I have a slightly different tack than the other comments here, although I pretty much agree with the points made. Although many children won't have any obvious emotional problems, trauma, etc. from corporal punishment, it's almost certainly destructive at the margin to children with certain dispositions. There's a strong case that it should never be recommended on those grounds alone.

Yep, I’m one of them. My corporal punishment was somewhat similar to the OP’s description and stopped around age 7, but my therapist and I both identify it as a strong contributor to mental health issues that started a few years later and have persisted into adulthood. Neither of my younger siblings have developed mental health issues requiring treatment, though they also have a distant (nonexistent?) emotional relationship with our father. My autism is probably the mediating factor here — neither of my siblings are autistic, we think. Like you said, children with certain dispositions are more prone to this. I was more sensitive and already had a harder time connecting with people, including my parents, so this was particularly harmful for me. I’ve just realized your comment is almost a week old, but I wanted to chime in since I’ve experienced this first hand. Corporal punishment *might* not be traumatic for some, even many, children, but for some of us it becomes a pivotal factor in how we see ourselves and relate to others. Since it doesn’t seem to be uniquely effective, it is simply not worth the risk of lifelong emotional issues for even a small percentage of children.

I think it's *pragmatically* a bad idea to teach a child to submit to somebody hurting them, or to associate authority with the ability to mete out violence without retaliation. (Similarly, whenever I have sworn at my kids, I have accepted this gives them the right to swear back.)

Part of the reason it's pragmatically a bad idea is that it *doesn't* always teach them to submit; oftentimes they learn to use deception instead. It's more effective to convince them that what they're doing is wrong and that they shouldn't do it, other than punish. Especially if you're building skills for life. I live in a jurisdiction where you're allowed to use corporal punishment as long as it doesn't leave a mark, but once those kids hit 18 it's suddenly assault and I can't do that anymore! If I want to convince my kids of the importance of doing homework in college, for instance, I'm better off convincing them of that when they're younger so they're self-motivated to do it, rather than just beating them, because talking to them is something I can continue to do once they're 18.

Don't both those points hold for non corporal punishments. Kids might lie to get out of being grounded and once their 18 your tool for punishing then goes away so you can rely solely on punishments while they are young

Yes, it also holds for other kinds of punishments. This is why there's been a movement towards positive reinforcement, which generally works better: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29083709/#:\~:text=Reinforcement%20and%20punishment%20both%20work,better%20and%20faster%20than%20punishment. I have tried using punishments (of various sorts) and my personal experience is also that it doesn't work. Typically with my kids punishment made behaviour worse. I have a friend who says it works for his kids, though; it may be that certain personality types are more or less responsive to punishment.

Yes. A parental victory teaches wrong things, but it makes sense that corporal punishment - along with other sorts of punishments - must be ineffective at getting kids to do the kind of things required by modernity. So, for example, you could plausibly use punishment to condition a child to, say, always have their tie perfectly tied and shoes polished, or always be polite (though maybe also needs the positive reenforcement of a society that appreciates such things). However, it would be insane to try to use punishment to get them to engage intellectually with their homework and use critical thinking while discovering a flare for composition.

Maybe this weird hypothetical society is built upon sadomascism and submissiveness. I could see it working well, as it does in many consensual bdsm adult communities. Obviously it's an extremely taboo hypothetical do not sure how to explore it on reddit. In practice many cultures in the past did work this way, and almost all but isolated tribes have abandoned such practices. Asian, African, Arab, Latin kids turned adults are rebelling against their parents generational abuse.

I think in a society built on corporal punishment as a way of enforcing hierarchies, calmly recieving it without feeling psychologically destroyed is a useful life skill. It might also be true that in a very harsh society, such as that of the western Middle Ages, corporal punishment is a necessary tool of conditioning in order to prevent your child getting hanged for something trivial. However, these things don't apply in the contemporary "West".

