Forum: Author Hangout

I am not sure I understand the usage of the word 'smacking' in this discussion.

As noted in my response, spanking/smacking are US/UK usages with the same basic meaning.

In British English, "smacking a child" typically refers to striking a child with an open hand, often (but not always exclusively) on the buttocks, as a form of corporal punishment or discipline.

Smacking can also refer to a quick slap on the hand, arm, or leg, but in child discipline discussions, it overwhelmingly means bottom-smacking

In American English, "spanking a child" means exactly the same thing: slapping the buttocks with an open hand (or sometimes an implement) for punishment.

In American … slapping the buttocks with an open hand (or sometimes an implement)

Not an implement.

I believe in the U.S. if you use something other than your open hand, like a belt, it's child abuse. And the hand has to be open. A fist is abuse. It also can't leave marks, like welts for it not to be abuse.

Hmm, fascinating! Would you tell a woman that her husband slapping her in the face with an open hand that she isn't the victim of abuse and that he needs to leave a mark or strike her with a fist before she's been abused?

That is a fully grown adult, very different than a child.

I have spanked my kids, most specifically when they did something that could endanger themselves or others. Like when my oldest once grabbed the steak knife off the counter and started to run away with it.

I can not imagine a full grown adult doing anything even remotely like that. Or throwing a rock at their siblings head. Or kicking an animal because they were bored.

Not an implement.

I believe in the U.S. if you use something other than your open hand, like a belt, it's child abuse. And the hand has to be open. A fist is abuse. It also can't leave marks, like welts for it not to be abuse.

FFS, I was DEFINING the term, not passing moral judgment. My definition was correct. Your supposed correction isn't.

In American English, "spanking a child"

I can understand the American revulsion for spanking children because, as many SOL stories show, spanking gives the spankee an uncontrollable urge to have sex with the spanker. :-)

AJ

I am not sure I understand the usage of the word 'smacking' in this discussion.

I'm not an expert but, anecdotally, the most popular version of smacking in the UK is a gentle slap on the legs.

AJ

I think it's a very complex issue and one in which the answer is personal and subject dependent(ie, the required cooperative behaviour needs to be tailored to the problematic individual).

Vincent Berg's response hits the nail on the proverbial head (for me), as I do believe that children need to learn, from a young age, that actions have consequences.

Speak to any UK teacher in any UK school and they will tell you that many kids are 'feral' and the reason why they are feral, is because they (the kids) know full well, that there will be no consequences for their actions/behaviour.

Equally, some kids are innocent and their parents are psychopaths. For instance, after a visit to the dentist when I was a child (my age was in single digits), where the dentist remarked that my brushing could be 'improved', my darling mother took it as a personal insult as to her ability to 'parent'. In retaliation to my ignorance as to why brushing ones teeth is a good thing (I didn't see the point to brushing as the damn things were falling out anyway- due to the natural cycle of losing 'baby teeth') She, for many weeks after, used to 'clean' my teeth with an assortment of wire wool, Brillo pads and Cif/Jif on a toothbrush (for those who live elsewhere in the world, Cif/Jif is a white paste used for cleaning ovens).

It's a miracle that I have a face, let alone a mouthful of teeth as I type this.

I was pinched, smacked, belted, caned, slapped and starved as child/early teen. Was some of that deserved? Yes, yes it was. But not all of it.

some children are "little shits" who are "just born bad", and thus are acceptable targets for adults to abuse, and this abuse confers no harm on the child,

I did not say that, as you well know. If you are going to try and troll, then make an effort about it or just don't bother.

I beg your pardon? You absolutely did say those exact words,

What, the words that you claim that I said it was acceptable to physically abuse children? (and I quote you here)

and thus are acceptable targets for adults to abuse, and this abuse confers no harm on the child, despite some evidence that it leads the children to grow up thinking that abusing children is an acceptable thing to do.

No, if you go back and read my OP, you see that my stance is that some children are just born bad and there is nothing to be done about it, and that it is their behaviour that leads to them being punished. Here it is;

My counter is that the little shits, are actual little shits, and their little shitability is the very thing that caused them to be smacked in the first place.

Nothing in that says that "children are acceptable to be hit." What it (my post) does say, is that children should be allowed to learn that their actions have consequences. If a child pours boiling water over themselves, is it the kettle's fault? Of course not. Is it the parents fault for allowing them to do so? Possibly, but as all parents know, if a child is determined to do something, they will do it, regardless of your actions to prevent it. Some children, when told pouring boiling water over themselves is a bad idea, will take that on board and not do it, even without experiencing it first hand. Some children need to actually do it, to learn that it's a bad idea.

What you have done Julka, is you have read a statement, and then overlaid your own bias on top and are now cherry-picking words out of context in a desperate attempt to reinforce both your own personal bias (because you have been called out) and your desire to force that bias upon others.

How is it trolling to accurately and faithfully represent the exact statements you made?

That's just it. You didn't accurately or faithfully represent my opinion. You took two plus two, and concluded that it equals three thousand and forty six.

I was unaware that the only way to enforce consequences on a child was by abusing them! I'm not sure I understand the complexities

No, as I said above, children should be allowed to be held accountable for their consequences, and yes, you are quite correct, you don't appear to understand the complexities and I am not best placed to help you with that.

And go on to quote yourself, but in the quote, you don't say "punished". You say "smacked" in the original quote.

That could be regional. Smacking is a form of punishment, so yes, I do use those two words interchangeably. It's still not a statement that I am in favour of it, so please stop alluding that it is the case.

you very clearly assert that some children are born bad and that this inherent badness leads them to be hit by the adults around them

That is correct. You repeatedly prod an otherwise placid dog, eventually it's going to get pissed off at you and snap at you. Is it the dog's fault or the individual annoying the dog? It's the same with humans, regardless of the age of the two parties. Should the adult respond better? For sure, no argument there. Is a baby responsible for it's perpetual crying? No. Is it the responsibility of any mentally capable individual in it's presence to find out why it's crying? Yes.

There is another issue here, which should be considered, which is complicit-ness and the age of it. As the majority of parents will tell you, the vast majority of children are well aware of the 'fine line' and where it lies. There are hundreds of reasons as to why a child will willingly cross that line, which is why each case should be considered on it's own merit. But the majority of children are well aware of the specific results for crossing that line. The response to that crossing will vary from child to child and will affect that child's personal decision to cross that line.

