NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

I just read an excerpt of it sent in the mail. It is entirely of research supporting spanking. I was floored. :hunh :( I still get updates from NGJ and keep copies of all the books in my house because I like to know where they are taking so many of the family and friends I left behind. Most I never bother reading unless something new pops up on the headline. This was new and popped out at me! Until now, I have only heard "bible" teaching for spanking support in these spanking groups and never scientific research. I guess I am really discouraged, because of this. Anyone else aware? :cry

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

I wonder what "research" they are quoting, because I know of no mainstream research that supports spanking.

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

Nothing they do surprises me anymore. :sigh

Here is a link to the article:
nogreaterjoy.org/articles/attack-traditional-child-training/
Hopefully, if you paste that into your browser, that will work. :think

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

When I get some time later, I will look up the excerpt from their book again because it was some rather prominent sounding quotes. I recognized a couple of the places who supposedly did the research.

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

The article is taken from the new chapter.

NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

Yes. They are printing the second half of the chapter in the next issues article. For my friends lingering "on the fence" this could be huge.

I just find it super depressing. I can see some excellent points mixed into the lies and it makes it all so enticing and confusing for people, especially for those just wanting to do the right thing for their kids.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

Yuck. I couldn't finish it. He drives me crazy

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

The father of lies always mixes lies into truth.

Sent by Tapatalk from my phone

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

Well, as they say, "statistics don't lie"...but the people who interpret them do.

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

I really wanted to finish the article but I just can't. :sick

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

Research supporting spanking? Sounds like a hoax to me. I wonder what the research methods have been. Surveys? Observational methods, with or without participation? Intervention techniques? Longnitudial studies? Statistics do not just pop up into being. Before any statistics can be produced, data has to be collected and analyzed by some decent methods. This seldom goes by unnoticed. If someone is really doing a large scale survey on the benefits of spanking, someone somewhere must have noticed that something like that is going on. Have you? Has any of you heard about such studies? And if nobody has seen or heard anything, it must be a very small scale survey. Small scale surveys do not have much scientific value. It is not very convincing if someone interviews five spanking families and states that 95% of them were either quite happy or very happy...
I would not be surprised at all if we would find out there has not been any research at all and that all "results" are fabricated. And I'm certain that nobody has asked the small children anything about the benefits of spanking. How was it? What was the appropriate "glue stick age", according to M&D Pearl? 10 month? I'm sure the point of view of such young children is not represented anyhow in any "research".

---------- Post added at 03:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------

Yep, and false statistics also do exist. If you feed false data to an Excel program you can make very nice curves, tables and diagrams that do nothing else but lie.

---------- Post added at 04:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 PM ----------

By the way...the article is quite hilarious some times. "I conducted an informal research...". Sounds convincing, does it? And how about this: "All presidents of the United States, including Obama, were spanked as children, as were nearly all senators, congressmen, and military commanders". I don't understand what's exactly the point. Are the presidents, the senators and congressmen such great role models? Or does M. Pearl try to say: "if you wan't your little boy to become the next president or a senator at least, spank him!" Or is it a message to the kids themselfes? "Johnny, would you like to become a President of the United States, just like Obama? Well, that's cool, Johnny my boy, and if you are properly spanked, who knows how far you can get."

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

Oh my. DD & I are currently reading The Fallacy Detective (a book designed to teach kids about logical arguments & fallacies). It's hard to even know where to begin, but I might just use the first section of this article for her to have a go at naming all the fallacies. (I haven't finished the article, but the first section includes red herrings, ad hominem, and genetic fallacies for sure.)

A number of the "studies" cited say things like, "Of all the successful, well-adjusted people in this study, 100% were spanked as children. Therefore, spanking produces successful, well-adjusted people." This is like saying, "Of all the people with cancer in this study, 100% use the internet. Therefore, the internet causes cancer." ...it's a lot of "correlation equals causation" type stuff.

It's a shame.

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

Well, the research they sighted if you scan the article was from teams studying kids to see whether or not spanking was detrimental. They supposedly found it wasn't and was actually the opposite. I want to find the research information. I'm sure it is available and published somewhere. Below, is one of the quotes.

"Dr. Diana Baumrind of the University of California, Berkeley, aided by teams of professional researchers, conducted what many consider to be the most extensive and methodologically thorough child development study ever done. They examined 164 families for over a decade, tracking their children from age four to fourteen. Baumrind found that “spanking can be helpful in certain contexts” and discovered “no evidence for unique detrimental effects of normative physical punishment.” The study also revealed that children who were never spanked tended to have behavioral problems, and were not more competent than their peers as other professionals had suggested."