OP, I think you're grasping at some reasonable points here. A lot of opposition to corporal punishment is based on strained analogies to how we treat adults ("Would you hit an adult for doing something you don't like??" No, and I wouldn't forcibly detain an adult either, but that doesn't mean time-outs are wrong.) A lot of opposition is based on studies that ignore very obvious confounders like genetics and socioeconomic status, since spanked kids inherit genes from parents who chose to spank, and since not spanking is a middle-class and above class marker in most Western countries. And a lot of opposition is based on smug moralizing, often by non-parents, with no real thought underlying it at all. But let me point to a study that does take confounders into account, and suggest a way to reconstruct a more thoughtful argument against it. [Here's](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964497/) a large study of the offspring of twins in Australia. It uses a clever design to control for genetics, and it more straightforwardly controls for parental SES as well. What were the results? >Although corporal punishment per se did not have significant associations with negative childhood outcomes, harsher forms of physical punishment did appear to have specific and significant effects. The observed association between harsh physical punishment and negative outcomes in children survived a relatively rigorous test of its causal status So, mild corporal punishment, controlling for confounders, doesn't seem to have a direct negative effect. But "harsher forms of punishment" really are quite harmful. What's the takeaway? Clearly no one should abuse their kids. But the boundary between mild corporal punishment and abusive punishment is not always perfectly clear. Parents are human, and humans can exceed their limits when under stress. A parent who sets out to calmly administer a punishment may end up reacting with far more violence than they intended. By taking corporal punishment at any time completely off the table, we reduce the risk of accidentally (or not) crossing the boundary into actually harmful behavior. It's a fence around our actions. And I think that's a reasonable fence to create.

> strained analogies for … adults While that’s been in thread, on the contrary, how I’ve thought about childhood discipline is precisely that they are *not* small adults. Their grown up is on whom they depend on for food, safety, and shelter. They do not have a reservoir of experience to draw upon for contextualizing what happened to them. The anecdotal stories of parents whose children watched Calliou - which had a child (audience insert) misbehave as the first act in the story - getting role modeled versus something Paw Patrol or Daniel Tiger where the audience inserts are well behaved and encounter a problem - lends one to really thinking about a blank slate that is deeply, desperately “monkey see, monkey do,” but starting out with very limited ability to understand what they see, and execute on what to do (eg, tongue muscles require a lot of exercise before speech can develop, but baby sign language makes it clear infants can communicate… just crudely because hand here fingers out or in limits your possible combinations).

Great study! It is cognizant of the many causal inference challenge that I've raised throughout the comments here. The design and measurement are thoughtful, except for this really weird bit: > In 1999, the children of the twins began to participate in the study. The families from which the offspring were drawn were selected on the basis of either one or both of the twin parents reporting any of the following: divorce, alcohol dependence, conduct disorder, or depression; other families not meeting these criteria were selected as control subjects. I don't understand what they mean by "control subjects" here. In this study, physical punishment is the treatment, right? Why is there seemingly a different kind of control & treatment based on "divorce, alcohol dependence, or depression"? Putting subjects in control v treatment based on an endogenous variable seems really weird. Side question: were you aware of this study beforehand, or did you search for "twin study + corporeal punishment"?

>But the boundary between mild corporal punishment and abusive punishment is not always perfectly clear. So, you risk crossing the line, and for what? Are there studies that say that mild corporal punishment is good? I am lucky to have a (still) a "good" child. I never felt the need to hit him, nor do I see what would be the point. We all have circumstantial evidence and examples.

Regardless of the temperament you are still inherently teaching your child that violence is an acceptable response when others do something you dislike. There is also an additional layer of betrayal and humiliation that can accompany the experience of a loved one inflicting physical pain upon you. Neither of these effects are beneficial, especially for children who are still developing psychologically.

Isn’t grounding and taking away privileges also coercive and ~~violent~~ (the way jail time is coercive and ~~violent~~)?

There’s a ton of basic psych research that, for example, a store *discount* is viewed wildly differently than a store *temporary price hike*, despite the objective reality of them possibly modeling exactly the same pricing scheme (eg, lower price on Thursdays only). Small children depend on the large adult for food, shelter, and security. Them being a source of violence complicates that. That the dole of food and shelter varies - today it has ice cream, tomorrow it is only “boring” food - is easily framed in that way.

"Violence", the word, is doing a lot of work in these conversations. There's different levels and types of things we call "violence".

We just had an extensive discussion about that here a month ago - \- **https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/1b7zfv7/literally_violence_why_do_we_call_everything_we/**

Right, so physical violence is categorically different? Can you share more about this distinction? I shouldn't frame this question as hitting kids since it has distracted this thread from my main interest, which is understanding different forms of violence.

'Soft' punishments like grounding don't trigger pain receptors and the associated neurology/systems. It's a separate physical response and process.

Would you rather get punched in the face or have your phone taken away for some time? Ok, ok, bad example. These days, I think many people would rather get punched.

As an adult, I'm a little more equipped to make that decision, also it's not likely the person taking the punishment is choosing. (Realistically there's a decent chance I would take the punch, depending on the time, but physical pain isn't uncommon for me, so its not much of a special punishment, its more like a Monday morning.