And then you do this weird thing where you take a natural consequence like getting burned when you pour hot water on yourself, and conclude that some children simply have to do a thing before they learn the thing is bad; it's left unstated what this means in terms of parents hitting their kids

Actions have consequences, nothing weird about it. However I can't stop you from thinking that's weird. It's a simple conclusion. Some people know that setting yourself on fire is going to be a bad idea, some need to do so, to find that out because they don't believe the person that tells them "Don't set yourself on fire, it's a bad idea." It's

left unstated what this means in terms of parents hitting their kids

because the post wasn't about the right or wrong (however perceived) of kids being punished, but on the possible effects of such punishment on their subsequent educational ability.

You have taken a conversation about pears and are trying to make it about apples. That's totally on you.

or maybe you're trying to tell me that some parents just have an uncontrollable reflex that makes them hit their kids?

No, I'm merely saying to you, stop taking a conversation about one thing and trying to twist it to something else. See my previous point about apples and pears.

You seem to feel like I'm deliberately misunderstanding you, which I assure you is not the case;

this post was about the alluded effects of certain parental punishments upon the subsequent educational ability of a child, so yes, you are deliberately misunderstanding the point. It was never about the right or wrong of the punishment, whatever that punishment was.

remember that I did ask you if you felt like physically abusing children was a net neutral or if it was a positive and your answer was "it's a very complex issue",

Which it is. I'm not a child psychologist, so I cannot make clinical diagnoses on cases I have no knowledge of.

which can mean a lot of things but most assuredly does not mean "physically abusing children by hitting them is bad"

Correct.

which is a thing that you could have said and chose not to

Because it was not the point of the conversation, and as I have stated above, I am not a child psychologist, so my opinion on the matter either way, is irrelevant. But again, you have read something and have decided it to mean something else. That is your decision, not mine. I am not qualified to help you with your decision making process.

to which you took exception.

Incorrect. I took exception to you changing a subject to something else and your inference of an opinion attributed to me (by you) that I do not agree with. Which I am perfectly entitled to take exception with.

Humans aren't dogs

But we are mammals, just like dogs.

Is it a way of alluding, without explicitly stating, that children who get hit by adults bear some amount of responsibility for getting hit?

Need more context and age of the child. Cause and effect. If you absolve children of all responsibility for their actions, are you not setting them up for future disavowal?

since adults have control of their own actions

So do children (babies obviously exempt from that). Or are you implying that they are guided and controlled by a third party? It should be noted that different societies have different opinions as at which point a 'child' becomes an 'adult'

But since you don't clarify what you mean here,

Apologies, but I am not responsible for your current level of comprehension and astuteness.

and similarly failed to clarify

See previous response.

and in some way trying (I assume)

And there we have it. Try less 'assuming' because it makes an ass out of etc etc...

I'm left trying to read between the lines of your words

I would recommend not doing so, as you appear, like your assuming, to be making rather a mess of it so far.

a kettle has no agency in pouring water

I didn't say it did.

while an adult absolutely has agency when they hit a child

Agreed.

That's why I observed that the comparison was weird

Understandable, since you decided that a human and kettle have the same agency in the act of pouring.

I don't know

That is becoming a bit of a theme at this point.

you seem to have no problem forming an opinion,

Thankyou.

on whether or not hitting kids leads to them struggling academically

To correct you (yet again) my 'opinion' was on the causation the report had deemed applicable between the relationship of academic ability and the experience of childhood punishment. In my role as a 'non-researcher', I pointed out the failure of the 'researchers' to consider the possibility that the subjects' reduced educational ability may not have been down to nurture but nature, and that there was a strong case for the 'researchers' already having decided the result before any research had been started. What they were simply doing, in effect, was adjusting the final result(s) to accommodate their own prior bias.

There is even a big fancy phrase for that. Conformational bias. Not that I would know anything about it, not being a researcher and all that...

I should also clarify, that the OP wasn't actually about the perceived rights or wrongs of various punishments, it was actually about whether or not those punishments would then go on to have an effect upon the individual's capacity for learning.

The authors of the link I posted believed it did. I was and remain sceptical of that, as they don't back up their stance with any tangible independent data. I believe they simply saw an 'effect' and went out looking for a 'cause' and picked one they have decided is plausible without any apparent proof or in-depth research.

your original post hints

That is your opinion.

at a stance but does not make it explicit

because it's irrelevant to the topic.

in an effort to clarify what your post implies.

So as to help you, I was implying nothing.

you hemmed and hawed

Your opinion and your words.

"it's a complex issue"

Is it not? Are you saying one decision is going to be the perfect solution to every individual case out there?

while also, for some inexplicable reason, not willing to actually commit yourself to the statement "hitting kids can be good

Seems like you answered your own question.

I don't know why you're so afraid to own the position you've been tip-toeing around!

Possibly because I'm neither afraid, nor have a 'position'?

but I'm not privy to your internal state

Likewise.

I can't help but notice that I'm the only person you're trying to call out

Incorrect. You have decided on a thing, and your decision is incorrect. I am merely correcting your misinterpretations.

the original post made no moral judgement on hitting kids

Correct, it didn't. That is up to the parents and associated children.

I can't help but read something into that

As stated previously, I am not qualified to help you with your either your decision-making or how you process information.

It seems to be an opinion shared by other people

Yet, it's still opinion, not fact.

Speak to any UK teacher in any UK school and they will tell you that many kids are 'feral' and the reason why they are feral, is because they (the kids) know full well, that there will be no consequences for their actions/behaviour.

A guide to soft parenting I read recently said that when a toddler is screaming and throwing things in an uncontrolled tantrum, it could be damaging to send them to the naughty step or a time-out room. Instead the parent should remove themselves to a quiet room until the tantrum seems to be over.

There was no advice on how to proceed if the tantrum is in a public place like a supermarket or restaurant.

AJ

So if a newborn can't be bad, then badness must be generated at some point during growth and development. At some point, a child learns from their environment how to act, and what actions derive which responses. Some children will, for various inherent reasons, struggle with e.g. impulse control, but that doesn't make them inherently bad.

And yet, children learn, without any outside influence, to lie.

Interestingly, as an aside, since we have already travelled a great distance from the original point, current AI models are frequently compared in behaviour to that of small children. Which is interesting, because they have found that recent AI models have now learned (without outside influence or being programmed to), to lie.