I do think that an excellent point was made MariJo7 when you reminded everyone that the Pearl's recommend spanking starting very early. I have read their book and it is earlier than 10 months. More like 6 months or earlier because one section talks about before they can crawl giving little swats to teach them to not roll off their blanket.

I will say that the one thing I feel Pearl does have in his favor, because I have found a few rather non-religious people mention it in conversation is the fact that most studies are concerning delinquents and jailed individuals or those with obvious mental problems. I have heard comments like, "i was spanked, most of this research is done on kids with parents who beat their kids in the face or were alcoholic and drug dealers anyway.That was the source of their problems." I think that many, many people feel the same way. Pearl points that line of thinking out.
I am as against spanking as anyone, but I would appreciate some research which studies some "responsible spankers". I say that carefully because I know we don't believe spanking is responsible, but I also believe that though it may be wrong, my friend's mother who spanked and smacked her regularly in the face when angry was much worse than my friend whose mother always remained calm and was the model of broken hearted, loving mother when she spanked.

Maybe some of the more studied and veteran moms here could address the above. I was hoping that there is actually some research I'm unaware of. Mostly, I'm wondering in a conversation when someone brings this up, how do you address it? While it may be a wrong conclusion of spanking people come to, it is also a reasonable question. I usually have no answer when asked this, and I have been asked this, other than to sight my own personal conscience and beliefs about modeling in my life the character and actions I want for my children.

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

I invite you and/or your daughter to submit your findings to my website for publication.

Sent by Tapatalk from my phone

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

I think it's important to remind people that "most" adults in the U.S. were spanked as children. If you survey everyone in prison, most of them were spanked. If you survey everyone in Congress, most of them were spanked. We can't do a scientific study to "control" for the type of spanking and then research the effects of different types. We are reliant on subjective reports. Furthermore, a scientific study would need to control for all other factors in a person's life: family configuration, numbers of positive role models, socioeconomic situation, quality time with parents, positive to negative interaction ratios, education, other demographics, family values, personality... And many of those factors are also subjective. A person's success or lack of success in life cannot possible be boiled down to one factor.

P.S. The above quote is from ShepherdsWife. I couldn't get the quote feature to work.

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

I think we cross posted, so I wanted to be sure you saw this. ;)
This is exactly the kind of thing I need!

Sent by Tapatalk from my phone

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

We're talking about it over breakfast night now! If we get as far as writing it up, I'll let you know. It will probably take us a while.

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

It would also need to have a control for any other types of punishment or discipline used.

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

That's awesome of you! What a great way to teach her and a great article to do so on. :)

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

I also like how the second to last section tries to make the point that yelling is bad, but it's what parents are turning to when they take spanking out of their tool-box. They site a study that shows yelling is as detrimental as hitting... Sounds like the opposite of the point they were trying to make about spanking not being harmful! Unless I read it wrong!

ETA: And, the whole society went down the drain when spanking went out the window conclusion is useless, b/c there are 5th Century quotes about how the youth of the day were so much worse than generations previous, so that mindset has been around a long time!

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

A serious and covering study on effects of spanking would be most interesting to see and to conduct, if they do not exist yet. It would not be a simple undertaking...

First, the parameters (the factors to be measured and tested and the ways how to measure and test them) should be defined and evaluated. Just to compare the outcome of spanking with non-spanking would be much too simple. We would need at least a four-field such as responsible spanking/non-responsible spanking/responsible non-spanking/non-responsible non-spanking. Even this would be quite simplistic and crude, but it is still not easy to define. What would "responsible spanking" be? How should it be defined, and in whose opinion spanking should be considered responsible or not? Would it be the spankers opinion? Or the spanked person's opinion. Or someone's elses?
When these parameters finaly are defined and we want to find out how spanking effects its subjects, we need parameters for these effects also. We need to define what are "good" and what are "bad" effects. And we need to figure out how directly we can expect responsible spanking/irresponsinle spanking/responsile non-spanking and non-responsible nonspanking to correlate with the "good" and the "bad" effects. Not something you do in a few spare evenings...
After we know what to measure, we need to choose a method: surveys, lognitudial studies, observational methods, thematic interviews, depth interviews...After the best method (in our opinion) is chosen, some complementary methods or control methods also need to be applied. For instance, if we use surveys and statistical methods, it is good to use some qualitative methods also, such as interviews or observational techniques. And the other way around: qualitative methods should be controlled with some amount of quantitative research. This use of a controlling method is called triangulation. Its purpose is to prevent "blind spots" and "tunnel vision" and provide the researcer with a more in-depth view to the data and the results.
And when this is all done, funding needs to be applied. No one is able to do serious research as a hobby. Such work demands a full time commitment of at least one person, and often it involves a whole research group. In order to get funding, we must present a convincing research plan to someone who is crazy enough to pay to get the research done. The reseach plan is a whole bunch of papers where the methods and the problem to be studied are described. It is not easy to write such a thing, and it takes time...
So...our parameters have been defined, our methods are chosen and our very convincing study plan has been accepted by someone who is willing to fund our research. Before the actual research is started, pilot studies are often conducted first. This means: the parameters and the methods are applied on a smaller scale in order to test them, to evalate them, to correct them and to fine-tune them. The results of the pilot studies are often evaluated in public. For instance, an article may be written about them in a scientific journal. The matter is discussed by other members of thescentific community. Opinions are gathered. Methods and parameters are optimized...And when this is all done...the actual research can take place.:)
So, serious scientific studies are huge projects. Even the preparations for one can take years.
The reseach projects descrbed in Pearl's article do not look very convincing to me. Even the most serious one - the survey with 2600 spanked and non-spanked subjects - looked quite superficial. This impression may be because the study was cited by Pearl, who - frankly speaking - is not a very educated person in my opinion. I doubt if he would be able to even read a scientific study properly, and to cite one properly is even much more difficult.