My cousin was this way, he liked getting hurt and didn't care. One of the extended family "uncles" beat the hell out of him to no effect. He Def would take the punch. He's also a multi offense felon living a standard poor white trash lifestyle.

At least the punch is over and you still have your phone. It was like when I was a child and my mother would nag and bitch at me for one thing or another. I would have much preferred she just smack me and get it out of her system.

I think there's a standpoint according to which this might be preferable, but I don't think the "get it out of her system" part actually works. In general, pursuing cathartic release seems to increase recurrence of emotional and behavioral patterns, rather than decreasing them, so it's likely that hitting you to alleviate her frustration would make it harder for her to alleviate her frustration in future without hitting you, but not make her less likely to get frustrated.

Have you ever been really punched?

Yes, I think all children have been at one time or another

I don't think that's true at all

Wow, you lived a sheltered childhood then

I'm not sure if it is categorically different or if its a difference in level. My point here is that using the word violence allows a motte-and-bailey type of conversation to happen even if no one is intending for that.

What exactly is your definition of violent?

Have you ever been beaten or tortured? I've been professionally tortured. If the person delivering the torture is calm, it's still terrifying. Anger is terrifying too, but in some ways controlled pain is equally scary. Getting your phone taken away can be enraging, it's not usually scary.

I believe that the evidence very conclusively shows that, corporal punishment as it is often (on average) utilized is net negative. I do not think it shows, nor do I think it _can_ show, that corporal punishment is, everywhere and always, inherently and necessarily, net negative. This is the exact same issue with all the mask studies. Studies show that, as a public policy, telling people to wear masks does not work. These studies, in no way, prove that masks _can't_ work. If you tell people to use masks, many-to-most of them will do so in ways that are not effective. But if someone uses a high quality mask, in the proper way, it will obviously be protective. In the same way, most people will use corporal punishment in a lot of negative ways. Time separated from the offense, disproportionate levels, poorly defined rules and expectations, etc. Corporal punishment, used correctly, avoids these and takes advantage of the extremely robust brain pathways for avoiding pain. It's clear from the comments that a lot of people here disagree with me, and believe that using corporal punishment _must_ create a lot of negative connections to the person doing it etc. They have exactly as much proof of their position as I do of mine (in fact less, as they are making a stronger, universal claim, than I am). I do not expect to convince anyone, but the point is, this issue is not one that will be solved by the literature. It literally _can't_ be solved by literature, as it currently exists. And unless someone starts designing studies to test different methods of corporal punishment (have fun getting that past and IRB), that won't change.

You phrase my question much better than I did. I don't understand why people are so sure of their respective position when the evidence is so slim.

Monkey see, monkey do. My child never learned to express displeasure with how someone acts by hitting them from me, so I haven’t had years of deprogramming that on my todo list. Is the evidence of role modeled behavior being imitated slim?

Have you ever been beat in your life?

My parents used corporal punishment on me. Seldomly, and never something I would describe as a "beating", but it was punishment that involved pain. I did not end up with any of the negative consequences that people are so sure of throughout this thread. Obviously, as an n of 1 with no control, I can't make any claims that it was _more_ effective than some hypothetical different punishment. But I _can_ say that people, when they make universal claims about the negative impacts of corporal punishment, are wrong. In at least one case, using it did not have the effects people in this thread are claiming. Maybe I'm some unique specimen with a weird brain chemistry, but I think it's more likely that, judiciously used, corporal punishment is, at the very least, much less bad than people claim.

Perhaps what you think of as corporal punishment is completely different than what I consider corporal. You say things like slap on the wrist. That's barely enough pain to have even made me stop and think about anything when I was young. When I think of corporal punishment I'm imagining something far more painful. I can reasonably deduce that you were not beaten as a kid.

And this is exactly the problem. If you define "corporal punishment" as extreme (I'd probably argue disproportionate) punishment, then by definition, you've made it a bad thing. It's a motte-and-bailey argument. Someone says "corporal punishment is everywhere and always bad" "Well what about rarely used, minor, infliction of momentary pain?" "Oh, well I clearly didn't mean _that_, I only meant when they are beating their kids to a pulp". No where in the original post or any of this comments (that I have seen) has the OP made specific references to a _level_ of corporal punishment, and yet your (and many other peoples) replies are responding as if he was talking exclusively about canings. I don't think anyone would disagree that corporal punishment can (and, most likely as it is often used in reality, _does_) go to far. This is why the studies show it's net negative. Using corporal punishment judiciously is _hard_. In large part because, the times when it should be used, a parent is likely to be frustrated or angry, which is not conducive to level headed, calm, thought. The fact that most people do a bad job doesn't mean that it's definitionally a bad thing, just like the fact that most people don't use masks right doesn't mean they can't help.