This is an intriguing development that has caught the eye of many child behavioural specialists, and indeed, the psychological community as a whole. Some very interesting papers on the subject currently doing the rounds.

What do you call it when 4 children, 5+ years old, in a kindergarten class are still in diapers, refuse to sit quietly during story time, and grab toys from classmates. Three of them didn't even know their last name. None of them knew their home address or phone number or where their parents worked. All of that was a requirement when my kid started school.

"Abused" comes to mind, followed by "neglected." In any event, I doubt corporal punishment is going to help them.

~ JBB

I'm more of an anti-spanking perspective. In certain cases, it is necessary, yet those cases are fairly restricted (a child ready to chase a lost ball into oncoming traffic), as the shock teases an immediate lesson about the inherent dangers.

Yet, there are some parents who habitually strike their kids, not because they're inherently bad or evil, just because that's their only alternative, as their entire perspective is "It's either my way, or the highway," which I heard repeatedly growing up.

Meanwhile, my father started out using physical punishments (forcing us to stand for hours, or holding heavy books—under the threat of a spanking—yet he eventually gave that up as ultimately unproductive.

Instead, he switched to lectures, each time telling us, repeatedly, how disappointed he was in us and in our actions. During lose episodes, I'd much rather take a beating, as even that is preferable to those disappointment lectures.

That said, my mother had a standard response when we misbehaved in public—mainly during church, as my father was a Naval Chaplain—so she'd squeeze our little finger, which was painful enough, yet trying to pull you hand free was vastly more painful, as was squirming in your seat.

What was worse, is that her little fingers were fairly misshapen (with her joins jutting out at odd angles), which invariably made us wonder what those punishment would do to our own fingers.

So, both of the punishments were quite simply way more effective than paddling, spanking or any physical punishments. Though I still approve of those impromptu punishments to protect younger children.

As far as the supposed "bad" children, I've also believed that problematic children are best dealt with by letting them face the consequences of their actions—even when that includes letting them fail—or if they storm out of the house, stating they never want to speak to us again, letting them do just that.

For my and my wife's part, our kids (actually her sister's kids, who her mother kept trying to manipulate them through guilt), when they threatened to call social services on us (a common comment on the time, since it was repeated on television shows fairly often), our response was "Fine. Go ahead, in fact, we'll make the call for you. But, once you do, you're on your own, meaning you'll go into foster care, likely bouncing from home to home. So, good luck with that."

You've never seen kids backtrack faster than that.

On the other hand, I'm also a believer in "addictive personalities", as I've seen it time and again, as some people are simply prone to additions, while others (my natural family) seem impervious to addictions. My brother, for example, smoked for years and drank heavily to keep up with his wife, yet when she fell during an argument, and everyone accused him of striking her, he quit both cold, never resuming either one.

Yet the other part of the 'addictive personalities', is that most people will actively search for their particular addiction, trying one, after another, after another, after another, until finally settling on their specific preferred addiction. And after that, they stick to that one addiction, rather than returning to any of the others they'd previously abandoned.

Thus, with our kids, we also had the whole 'addictive personality' lecture, again reminding them that, if they tried different things (we raised them as most Europeans did, where we introduced them to 'controlled' drinking at home, where we could monitor it rather than most American kids, who once they reached legal age (for us, first 18 and then later 21 to drink the exact same things we could legally drink the week before).

Needless to say, after trying that, while they were at home, waiting for us both to get off of work, they tried finishing off the open wine bottle, and it was clear they'd gotten drink.

So we then physically locked the liquor cabinet, but the experience had so terrified them, that they were always incredibly careful with all addictions afterwards.

Which brings up the other issue, as in most cases, most children labeled as "bad", are actually suffering from mental illnesses. So in those cases, physically punishing them, only confirms that view, so they then take it to hard, assuming they'll always be bad and they'll then double down, never holding back.

So, long story short, labeling kids as being "Bad"—especially if they're suffering from mental illnesses—almost never works out.

Yet, in the end, I followed my father's tactics, relying on lecturing the kids, which did keep them on the straight and narrow.

In short, there really are no 'simple answers' to such problems, as they're often a combination of several different, overlapping factors.

I've heard that as well. But my point wasn't that Dr. Spock was a good parent, nor that his books were 'right.' My point was that he was highly influential and that several generations of parenting learned from them.

I'm not coming at this from a 'spanking good' or 'spanking bad' perspective (partly because even that requires an enormous amount of definition of terms), but rather simply from a 'Why did the BBC think this was an easy point to argue?' (assuming that's why they wrote what they wrote) perspective.

The BBC is the propaganda arm of His Majesty's Government. They probably had a version of that 'violence is bad' clickbait sitting on a 3.5 inch floppy since the 1990s, waiting for the day when they needed a distraction to divert water cooler (hot tea?) discourse from issues the government does not want discussed. And it worked. It's being discussed on an obscure forum for porn authors.

I am well aware of that, hence why I prefaced with;

The BBC is desperately trying to avoid saying anything about all the bad behaviour that refugees are indulging themselves in lately, so the BBC is trying to find unproblematic news on which to report, and one subject they have decided is unproblematic is that the smacking of children is bad.

Agreed.

As others have said, and I agree, is that every case is individual and what works for one child, does not work for others.

When a child 'does bad' certain parties come out and have a long list of reasons as to why the child did whatever it was they did. Their dog dies, their stamp collection was stolen, whatever. I suppose it's back to the 'Nature vs Nurture' argument. But some people don't seem to be willing to facilitate the idea that there does not need to be a reason, and so will fixate on something, anything, to give credence to a child's actions.

Millions upon millions of children each year, ascend to adulthood from violent and abusive households. For some, it's strengthening, and they become much valued members of society, for others, not so much. Some children come from good families where their lives were fairytales and then go on to become monsters.

As I said above, I was beaten and starved, but at no point did I decide to go out and kill kids. If I had, then certain sections of society would have put all the blame on my childhood and claimed none of it was my responsibility. Which brings me to two names well known in the UK.

Robert Thompson and Jon Venables.

Thompson came from a broken home and was physically and mentally abused long before that infamous day on February 2003. Venables came from, by all accounts, an 'average' household from which there was no known history of abuse. Physical or otherwise. Venables was the driving force of the pair and Thompson upon his release, disappeared into obscurity. Venables embraced darkness with both hands and ran with it.