If serious studies have been done on the effects of spanking, some of us should have heard about its preparations and pilot study phase already. I'm thinking of those of us who work in the educational or social field. Some information about such studies should have "leaked out" in their preparation stage already.

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

Parenting can not be reduced down to 'spanking or not spanking'. If you 'spank' = beat your child you are not a good parent. If you 'don't spank' but ignore teaching your child basic manners and responsibility you aren't a very good parent either. That is one of the major flaws of Pearl etc, the simplify parenting down to 'hit them and it will all be fine' and that is not parenting.

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

Excellent points.
I have been giving a lot of thought to addressing their argument about no research being conducted on families who spank "responsibly". I believe there are many components to family and while they argue that a healthy Christian family who spanks will produce healthy children, they fail to consider that maybe a healthy family produces healthy children because they are a healthy family. Maybe they produce relatively healthy children in spite of the spanking because they are healthy in so many other areas. Just maybe the Pearls should consider a healthy Christian family who doesn't spank would also produce even healthier? Unless we can bring a group of identically healthy families into a study who both spank and don't spank we will never be able to determine the true difference. It seems the Pearls have a rather unstable method of measuring spankings effectiveness. If a family spanks and has children who grow up to be dilenquents then they argue the family wasn't spanking correctly or was unhealthy in another area. If the family has healthy children who grow to be leaders then they must have spanked. They use the same form of reasoning as they accuse the researchers of doing.

What I lament is the sad lack of healthy leaders who can stand up and say "I wasn't spanked". I personally have never met a person who wasn't spanked outside of my own kids. I hope we raise up a generation who can say the above and can by example fight the Pearls of this world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

Where are the studies? Other than a couple of examples he named names, but not studies or studies, but no names. No dates, universities or other ways to look up the data for yourself. Who is funding this research? There is nothing about any of the studies he is citing other than his view of them. I found one study done in 1986 suggesting that the abuse rate was higher at that time than it had been. But it also suggested it was because parents did not know what to do, only what not to do. Something that is to be expected.
To say that twenty years ago parents did not know about the controversy with spanking is just not true. I am thirty four now, I remember spanking being debated then. (For the record, I was all for it being outlawed). He is simply recycling the same arguments. snide humor and hyperbolic predictions that we being used twenty years ago.
Why did they fail to mention the safety issue of spanking? There are three kids whose deaths have been tied to their methods. If spanking is so safe, isn't it on them to prove it's safety?
I noticed that after a passing dismissal of Sweden, he did not mention the other countries that have banned spanking. Anyone else wonder why? It is illegal to spank in Germany, Denmark, Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia and they have a much lower crime rate than the US. It is also illegal in other countries besides those, but I can't remember the crime rates or even names right now. But I do know that they are not dangerous lawless lands. By the way that study that proves that without spanking the Swedish resorted to abusing their children was done in 1986 and even the researchers thought it might be growing pains. Parents knew what not to do but not what to do and were frustrated.
The other thing is that the very few studies that have come saying spanked kids turn out okay all qualify with as long as the spankings themselves are not too severe, rare and the parents are consistent. And by very few, I only remember two of those studies coming out in the last five years or so. That may sound like a lot, but there have been more than that coming out saying spanking is a bad idea or that parents spank far more than they realize. It is late, but if anyone wants them, I will see if I can find those studies in the morning.
The question I keep asking about spanking and no one can answer is how is it that only experts who advocate spanking are the ones writing books on dealing with angry children and teens while those that are against it are not? Why do those who are not spanking not need that resource while those who do spank need it? I am not saying gently parented kids never get angry, but they do not seem to carry years of anger that has been building. Not one person who has told me to spank can tell me anything other than that is just what some kids and all teens do.