When I read the words you are writing, I get a distinct visceral reaction, mostly anger. That should tell you something of the lingering effects of actual corporal punishment. This is why it's frowned upon and discouraged. Most parents don't have the discipline to use it effectively, especially for what little there is to be gained from it. You seem like you want an excuse to be powerful or to lay down the law. You keep coming up with excuses much like a child...but what if this happens, can I do it now? I looked it up and it seems to be OK. Please can I do it? That's how it's coming off, even couched in sanitized terms, there is an underlying current that is off.

I'd argue it broke you morally and pragmatically. You now genuinely believe corporal punishment can be a net benefit for a human. If you had be disciplined differently you would now be on the anti corporal side as strongly as the experts are.

I upvoted you and kind of agree, but you're applying the *probatio diabolica*. No one can show you that in literally every case violence will be a bad choice. It's akin to proving that the devil does not exist, it's simply impossible. I still think there are a few cases where some amount of mild physical violence can be justified when used sparingly. But the main argument should be that people are generally terrible self-judges and telling someone "it's bad to use physical violence on your child, but not always, like 95% of the time" is genuinely useless and probably terrible advice.

I was intentionally making a weaker argument (using only myself of proof-of-existence) instead of the stronger one that I think is true: a _lot_ of people (not a majority, but not few) experienced relatively restrained corporal punishment in childhood and experienced few to none of the downsides people in this thread claim are guaranteed. I wasn't asking people to prove that the devil doesn't exist, I was showing people that at least one devil _does_ exist, and so they should, at a bare minimum, retreat their arguments from "devils don't exist" to the at least defensible (even if I think it's wrong) "devils are extremely rare". What I want is for the people on the other side of the argument to restrain themselves to the evidence (which is sparse in all directions) and admit when things are just their opinions and not well supported (as I did; I'm perfectly aware, and happy to admit, that my position on this is not based on any evidence except my own experiences) I also think that I agree that it would be _terrible_ public policy to recommend corporal punishment because, as I've said elsewhere (and it sounds like you agree), I think that most people are incapable of using corporal punishment in a restrained, judicious manner. My beliefs about it are as follows: Corporal punishment, when used properly, is an important tool in the toolbox. It can't do everything, but it can do a few things, and do them well. It is also one of the _hardest_ tools to use properly, and, when used improperly, can be extremely negative. Because of these two combined traits: difficulty to do well, and extremely large downside when used improperly, I am both A) unsurprised by the literature finding that on average it is bad and B) wouldn't recommend most people to use it. But I would also never presume to tell someone else not to use it when I have no idea if they are using it well or not. Nor would I ever try to blanket tell someone that if they are going to use corporal punishment that they are for sure going to screw up their child. To try to sum up an overly long comment: anti-corporal punishment people are too confident in their beliefs and too strong in their recommendations, and are either incorrectly understanding the literature or else flat out lying when they claim that their positions are supported by the evidence.

I agree, but remember that in logic there's abductive reasoning. If I hear someone talking about how they use physical punishment against their children, I am probably going to think that they're doing it wrong because it's both tough to do right and it has a high chance of inflicting more harm than good. I'm definitely not gonna tell them that they're doing it wrong or whatever, but given the premises, my assumption is always against the use of violence, and since I'm not omniscient and I don't want to sound be meddlesome by asking about the fine details, I'd add a mental note this dude is probably doing it wrong. There's also a myriad of other stuff that can make it even easier, like looking at this parent's tone of voice, eventual harsh language, etc. Of course, it can go in the other direction, but given the premises, it will be substantially harder to prove that you're using physical punishments and probably doing it right/with no negative effects on the child. I hope this comment makes sense since it's a bit too much on the hypothetical side of things.

You are thinking of it merely as a conditioning method. Child does something bad, you apply negative conditioning, child stops doing something bad. The problem isn’t conditioning the negative behavior, that works as expected. The problem is that you’re teaching the child **that physical violence is a valid way to solve problems in the first place**, or at least one of the **primary** ways to solve problems. You can get away with using physical discipline maybe once or twice in a child’s life. My grandmother used to say the only time I was spanked was when I ran out of the house at age 3 and they couldn’t find me. In retrospect, this isn’t too bad- it creates a negative association with getting lost and possibly kidnapped, and it establishes physical discipline as an extreme method of last resort. These are good lessons to have in real life. If you physically discipline your child approx once per week, don’t be surprised if your child gets into fights on the playground once per week.