Both boys were deemed to know the difference between 'right and wrong' before that day in February and it's been often said by clinicians that Venables was the very definition of 'psychopath' and there was no 'smoking gun' in his ten years of life at that time, to give reason for his actions.

Venables went on to continually re-offend, as certain sections of society claimed that it was his incarceration for what they did in 2003 that was the cause of his continual re-offending.

I think it would be safe to say that I don't share that opinion.

Granted, what I have just typed is an extreme example for a discussion on whether discipline (of any sort) is advantageous to the upbringing of any child. I think we, as humans, like to have a reason for our actions and that of others and we hate not having viable... I'm not sure of the correct, most applicable word here... excuses? to reason away the actions of others. I don't think we like the possibility that some people are just born bad, and that children like Sharon Carr exist. Or that the situation 'appears' to becoming worse (in that it's happening more frequently). But that could simply be down to more (and better?) reporting.

psychopath

I've just been feeding fungus gnat larvae to a sundew. Obviously I'm on the way to being a fully-fledged psychopath, but I haven't moved on to animals or humans yet. But next door's bird-killing cat is living on borrowed time.

AJ

yet

'Yet' being the important part of that sentence.... Today, it's fungus gnat larvae, tomorrow it's the neighbour's cat, the week after it could be naughty children.

Who knows where your angry, repressed unresolved childhood trauma will take you next...

(I don't want Julka to think I am only focusing on them).

Who knows where your angry, repressed unresolved childhood trauma will take you next...

When I graduate to humans, Chris Packham will be high on my list. Only the BBC would allow him to turn a documentary about parakeets into a platform for his pro-migrant pro-asylum seeker manifesto.

AJ

When I graduate to humans, Chris Packham will be high on my list.

You know what? That's actually fair, I'll give you that one.

N=1, so even less :)

I experienced a quite limited amount of corporal punishment. I don't have anger issues at all. But I don't believe anything that happened to me constituted abuse by any reasonable definition, so it's pretty clear why I wouldn't. And I'm reasonably successful and well-adjusted (I think, anyway).

But I know quite a few kids who (to the best of my knowledge) were never physically punished, and they're successful and well-adjusted as well, so I feel fairly confident in agreeing that, for at least a reasonable number of children, physical punishment is not necessary.

for the most part

Some individuals may fixate on that bit... 😂

I'm sure they will be along momentarily to chide you for taking a conversation about apples and making it about pears

Sorry, been a bit busy, along with my compatriots, in (briefly) taking over the world.... Or at least, making the most of a very unusual situation whilst it lasts.

intellectually dishonest

I will happily settle for one of the two. Both would just be greedy...

I had to learn that lesson the hard way

No, no you didn't. As much as you may deserve it, you were not smacked, so stop crying and put on your big girl panties.

I'm confident

Go you!

Pixy will beabsolutely incensed

I do quite like lavender and sandalwood. Also, it can only be thurible delivered. Any other means is just laziness, and we can't have that, can we?

🛬

Edit: missed out the 'Woosh"

standing up to bravely say that hitting kids is bad, actually.

Pretty sure you were sitting down when you were typing. Also, not sure typing a few words out on a keyboard to be posted on a (fairly) obscure internet site satisfies the minimum requirements for 'bravely'. Anyone can basically say anything they want, on the internet via a pseudonym.

Had you done so, via an account publicly linked to your name and person, all whilst stating that you ran/headlined an organisation campaigning against child cruelty with clickable links to the aforesaid organisation, then yes, I would say you were arguing from a moral vantage point. But you are not.

"Throwing jelly and custard at children is cruel, messy and may traumatise them for years to come. People who do so are sick and need professional psychological help." There you go. See how 'so stunning, so brave' I am. I want my knighthood and sainthood by the end of the year. Tah in advance.

You seem to be taking this pretty personally,

I take everything I say/do personally, because ultimately I am the only one responsible for my deportment. I don't believe in blaming others for my actions. So, yes.

especially considering that I'm one of the few people engaging in a discussion of the study

You're complaining because I am replying to you because you are "engaging in a discussion of the study"? So what else am I supposed to do? Ignore you? And then you would just complain because I am not replying to you... That's an interesting logic path you have there.

Your responses seem like you're not understanding the words I'm using

Is that a 'you' problem, or a 'me' problem? If I am not understanding you, isn't some of that responsibility yours? I'm not entirely certain that you understand the words you are using either.

I think you might be confusing me with somebody else because I haven't complained a single time about posts I've made that you haven't responded to

That was a bit of a word salad. It could also be construed as a complaint, which is rather ironic.

Anyway, I think it's rather obvious to everyone else that we are not understanding each other, and the conversation is drifting away from the topic at hand. You also seem to be attempting to try and guide it towards a more personal level of conversation, and they never end well.

I'm sure you are happy to agree that this is achieving nothing constructive between us, and it's time to move on. Besides, I need to find out if AJ has killed their next door neighbours cat yet...

IQ levels are dropping every decade

This is incorrect. IQ levels are rising less quickly in the 2000s than they were in the 1900s, but they continue to rise (based on consensus meta-analysis).

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect (and linked works, of course) for more.

It's also interesting that some of the studies showing a reduction in 'IQ score' also show increases in things like 3D Reasoning, which are sometimes poorly captured by IQ tests.

I did. The consensus of meta-studies indicates that the 'Reverse Flynn Effect' is a myth, to the extent that it actually means a decline in intelligence. What's been measured is a drop from a ~3% rise per decade to between 1 and two percent a decade. But that may be incorrect - other analyses show 3% is still valid.

There are counterexamples, but they have significant methodological problems in many cases.

The consensus of meta-studies

The consensus of meta-studies I found referenced by Wikipedia lists studies overwhelmingly from before 1990, which is around the time the Reverse Flynn Effect was first noticed/suggested. Even the more recent studies referenced tend to use old data.

And I didn't even mention my intense distrust of meta-studies!

AJ

Most of the meta-studies I've looked at are from the 2010s. The Wikipedia link I posted lists three from around 2015.

And many of the studies claiming there is a Reverse Flynn Effect are lousy. For instance, Dutton and Lynn studied 79 (!) likely non-randomly-selected people in France and decided there was an IQ drop (I i haven't bothered to look up the confidence interval, but it would have to be miserable). And even their work pinned down the 'decline in IQ' to a slight decrease in 'cultural knowledge'. There was no decline in reasoning ability; that went up. Meanwhile, other studies in France show continued increases. Which one do you think is cited by people claiming there's a Reverse Flynn Effect?