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

The "growing rate of child abuse" in those countries that have banned spanking may also result from changes in how "abuse" is defined. I live in one of those countries where it is illegal to spank. After spanking and other corporal punishment became illegal there have been law suits against parents who spank but also against parents that pull hair, pince, slap on fingers or give a flick on the forehead. This kind of actions are defined as incidents of "mild abuse" and they go to statistics as such. Before the "spankin ban" no-one was ever sued for slapping on the fingers of a child, but now it can happen. So,"mild abuse" which went by unnoticed before is registered today as abuse, and of course it makes the things to look like child abuse has increased. In reality, I believe parents are not slapping on fingers or pulling hair more than before but rather less.

In my country, parents who has been flicking a child on forehead have been found guilty of "mild abuse" and they have been condemned to fines. If someone of the health care or education suspects a child has been "mildly abused", he/she must notify the social care system. In cases like that, parents are usually subjected to compulsory family therapy or at least to some consultation sessions. Of course things like this show in statstics somehow.

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

DD & I are about halfway through the article now. She's 12 (almost 13) and thrilled that she can refute their arguments by calling out their logical fallacies. Anyone else notice how violent their name-calling is? They describe anti-spanking folks as:

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

I did notice that. I also noticed that they claim people who don't believe in spanking as having a liberal agenda that includes a lot of things that I and other non spankers I know are completely against. I found the abortion one particularly distasteful.

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

I'd love to see her final essay :).

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

I would love to see your daughter's final essay, too. I love seeing preteen and teenage essays, they are so often intelligent and insightful. They are often the real chicken soup for the soul.

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

:yes I would too!

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

Gross. I can't finish it either. I tried.

Following along here tho. :popcorn

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

Me too. Please let us see it! I just got home to my computer. For some reason all day yesterday, my phone had a problem and didn't show me any posts at all. I was super surprised to see all the comments. I had posted a couple times thinking no one else had commented yet. :giggle
It is a sad topic, but super encouraging to see all the responses from some very wise ladies. :yes I feel much better because the article had me rather down and disgusted.

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

I read it and can sum it up by saying the man is off his rocker.

---------- Post added at 09:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 PM ----------

The biggest problem with this article is that there is just enough truth to it to throw you. If you do not know the truth but are searching for it, then you can easily get sucked into NGJ and it's teachings. Every word they write has scripture to back it so it looks like it is Godly. It is not until you start reading the entire verse for context that you see where you are being deceived. And let's be honest here, most people are not going to do that. Yes we are supposed to test the spirits, but if you have several little kids you don't have time to read each and every verse they quote. You see this happy couple that seems to have raised five happy children who have lives and families of their own and are still close each other. If you lean to the crunchy end of things and found a crunchier family that seems to be like minded, I doubt you are going to do a lot of looking since they look like you.

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

I found the study quoted. It does not say what he thinks it says.
http://www. berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2001/08/24_spank.html
Take the spaces out.
It's from 2001. 100 families who spank moderately. Specifically excludes frequent spanking. Does not include spanking with any objects. Only followed the families unto the children were 14 years old which in my opinion is the weakest point of all.

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

OK, interesting! Thanks!
I took a look. The web page is the official Press Release about the study. It gives the main points of the study in order to inform the public about it. The study itself may also be somewhere on-line, but it is probably very dry stuff, difficult to read, with lot of numbers and other difficult stuff. A press release tells the main points in a condensed way and in a language that opens up for everyone.

The study was a longitudinal study on about 100 families during 10 years. The families were tested and interviewed three times; the first time when the children were preschoolers (about 4yo, a long time after the Pearlian Proper Glue-Stick Age) and the last time when they were about 14yo.

This passage here was a very revealing point about the selection of the families and the researcher's definition on moderate or "normative" spanking, I will quote it directly and outline some things in boldface:

Begin quote:
"A small minority of parents - - - used physical punishment often and with some intensity. - - - Hitting occurred frequently, but it was the intensity that really identified this group, said Baumrind.
She said intensity was rated high if the parent said he or she used a paddle or other instrument to strike the child, or hit on the face or torso, or lifted to throw or shake the child.
This group of parents, identified in the "red zone" for "stop" was removed from the sample at the first stage of analysis.”
End quote.