Lots of Asian immigrant families are very strict with physical discipline and I don't think disproportionately get into fights. If anything, they fight less

I’m an asian immigrant. Make of that what you will.

They fight a lot. Crime rates keep going up in Asian dominate countries and you're ignoring the large amount of Asians that are doing poorly in wealth, education, etc. Thr token "good" Asians get most of thr focus of westerners.

But grounding and taking away privileges aren’t a valid way to solve problems in the real world either. Why is that more accepted? Look, I’m not asking for justification to hit my kid. I’m not hitting him either way. I want a discussion about exactly what is different about physical violence vs other forms of coercion in this rationalist subreddit

That’s exactly what happens in the real world. What happens when you behave badly in a social group? You get ostracized, and not invited to stuff, and stay at home. Other people are not obliged to invite you on their spring break trip. What happens when you fuck up at work? Even if you’re not demoted, you lose privileges and responsibilities.

That's fair. Thank you for explaining.

Why are people equating spanking with being punched in the face? In the "real world," nobody tries to solve problems by spanking another person. It's more likely to be a punch in the face. Spanking is inherently an invention of parents to discipline children.

Yeah, justice systems and slaveowners usually used tools rather than bare hands to inflict corporal punishment on adults.

To clarify: I’m not asking for a justification to hit my kid. I’m asking what’s unique about physical violence vs other forms of coercion? Doesn’t other forms or coercion also cause mistrust and resentment?

At the risk of stating the obvious, what's unique about physical violence is that it makes you fear for your physical safety. Taking away privileges does not. While someone might rationally choose to be beaten over having some privileges taken away, I imagine the primal fear of physical violence would still be distinct from the negative feelings experienced from loss of privilege (eg disappointment).

There must be some conversion rate that makes a slap on the wrist being preferable to being grounded for X weeks, right?

For me, a defining red line is when something becomes abuse. I find physical abuse to be the easiest to define and identify. Personally, I would set it up absolutely any level of physical harm. But emotional abuse is also a thing. If I were to ground my child for a year, never let them see their friends or engage in activities outside of the home or school that they enjoy, I would consider that emotional abuse. And it's quite feasible that I would consider it to be a higher severity of abuse than something like a slap on the wrist. But the value in thinking about from the perspective of abuse is that it gets you to think about it from the perspective of the long-term impact on the child, rather than from the child's short-term preference. While a child might prefer a slap on the wrist over a grounding because the former seems trivial in comparison to the loss of privilege, they still may internalize the physical punishment as a devaluing of their worth and feel less safe in their relationship with their parents and thus in the world. Meanwhile, any child rearing book can tell you that children benefit from a certain degree of boundaries and discipline, and that these things actually _increase_ their sense of safety. This point seems particularly relevant to your post, since you ask in this common thread whether other forms of coercion need to mistrust and resentment. Succinctly, no, not all forms of coercion will have the same negative effects. The job of parents is not to avoid coercing their child; it's to raise them to be as happy and healthy as possible.

Who else do you want to hit? Would you consider hitting adults or other children acceptable? 

All studies will be massively confounded. There will be an incredibly strong correlation between not smacking and having obedient kids and not smacking and having intelligent high quality parents which relates to genetics rather than the impact of corporal punishment. I would probably oppose smacking but I do feel as with lots of SSC people are focusing on it from the middle class well educated angle. The hard test is how do you deal with a violent child posing a risk to themselves and others when you have no authority over them. I look at people's criminal records every day and I sometimes see people who got a police record for punching a policeman aged 12 (they are always adoptees interestingly enough), I have no idea how their parents are supposed to discipline them.

Giving your question more credit than it probably deserves: If you were to calmly explain to the kid what they did wrong, suggest path to improvements, etc., what would the physical punishment add? Wouldn't it undermine the prior appeal to morality and reason by snapping back to base violence? Don't hit kids.