That's why you do meta-studies - because there are a lot of low-quality studies being used to claim there's an IQ drop, compared to a smaller number of higher-quality studies (and a large number of not-so-high-quality studies) showing continued rises. When you're looking at e.g. 285 studies, and the great majority show continued rises, that tends to suggest that the studies showing declines are outliers.

The more you look at this, the more clear it seems to be that, the larger the sample size, the more evidence that IQ scores continue to rise.

Mind you (and this is part of where Dutton and Lynn got their data), there's a confounding variable: IQ tests themselves are a moving target. Dutton and Lynn were looking at variances between multiple versions of the WAIS. While, obviously, test vendors should be doing their absolute best to make sure their tests remain fully normed, different tests are going to behave differently.

Combine that with a general explosion of breadth of knowledge (your average Gen Z individual will have followed far more information sources than, say, a Gen Xer at the same ages), there's a question: do we have shared 'cultural knowledge' sufficient for 'IQ tests' to use it as a means to ascertain 'IQ'? It made a lot of sense that, if everyone reads the same books and lives in the same culture, you can say 'Well, the guy who knows 20 cultural things out of 30 is smarter than the guy who knows 15 out of 30'. But that makes a lot more sense if the pool is 100 and you used 30 for testing. If the pool is 10,000, and you're using 30, you're just tossing a random-number generator into the test.

There are also longstanding issues with bias in 'cultural awareness.' Classic example: Would a kid from a prep school in the Northeast and a kid from central Atlanta have equal knowledge of sailboat-related terms? What if you flipped it and asked about hip-hop musicians?

That's also why the 'kids in the 1850s knew this amazingly difficult stuff, but now no one knows this, so we're getting dumber.' The knowledge base a kid in the 1850s needed was wildly different from what a kid in the 1950s needed, and that rate of change has grown, not contracted.

It seems highly likely to me (and many of the meta-analysts) that the Flynn Effect was going to end. You can't have 3% growth in 'IQ scores' for an unlimited period of time, most likely. The Flynn Effect was, itself, likely a combination of better nutrition, wider access to education, and so on. Sooner or later, the human brain will 'max out,' barring evolutionary changes.

None of this is to say that we're doing a great job. There are plenty of reasonably well-sourced articles about kids graduating today having lousy writing skills and readers having far less exposure to a variety of writing styles compared to previous generations (e.g. the 'I don't understand how to read anything but first person', which seems to actually be a thing, as baffling as I find it). But someone who doesn't understand third person because they've only read first person isn't 'lower IQ', they're uneducated in that area.

Most of the meta-studies I've looked at are from the 2010s. The Wikipedia link I posted lists three from around 2015.

But when were the base studies conducted?

And we'll have to disagree on the value of meta-studies. A meta-study is only as good as the weakest study it incorporates.

AJ

The Flynn Effect was, itself, likely a combination of better nutrition, wider access to education, and so on.

Don't forget "teaching to the test." When an IQ test gets published, it establishes certain categories of data as basic knowledge that everyone should have. This encourages school systems to ensure that their students do know that.

Basic knowledge changes, so the tests change, too. In 1850, every toddler knew how many legs a chicken has. In 2026, that knowledge is much too obscure to assume on an IQ test.

Every time the tests are redesigned, based on new concepts of basic knowledge, the new tests are calibrated so that the distribution of scores remains the same as with the old test. Once the new test enters use, the school systems change their emphasis to match the new test. That means that a steady increase in IQ scores can continue over the first few decades of the new test.

This "teaching-to-the-test" effect should level off after two or three decades of using the new test, but they usually replace tests more frequently than that.

The Reverse Flynn Effect has been attributed to computers becoming ubiquitous: users accept what computers tell them, impacting critical reasoning abilities.

And we've been here before in this thread

AJ

For something that the large majority of evidence suggests doesn't exist, what you attribute it to doesn't matter.

And (as noted before), many of the studies that show a Reverse Flynn Effect show it because of declines in scores on the cultural knowledge portion of tests, while scores on the reasoning sections continue to increase.

Can you share a little about your concerns for the formulation of the study?

The study was observational, based on questionnaires completed by the parents. Basically, a joke.

AJ

Since the study is based on the parents' observations with no objective measure of the children's intelligence (although I only read the BBC summary), even if the parents were honest (which would be a first), the study is about the opinions of the parents rather than the actual children.

AJ

I confess I missed the bit about the GCSE results. Less than half the children were assessed that way and, as Pixy posited, did the smacking cause the weaker results or did weaker results precipitate the smacking? As for all the self-reported parts, they're effectively useless.

AJ

did the smacking cause the weaker results or did weaker results precipitate the smacking

That actually wasn't my question. It was, 'did the smacking result in the weaker grade results? Or did the underlying nature of the child that resulted in them attracting discipline, also mean that they were less likely to do well academically?'

Not all punishment is warranted by a child, but equally, not all children are innocent.

Contrary to what some here might disagree with, we all have a choice to either do, or not do a thing. And nowhere in that 'study' did it consider that avenue as a reason. Which seemed to me like both a missed opportunity and a failure on the part of the researchers.

As I pointed out earlier, some children from broken homes do extremely well academically, whilst some children from 'perfect' homes are academically poor and destined for a life of incarceration.

The UK military has always (until recently) mainly recruited from 'working' class youths, especially those with problematic childhoods, because they tend to be the best soldiers. Discipline has always been an important part of training. In fact, it's not just the UK, I would say it's the same for most militaries.

It has always been a staple of your average war film where the 'recruit squad' has one or two 'problematic' individuals, and the squad is collectively punished until the squad has 'a private word or two' with the individual so as to 'suggest' a change of motivation.

Do you have a suggestion for how the study might be redesigned to check whether children are destined for poor academic outcomes and antisocial behavior on account of bad vibes as a three year old?

Well yes. Simply ask teachers and adults who know the child about the child's nature. Parents are always going to be biased (one way or another); other adults less so.

Teachers will be the strongest gauge, as they are more likely to be neutral and have the demeanour of the class on the whole as a baseline.

Teachers are also trained to look for abuse at home and since most referrals to child services come from teachers, they must be half decent at it.

