field, dramatically expanding the scope of empirical and theoretical work concerned with animal learning. It is now time for the journal to faithfully reflect the evolution of the field by encouraging submissions from these rapidly growing research domains. To signal that expansion of interest, I believe that a new title is also in order. For that reason, starting with the present issue, the name of the journal has been changed to Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition. This change is not meant to discourage submission of the types of manuscripts that have most frequently appeared in the journal in recent years but to encourage submission of papers across a broader range of topics.
This publication is protected by US and international copyright laws and its content may not be copied without the copyright holders express written permission except for the print or download capabilities of the retrieval software used for access. This content is intended solely for the use of the individual user.

Source: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition. Vol.40 (1) US : American Psychological Association pp. 1-1.
Accession Number: 2014-00325-001 Digital Object Identifier: 10.1037/xan0000015

So if you were both right, these people shouldn’t even have a job.

MS

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Here’s another example published just last month, Jan 2015. Turns out the memory systems in the visual pathways of monkeys are closer than we thought to those of humans. They are not exactly the same, but they are not significant different in a qualitative way.

Title:
Monkey visual short-term memory directly compared to humans.

Authors:

Elmore, L. Caitlin, Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, University of Texas Health Science Center, TX, US, lelmore@cns.bcm.edu

Wright, Anthony A., Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, University of Texas Health Science Center, TX, US

Elmore, L. Caitlin, Department of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, US, 77030, lelmore@cns.bcm.edu

Source:
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, Vol 41(1), Jan, 2015. pp. 32-38

Publisher:
US: American Psychological Association

Other Journal Titles:
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

ISSN:
2329-8456 (Print)
2329-8464 (Electronic)

Language:
English

Keywords:
monkey, change detection, visual short-term memory, visual working memory

Abstract:
Two adult rhesus monkeys were trained to detect which item in an array of memory items had changed using the same stimuli, viewing times, and delays as used with humans. Although the monkeys were extensively trained, they were less accurate than humans with the same array sizes (2, 4, & 6 items), with both stimulus types (colored squares, clip art), and showed calculated memory capacities of about 1 item (or less). Nevertheless, the memory results from both monkeys and humans for both stimulus types were well characterized by the inverse power-law of display size. This characterization provides a simple and straightforward summary of a fundamental process of visual short-term memory (STM; how VSTM declines with memory load) that emphasizes species similarities based upon similar functional relationships. By more closely matching monkey testing parameters to those of humans, the similar functional relationships strengthen the evidence suggesting similar processes underlying monkey and human VSTM. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved) (journal abstract)

So yeah go ahead and say animals can’t think of you want, but don’t expect me to believe it. A few decades ago, behaviorism tried to downplay the significance and even relevance of human thought, and we’re just now climbing out of those “dark ages.” Now as our knowledge base, research staffs, and technology advance, so can our understanding of our world. Sticking to old clichés has its place, especially when we really don’t know any better.

MS

 

[RGCheek]

“Common knowledge” once held the earth was flat. And now that behaviorism in psychology has given way to more recent research, and especially now that we have the technology to “watch” the brain in action in various ways and not just make assumptions based on external behavior.

So I thought I’d take a quick look at what’s being said now – I’m not really very good at searching for these things so I could certainly come up with many more examples given more time or some help. This is just what I found in about 10 minutes.

Last year, a 40-year old psychological journal changed its name from “The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes” to “Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition.” to reflect the more recent studies about "how animals think." When you say animals are “not rational beings,” I have no idea what you mean. Apparently scientists think it’s worth the effort to investigate this thing that you say doesn’t exist because we just all know it so it’s true. Turns out we often find things to be true that we never knew before, because as a human species, we learn things.