So...all parents that implemented spanking according to Suzannah Wessley-style, Larry Christenson -style, Dobson-style, Fugate-stlye, Tedd Tripp -style, Pearl style...were considered "red zone" and were excluded from the final sample. It was already considered obvious and proven that "red zone style" was harmful, and the study did not focus on it's effects. The researchers were more interested in how an occasional, non-frequent and non-intense slap with an open hand on the buttocks or something like that affected the children. Why even to call it spanking at all?


So...even the study claims to be on the effect of spanking, it is actually about something else. It is about some type of corporal punishment, yes. But when we hear the word "spanking", most of us associate it with belts, paddles, the ridiculous proverbial "board of education", tree twigs, wooden spoons and other implements. And the study was not about them.

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

Oh, that is huge!

Sent by Tapatalk from my phone

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

Between the age of the study and the study it's self, I am not sure how he thought he could pull of citing it. I don't think he is a dishonest man, just delusional. But this is a bit of a stretch even for him.

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

I'm about halfway through it and he's just so delusional. (like how he puts himself in the moderate spanker category :hunh )

It's enough of a crazy rant that I'm hoping it turns away more people than it attracts.

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

I just read the link. The research was definitely not in tune with the Pearlian philosophy at all. Even the red zone was completely done with children above 4 years of age. The Pearl's have stated that they spanked their children between 2-300 times BEFORE the age of 2 year old. Their daughter stated that she remembers only one spanking in her entire life at the age of 14. That means hundreds of spankings were administered before she was old enough to remember them. Not only can I not imagine spanking my child that young, I think it would be hard to do a study on children with Pearlian style of spanking because there would be a serious amount of abuse issues with the age the spanking was taking place. I would like to see the Pearl's followers all sign up for their babies to be monitored though. I can't see how that much spanking as a baby couldn't show some sort of result and I am confident it wouldn't be good.

Furthermore, I am more interested in a person's life and state of health in their 20s instead of in their teens. I think a research would be much more thorough and realistic. I was spanked and raised in a very strict Tripp, VF home and my "issues" didn't "show up" or rather I was VERY good at covering them until my 20s.

Those who support spanking might like his article, but any person who has a hope of a grace filled life will be turned off by the comments thrown in that are totally off topic and distasteful.

I can see the reason some like him and find the teaching even refreshing at first. :jawdrop I came from a home which ran high on guilt trips and emotional/spiritual manipulation in the spiritual and disciplinary tool box. When I first got pregnant, I read a few of his articles and he talked about spanking calmly and all the small taps helping an infant never reach that stage of rebellion and needing to be punished older. He had a very "detached" and non-emotional way of describing discipline. While I didn't like most of his ministry, I felt relieved there was a WAY to train a child without the horrible methods I grew up with. Spanking was something I had never even realized didn't have to happen.I was dreaded parenting to be honest because I didn't know how outside of the horrible experience I had had. So, at first, I was super excited about a child approach without the manipulation I had felt growing up. After reading Pearl, I had concluded I was damaged not because of the frequent spanking but because of the emotional manipulation that went with it. After all, Pearl is very specific about being non-emotional when spanking. Then, my baby was born and at 4 or 5 months I gave him a little swat and the most horrible feeling in the world came over me. I was horrified. I felt like I had just abused my child! I thought I had found the perfect solution to keep my children from being the battered soul I was and I hadn't. I was still breaking free from the abusive past I had and by the time my child was born I was in a different place and ready for more grace than I had ever known. I went searching for something more gracious. I found a couple articles online and then I found gcm. I am so glad I did! From there for almost three years, I have found more grace and hope than ever.

Maybe that's why I worry so much about his ministry. I realize just how a desperate mom might cling to it as a "better" choice than what she knows already.

Re: NGJ New Addition to To Train Up a Child
 

NGJ worries me, too. I freely admit that if I had not found GCM first, I would have most likely gotten caught in their net. They sound so loving and kind at first. They are so into natural/crunchy things and explain why it is best for your baby. They are close to their grown children (I always look at the relationship gurus have with their children before taking advice). They even make spanking sound gentle and loving. Not like it is the best bad option, but the kindest and gentlest. That is no small feat. It is actually very impressive if you think about it.
Like you, I was new mother searching for something better than what I had. I had no idea what I wanted to do, only what I wanted to avoid. I knew that I did not want to spank or cio, but would do whatever had to be done. TTUAC would have been dangerous for me. I am the product of abuse and wanted better for my baby. So I would have done whatever they said because I did not have a good model.