It was brought up in a previous discussion, about the rising number of primary (Elementary, I think, in the USA) children who have not been toilet trained by the time they start Primary school (which in the UK is children between 4.5 to 6 years of age, depending on when their birthday is). Many reasons have been put forth as to why, ranging from the parents being children themselves, to both (or singular) parent(s) working long hours and being unable to spend much time with their children.

I know from personal experience of the likes of mums-net, PTA's and simply talking to other parents, that even at P1, the base line behaviour of pupils is already formed and after a few days of the new term, these individual behaviours are apparent. And let's be honest here, even if we don't admit it to ourselves or others, we are always judging our child against the others in the class.

It is also fairly apparent from that report, that the 'researchers' concluded their report from either their place of work or a coffee shop, and no actual face-to-face communication with either pupils or teachers was carried out, as otherwise they would have realised the flaws.

Teachers are also very good, and best placed, at judging years against previous years. For teachers with fifteen-plus years of teaching, that is a lot of inherent data.

I am not sure about other countries, but in the UK we have a saying called "The terrible twos". How a child behaves during this time is also very indicative as to their future temperament. Which is another reason why I think the report's 'authors' are neither parents nor have much experience about the topic of their paper. I would have expected you to know this and to have had the same thoughts as to why the 'paper' is not worth the 'paper' it's written on, especially since you say you care so much about the topic.

In fact, the more I discourse with you, the more I am disinclined to believe that you have any actual parenting experience.

Teachers will be the strongest gauge, as they are more likely to be neutral and have the demeanour of the class on the whole as a baseline.

During Covid, they were found to be very optimistic about what grades their pupils would achieve if they actually sat exams.

AJ

Another firm belief I have is most studies are bullshit. To claim that the answers of 1,000 people would match 200,000,000 or more people is insane.

In statistics, it's been shown that certain sample sizes are associated with specific confidence levels. What you almost never hear when statistics are cited are the margins of error or the confidence levels.

So, 54% to 46%, with a margin of error or ±4% and a confidence of 95% (typical for the usually reported sample sizes), indicates that 95% of the time, the ranges are between 54-46 and 50-50, and 5% of the time outside (potentially far outside) that range.

That's why you repeat the studies and ensure you don't have one of those 5% outliers.

The only thing studies are good for is researchers getting grant money.

True.

Studies also use relative vs. absolute percentages to lie to you. Example:

A condition has a negative outcome of 8 per 10,000. Administering a drug reduces the negative outcome to 6 per 10,000. The relative difference is a 25% reduction; the absolute difference is a 0.02% reduction.

Guess which ones the drug manufacturers report?

I agree with most of that, but not:

The only thing studies are good for is researchers getting grant money.

True.

If you don't study it, you're left with anecdotes, faith, belief, etc. Yes, absolutely one can misdirect with percentages, graphs with clever axes, and so forth. But one can lie even more if there's no high-quality data out there.

Having a study with well-understood confidence levels and margins of error can be important. Which is why that grant money should exist in the first place.

In that sense, it's like democracy ('The worst form of government, except for all of the others'). The grant system as it exists today is often a mess, and study reporting can be even more of a mess, but it's better than not having one.

If you don't study it, you're left with anecdotes, faith, belief, etc. Yes, absolutely one can misdirect with percentages, graphs with clever axes, and so forth. But one can lie even more if there's no high-quality data out there.

A reasonable point. Add 'many' to the sentence to yield "The only thing many studies are good for…"

'Many' is a great improvement, I agree.

There's a discussion on this elsewhere in this threat, but condensing it: yes, there are some peer-reviewed studies showing a Reverse Flynn Effect. There are a considerably larger number of peer-reviewed studies showing no Reverse Flynn Effect, some of which do show a decrease in the rate of increase in IQ.

Many of the studies showing declines have very small sample sizes. Most of the studies showing continued increases have large sample sizes. One review showed nine studies listing declines, for instance, while over two hundred showed continued increases.

It's entirely possible the nine are 'correct' and the two hundred are 'incorrect'. I'm not about to dive into over two hundred studies and compare sample sizes and confidence intervals; that's why one reads meta-analysis in the first place. But, in any case, the evidence is highly mixed.

It's also possible that the entire Flynn effect may be incorrect. Flynn himself thinks that's possible. It may be that we've simply been measuring the wrong things, and that tests have progressively trended toward measuring the wrong things.

One given example is 'What do dogs and rabbits have in common?' The 'correct' answer is 'They are both mammals'. But, as Flynn notes, the answer 'One uses dogs to hunt rabbits' is an entirely viable answer for people who do that. The person giving that answer is not 'lower IQ' than the one whose answer reflects one classification system. But, if one sees the world through the lens of highly structured classification systems, one scores their use higher.

One can think of a number of other viable answers to that question that would be 'wrong' from an IQ test standpoint but would not reflect a difference in actual intelligence.

And, as also noted elsewhere, one of the studies from France and cited as 'Reverse Flynn Effect', shows a decline in the 'cultural knowledge' section of the exam, but no decline in the 'reasoning' section of the exam. That is interesting, but it may mean the culture has shifted in a way that breaks test norming. That reasoning remains the same suggests 'intelligence' may be fine.

Part of why this matters is that virtually no 'IQ test' is static. They can't be. Most of them rely on 'cultural knowledge' as one measure. It's a perfectly valid thing: a 'smarter' person will recognize more celebrities, know more history, and so forth than a 'dumber' person. But which ones will naturally change over time. A year-over-year decline on the same test might mean people are 'dumber', but it might also mean the culture has shifted faster than expected. A year-over-year decline on a test with the same name but different questions might mean the test creator has broken the test.

I know just enough to be dangerous. I also know Ph.D's in this area, and some of them also feel they only know enough to be dangerous. Even defining IQ is hard. Measuring it is harder. And there are hundreds of tests widely accepted as valid for measuring IQ, few of which are cross-normed and which use considerably different scales.

It's a mess, and it gets messier the more you dig into it.

I was born at a time Grey Wolf's studies show IQs were rising. I'm still alive at a time your studies show IQs are falling. Seems about right to me - I really ought to learn to play an instrument or learn a new language to make new connections in my brain and slow my intellectual decline :-(

AJ

I'd suggest taking up writing, but ... :) It's certainly added a new dimension to the things I think about.