Here is why they changed it:
Title:
Editorial Explaining the Change in Name of This Journal to Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition

By: Ralph R. Miller
State University of New York at Binghamton;

The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes started publication in 1975 as a result of a major reorganization of the American Psychological Association’s basic science journals. It was intended to serve as the new consolidated outlet for basic psychological/cognitive-oriented research, largely but not exclusively with nonhuman species, that heretofore had appeared in both the Journal of Experimental Psychology and the Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology. Most of the articles that have appeared in Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes since its inception have been in the associative tradition that had been initiated by Pavlov and Thorndike. This tradition continues to thrive, but the field of animal learning has grown well beyond the boundaries of traditional learning theory. Investigations in behavioral ecology, cognitive neuroscience, and most critically, comparative cognition have brought new vitality to the field, dramatically expanding the scope of empirical and theoretical work concerned with animal learning. It is now time for the journal to faithfully reflect the evolution of the field by encouraging submissions from these rapidly growing research domains. To signal that expansion of interest, I believe that a new title is also in order. For that reason, starting with the present issue, the name of the journal has been changed to Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition. This change is not meant to discourage submission of the types of manuscripts that have most frequently appeared in the journal in recent years but to encourage submission of papers across a broader range of topics.
This publication is protected by US and international copyright laws and its content may not be copied without the copyright holders express written permission except for the print or download capabilities of the retrieval software used for access. This content is intended solely for the use of the individual user.

Source: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition. Vol.40 (1) US : American Psychological Association pp. 1-1.
Accession Number: 2014-00325-001 Digital Object Identifier: 10.1037/xan0000015

So if you were both right, these people shouldn’t even have a job.

MS

Lol, no, not what I am saying at all. Yes, animals ‘think’ on an instinctive and conditioned level. And not all thought is rational thought and they do not think rationally. Just because they ‘think’ does not mean that they analyze a situation and can explain it.

 

[RGCheek]

Here’s another example published just last month, Jan 2015. Turns out the memory systems in the visual pathways of monkeys are closer than we thought to those of humans. They are not exactly the same, but they are not significant different in a qualitative way.

Title:
Monkey visual short-term memory directly compared to humans.

Authors:

Elmore, L. Caitlin, Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, University of Texas Health Science Center, TX, US, lelmore@cns.bcm.edu

Wright, Anthony A., Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, University of Texas Health Science Center, TX, US

Elmore, L. Caitlin, Department of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, US, 77030, lelmore@cns.bcm.edu

Source:
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, Vol 41(1), Jan, 2015. pp. 32-38

Publisher:
US: American Psychological Association

Other Journal Titles:
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

ISSN:
2329-8456 (Print)
2329-8464 (Electronic)

Language:
English

Keywords:
monkey, change detection, visual short-term memory, visual working memory

Abstract:
Two adult rhesus ***monkeys were trained to detect which item in an array of memory items had changed using the same stimuli, viewing times, and delays as used with humans. Although the monkeys were extensively trained, they were less accurate than humans with the same array sizes (2, 4, & 6 items), with both stimulus types (colored squares, clip art), and showed calculated memory capacities of about 1 item (or less). ***Nevertheless, the memory results from both monkeys and humans for both stimulus types were well characterized by the inverse power-law of display size. This characterization provides a simple and straightforward summary of a fundamental process of visual short-term memory (STM; how VSTM declines with memory load) that emphasizes species similarities based upon similar functional relationships. By more closely matching monkey testing parameters to those of humans, the similar functional relationships strengthen the evidence suggesting similar processes underlying monkey and human VSTM. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved) (journal abstract)

So yeah go ahead and say animals can’t think of you want, but don’t expect me to believe it. A few decades ago, behaviorism tried to downplay the significance and even relevance of human thought, and we’re just now climbing out of those “dark ages.” Now as our knowledge base, research staffs, and technology advance, so can our understanding of our world. Sticking to old clichés has its place, especially when we really don’t know any better.