And I'm learning a new language, slowly but surely. Written, anyway. It's going to be a while before I can understand Spanish at the speed it's usually spoken. Steady improvement in reading, though.

Sure and if somebody comes in here arguing that providing any form of discipline and structure is abusive to children I will vehemently disagree with them and provide counter-examples as soon as I'm at a keyboard.

If you haven't encountered them, consider yourself lucky.

You must be thinking of somebody else, because that's not a thing I've said.

You've disparaged all other options. Therefore by Sherlock Holmes logic, that has to be what you'd do if you ever had children.

AJ

And again you disparage other solutions while failing to offer your own.

The record's stuck, the record's stuck ...

AJ

Missed the point again.

You have a truculent child. How do you get it under control?

A promise to behave made inside the car isn't worth two cents once in the supermarket, with lots of sweets and shiny things.

AJ

If the child misbehaves in the store, then you remove them, obviously.

Without using physical force, obviously?

AJ

Like is that where this is coming from, you're literally just unable to conceive of a way in which a child can be moved from one place to another if you haven't softened them up with a solid one-two?

I know you're deliberately being provocative, perhaps because you've only just grasped that we weren't discussing smacking well-behaved children, but physically dragging a kicking and screaming child out of a supermarket is considered abusive by some people. As I mentioned earlier, it's just one point on the sliding scale.

AJ

I don't think anybody in here has argued that physically removing a child (without hitting them) counts as physical abuse

If that eases your conscience. But it's on the scale - it's a form of violence.

AJ

"have you considered that violence is a spectrum and holding your child firmly and moving them against their will is on that spectrum?"

Try dragging an adult woman kicking and screaming out of a supermarket.

We've established that you're prepared to use violence against children. The issue is where you draw the line.

You seem to be obsessed with punching children a couple of times in the head, given the number of times you've mentioned it. Freud wasn't always wrong.

AJ

This has something of a vagueness problem, to me. Yes, one can say it's a form of violence. But, in the minds of some people, so is arresting someone. Or imprisoning them. Or speaking to them harshly. Or hurting their feelings.

If one defines 'violence' in such a broad fashion, it's easy to make a great strawman. Surely, one should never be 'violent' to children, right? By the usual meaning of the word, that seems likely. I doubt most pro-spanking people consider spanking to be 'violence' (in fact, I hope they don't!).

On the other hand, Merriam-Webster says:

Violence (n): the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy

By that definition, physically removing a child is not 'violence' - it does not injure, abuse, damage, or destroy the child. But spanking is only 'violence' to the extent that it is 'abuse.' It seems nearly certain that one would have to concede that spanking was 'abusive' before one could even entertain the idea that physically removing a child from a situation could be 'abusive.'

It seems to me that asserting 'it's on the scale' for physical removal, and claiming that to be a form of violence, is also asserting that it is sometimes reasonable to be 'violent' to children (e.g. to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy them). Either that, or one would have to say that it is not reasonable to physically remove a child from a situation.

In short: this feels like a significantly counterproductive argument if one is on the side of spanking. If even physically removing a child from a situation is 'a form of violence', how could causing them pain not be 'a form of violence'? And forms of violence are, by definition, abusive, injurious, or worse.

As I read AJ's comment, he was not arguing that "physically removing a child from a situation" is violence and/or abuse. He stated that there are people who have made that argument.

Actually I am. Forcibly dragging away a child is bound to leave a mark on whatever appendage is used for hauling so counts as violence. It's banned in UK schools.

AJ

how could causing them pain not be 'a form of violence'?

Forcibly dragging a child causes pain, physical and mental. So by your own extended definition, it's a form of violence.

AJ

Edit: oh, I misread! You specifically are making the argument that removing a child against their will is abusive.

In the UK, shouting at, criticising, humiliating, or scaring a child regularly is a criminal offence.

Good luck avoiding arrest if you are repeatedly critical of your child's repeated misbehaviour.

I'll also point out that the definition of 'unmet need' will differ significantly between you and your child.

To use a quip that I first heard when my now 37-year-old was around 2:

Q. "What is the difference between a terrorist and a toddler?"
A. "You can negotiate with a terrorist."

I raised five, and I can attest to the veracity of that quip.

Which would mean that, by the definition of violence, it's abusive (or worse). Someone who physically removes a child, or spanks them, is therefore a child abuser and rightfully would be subject to arrest and prosecution.

Was that the intent here?

Note that 'the system has run amuck and is criminalizing bad parenting' is not an answer to this. Criminalizing violence against children is not 'run amuck,' it's basic decency. The way to claim the system has run amuck is to not characterize acceptable behavior as 'violence'. If it's violent, it's out of bounds and should be out of bounds.

If it's just you and the child, then you go home and you'll have to get your groceries later, which is inconvenient but being a parent means dealing with inconvenience sometimes.

Congratulations. You've just trained your child how to intentionally disrupt your life when they are unhappy.

Thanks for the feedback, man! Let me know when you finish reading the post because I think there are some ideas in there that you might find interesting.

Nothing you proposed solves the problem, and it assumes the child is actually interested in your opinion and si willing to do what you ask.

I'm not arguing for corporal punishment, simply pointing out that the whole 'reason' and 'negotiate' theory fails reliably. I don't have the answers, except for what worked with my kids. They each, in their own way, found something that simply couldn't be reasoned or negotiated.

I could provide examples, but I think they'll fall on deaf ears.

My first thought was about single mothers, of which there are an increasing number in the UK.

With childcare unaffordable, so dependent on benefits, if the mother has no convenient friend or relative to park the kid(s) with, walking out of a supermarket because the kid(s)' having a tantrum means not eating.

No good options :-(

AJ

If it's just you and the child, then you go home and you'll have to get your groceries later, which is inconvenient but being a parent means dealing with inconvenience sometimes.

It seems to me that you have no children. And if you do have them, then they're not the best behaved kids.

Children will test you and see what they can get away with. If there is no strong enough deterrent, they will keep pushing and will find the best ways to extort you. Tantrums are their way to disrupt you until you give them something you don't want to give.

What if you don't have another time to do your groceries trip? What if the other parent isn't present and you have no choice but to take the child to every trip? What if the child is one of those ultra-stubborn ones?

Anecdotally, my own experiences. I have three boys that are teens now, so talking to them works.

But, situation #1:

Oldest boy (Joe), 2 years old. Second boy (Tim), newborn. (not their real names)

Since the birth of Tim, Joe was fascinated with his eyes. Tim has striking eyes.

Joe insisted on touching Tim's eyeballs. After a week of explaining and getting more assertive with Joe to not touch his brother's eyeball, the final solution was a hard, painful smack on the back of the hand, with my own hand, when Joe reached his finger to his brother's eye. Since that smack, Joe would look at me before trying to reach. Raising my hand in a smacking gesture would stop him.

However, a few days later, I heard a sharp scream from Tim's room and went to investigate and found Joe hiding in the corner. I looked at Tim and he was crying literally bloody tears. I took Tim to the doctor and thankfully it was only a mild scratch in the white area of the eyeball.

Coming back home, I sat Joe down and explained to him that what he did was bad and he should never repeat it again, and he had earned a spanking. I spanked his bottom hard making sure to repeat that he was not to touch his brother's eyeballs, ever.

That fixed it. And from that day forth, I only had to mention spanking to Joe whenever he insisted on not listening.

Situation #2:

Tim, now 6 years old, and Jim, 2 years old.

Tim is very stubborn and hard-headed, and at the time, abusive of Jim.

Whenever Joe goes out of the room leaving Tim and Jim alone, Tim would do all kinds of things to make his brother cry. It seems he enjoyed it. From taking his toys to hitting him. Invariably, whenever Tim is alone with Jim, Jim is crying. Joe (then 8) was Jim's defender.

I set up cameras in the house to observe their behavior when away from me. If you're not a parent, you can say that I should always be present, or their mom should be present, but that's not always possible and only a moron would suggest that.

Anyway, for a while, whenever Jim would cry, I would go through the cameras' recording to see what happened, and invariably, it would be Tim abusing his brother.

I followed an escalating punishment strategy, and what made it reach the spanking stage was Tim coming to me, handing me his favorite toy (I took it from him for a short time when he did something bad), and then went and hit his brother.

That told me we reached the spanking stage, the price for bad behavior was acceptable to Tim and he was willing to pay it.

Tim was stubborn enough that it took several spankings for him to stop abusing his brother.

I was lucky that I was able to work from home to be always close enough to deal with things as they happened.

So @julka, how would you have dealt with these situations and fixed the behavior?

I have one child, a little under 18 months old;

Yeah, don't have another. You're not qualified to raise them into good people.

You missed a step.

The part of the brain governing the ability to make wise decisions doesn't mature until the child is in its late twenties - check car insurance rates.

So you should have added to wait until the child is 28.

AJ

As far as Europe is concerned, the French were once widely regarded as having the best behaved children. But they're now adopting soft-parenting, with the resultant decline in the standard of their children's public behaviour.

Opinion polls in France show similar levels of opposition to smacking in the UK, but as this report shows, there's uncertainty about what constitutes smacking.

AJ

There is also the incident in Ireland recently (Those outside of the UK may not know about this) where five young boys were killed in a car crash after ploughing head-on into another car whose occupants were about to fly out on holiday.

At first, it was the usual, "What a tragedy", "The poor families" "What a loss to the community, etc etc.

And then the details started to come out. The boys were all wearing balaclavas; they had deliberately chosen to drive the wrong way down a dual carriageway because they knew police would not follow; all had substantial criminal records; all were well known to the Gardai (Irish police), there was (is?) some uncertainty as to who owned the BMW they were driving.

Basically, it turns out, all of them were little shits, and had been since they were old enough to walk. Because of their young age and ethnic background (Think dodgy driveways and even dodgier home repairs and garden work), no discernible action appears to have been taken to adjust their behaviour because those in power and positions to do so, didn't want the negative press, accusations of bias etc etc.

The kids knew this, knew the system, knew how to play it (Like escaping a police pursuit by driving the wrong way down a road because police will not follow), and lived life to their own rules. Rules learned from their parents and the knowledge that they were basically 'untouchable'.

Except from death.

These kids had made life absolute hell for everyone who lived in the area who was 'not one of them'.

These children should have been taught boundaries and the behaviour expected of them by the general public. Was the failure their parents? Undoubtably. Was this compounded by a failure of the state to step in when the parents didn't? Again, without a doubt.

The parents will grieve the loss, and will no doubt blame everyone but themselves, but they have to take responsibility for nurturing the behaviour and decision-making process that led to the pointless loss of life.

(And Julka, I do not see your posts as I blocked you ages ago, given -as AJ put it- your stuck record replies and autistic fixation on irrelevant detail.)

I'm not certain that you can make the case that criminal behavior by juveniles could have been prevented by corporal punishment...

The initial crime, probably not, but if you make the response to that crime, suitably unpleasant, would that not have a deterrent effect?

The response does not need to be physical. It could simply be a restriction of privileges (ie, removal of their phone for a set time, not being allowed to watch TV for a set time, the removal of a favourite toy for a set time, etc etc). An unpleasant response that reinforces the knowledge that certain actions come with consequences.

The one thing I don't think anyone will argue with, is the knowledge that once a child (or indeed an adult) realises they can get away with their objectionable behaviour without any repercussions, they are going to keep doing it and will escalate to see where the line is.

Since there are quite a few military loitering here, I'm pretty sure they have all seen instances where 'errant' adult behaviour has been adjusted by either the loss of weekend passes (ROP's), watching their locker (and its contents), leaving the room via the window, or 'additional' PT. ie "There's a nice patch of (insert unpleasant foliage here) why don't you start crawling through it...."

And yes, I do agree that sometimes punishment has no effect on some individuals, as they just internalise it as the world being against them rather than it being the other way round. Those individuals are the truly dangerous ones, as they tend to have no consideration for others and you will inevitably see them on the news years later.

Which leads us back to the question, "Are some people just born bad?"

I would make this 'without any repercussions meaningful to the person.'

Taking away phones works for while, for instance. If you keep doing it, the response is 'Oh, well, I can live without my phone right now - I've done it plenty of times before.'

That's a bit different than 'punishment has no effect' (or, at least, I think it is). Many punishments follow a diminishing-returns law. The first time, it's a big deal. The tenth time, it's an inconvenience.

This probably relates to 'spanking', broadly, in the sense that e.g. a swat on the butt or hand to prevent someone touching a hot stove or some other particularly bad behavior likely works. But, over time, it becomes 'Huh - so-and-so hits me sometimes. Oh, well. Sucks!'