MS

I am saying animals cannot think rationally and are not capable of analysis or logic. Memory has little to do with it.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Lol, no, not what I am saying at all. Yes, animals ‘think’ on an instinctive and conditioned level. And not all thought is rational thought and they do not think rationally. Just because they ‘think’ does not mean that they analyze a situation and can explain it.

You may be right.

I am saying animals cannot think rationally and are not capable of analysis or logic. Memory has little to do with it.

This may be true in some cases like certain protozoa move toward or away from perceived nourishment or poison, respectively, based on the proteins attached to their cell membranes.

But for mammals, “memory” is almost entirely contingent upon activity of the brain, which we call “thinking.” Their frontal cortex is not as developed as humans, although some are larger than others; I presume this is what you are referring to but I can’t really tell. There is something called “muscle memory” but mostly that is now thought to also be a cognitive process. Even pigeons can learn – they even know how to take “delayed gratification” into account, to get a higher reward. Like investing in a 402(k) plan or something.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I never once gave my opinion on the ‘spare the rod spoil the child’ verse. I think though if that is the extent of a person’s parenting skills, the child has a lot more of a challenge than just being spoiled.

 

[simple_soul]

Thanks. I think I’ll keep the redo method in mind. I’ll tell my wife about it. We’ll try it…

Cool! I hope you find some success with it. In talking about it on this thread reminded me I still have the CD. It is something put out by Lighthouse Catholic Media and it is titled “A Guide to Raising (Almost) Perfect Kids” by Dr. Gregory and Lisa Popcak. I tried to find it on YouTube but all I could find was a book of theirs. Here is the link to it. m.youtube.com/watch?v=L7QaxGOP8Jk
I hope it helps. I have not read the book, will have to get myself a copy of it at some point. I started to listen to the CD again and do suggest that if you can get your hands on a copy of it do get it. They go into so much more and do it so much better than what little bit I shared. One thing. I am learning is parenting is not a one-size-fits-all thing. They go into this a bit on the CD.

 

[Denise1957]

I don’t have a problem with the Pope expressing his views on the subject of corporal punishment, though I think that the term “smack” has worse connotations than “hit,” (the pope didn’t use the word “smack”). Corporal punishment can be misused, of course.

Since spanking children is now seen as wrong by many, I’d like to point out that there are quite a few more prison inmates, and juvenile detention facilities nowadays than there were in the 60’s (and pre-60’s). Children just aren’t disciplined anymore. That doesn’t mean that they have to be spanked frequently.

I work in a retail store. The level of stolen items, in just my department, is HUGE. And people will rip open packages just to see what the product looks like, and if they don’t like it, they just leave it, and then we have to mark it down to half price. And it’s not just the poor who do this. I’ve seen well-dressed people steal and rip open packages. That just wasn’t done (at least at the same level) in the 60’s when I was growing up.

 

[Denise1957]

Children in my country (USA) were a lot more respectful when I was a child, and better educated (they’re dumbed-downed nowadays). That has changed, partly due to lack of disciple, but also it has to do, I believe, with the influence of television and films, and most recently, i-phones. I think, too, that parents often don’t see need to set a good example. Maybe they have an idea that children are naturally good, and just need to be given time to learn for themselves what the right thing to do is.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I used to get spanked with a strap and I feel an ever present scare that remains in my memory. It was psychologically traumatic for me, and the spanking did absolutely nothing positive. I can’t help but think that many people using corporal punishment are worshipers of parental power and get off in inflicting severe pain. There are more productive parenting methods that encourage LOVE!

 

[oldcelt]

I used to get spanked with a strap and I feel an ever present scare that remains in my memory. It was psychologically traumatic for me, and the spanking did absolutely nothing positive. I can’t help but think that many people using corporal punishment are worshipers of parental power and get off in inflicting severe pain. There are more productive parenting methods that encourage LOVE!

Very well said. While I was rarely spanked (only once that I can recall…I don’t count single swats), I know that other methods my parents used were much more effective. Physical punishment is about control, not true discipline, derived from disciple, IMO.