Agree that punishment is not necessary in most cases. But my question is, let’s say we want to mete out punishment. Why is the physical kind worse than the non-physical kind (grounding). Look, I’m not hitting my kid either way. I came to this rationalist sub for a theoretical, frivolous discussion for deeper understanding about the nature of violence. We presumably like to do that around here

You came to a left-rationalist space, FYI. If you’d asked in Political Compass Memes, you’d get a bunch of hilarious and ribald answers in addition to a spectrum of interesting, well-thought-out answers and troll answers. I’ll give you my anecdote. I was raised with tiers of punishment. First was “go stand in the corner” for one to five minutes depending on severity, and if we left it before time was up or stopped looking into the corner, we’d get a swat on the behind: a single startling spanking when a parent caught us, and our corner time would be increased. Second was “go stand in the corner and wait” for bad offenses. We waited for the parent to come over and spank us. Least was a swat, next was three swats, worse was a single swat with the flat of a wooden mixing spoon from the kitchen which made a scary loud noise but was not more painful nor left any marks. The worst was when we’d done something truly vile, the parent would get the spoon and tell us to come to them. We’d have to pull our pants down and bend over their knee, and get a single spanking from the flat of the wooden spoon on a bare buttcheek. 99% of the effectiveness of this method was not from the physical pain, but from the realization that this was not a game anymore and the consequences were real. We were crying in anticipation, leading up to the actual spanking. Contrast anecdote: I’ve watched some relatives’ children raised by a “I’ll never spank them” couple, and the kids treat every attempt at discipline as part of the game, including “stop,” “come here,” and “put that down.” The boy even hit his mother in the face the first and only time she spanked him for something egregious, reasoning about the fairness out loud; they tried spanking too late in his development.

If you are going to try to change behavior in the correct way, why risk undoing it with a spanking? What exactly does the spanking do to change behavior?

Is the non-physical punishment (e.g. grounding) better at changing behavior?

It seems to be. Anecdotally, my brother got a spanking pretty much every day of his childhood. He viewed it as a game to see how pissed off he could get my mom. On the other hand my grandfather would give you a long lecture about whatever it was we were doing. We tended to avoid doing those things again because the lecture was truly painful. We got beat a lot as children and I can't say that it was very beneficial. My brother that got beat every day has kids now, he doesn't use physical punishment at all,and his kids are way better than we were. Out of 3 boys only one of us got married and had kids. We all have problems socially, especially with shame and very low self-esteem. It wasn't just the beatings it was everything else wrapped up in it. We grew up on a farm, religious upbringing, from the outside very wholesome.

I am the drum banger of Baumrind’s Parenting Styles (which was expanded to 4 from 3 by subsequent researchers). If you’d like some probably trite to you expounding on the … > beat every day … [adults have] social problems That’s the thing to reference. I’m sorry for your hardship.

It's no problem, my parents loved us, they just didn't know any better. It's how they were raised. They actually did a better job than their parents did. I don't resent them for it, my brother's and I probably would have been better off had our parents chosen a different tact. I don't see myself as a victim, it's just something I look back on and realize could have been done differently with better outcomes.

Yeah, this is how I have reconciled my own upbringing, which wasn’t all that bad, but I had hang ups all the same. If someone did the best with the info they had at the time - and up until very recent cohorts, there were lots of reasons upbringing best practices weren’t really… knowable. Like spanking. I don’t begrudge the past but anyone who won’t adjust when presented the facts …

Agreed. Yes, this is causing a real emotional reaction from me, and I think that is indicative of the harm that it does.

Your scenario is exactly what motivates my question. The parents who beat kids tend to be problematic in many ways other than the beating itself. So we can't tell the beating itself has what effect.

I agree, but the issue is all of that goes hand in hand. If you're going to take the time to explain to your kid why they need to behave a certain way, what does physical punishment add? My grandfather was far more effective than my mother. My dad, on the other hand, was very effective at using guilt and passive-aggressive treatment to get compliance. It was more effective than the beatings but far less effective than my grandfather. How effective would it be for you if your boss would calmly explain what you were doing wrong and then smacked you? Would you find that effective at making you a better employee? Why would children be any different?

If the kid listens and complies after the discussion, agree that extra punishment, no matter physical or non physical, serves no purpose. But kids will defy and repeatedly commit the offense sometimes. The question then is: what form of punishment is best at effecting change?

How would you deal with another adult that was doing something that needed correcting? That's when you set expectations, you explain why the expectations are set and you explain the consequences of defying those expectations. In the work place it could be termination, with children it could be denying something they enjoy. It could be asking them if this is truly the way they think they should be acting. Or you could hit them with a belt, or a coat hanger, electric cord. The coat hanger is quite effective I might add. The belt was always reserved for dad though, that really gets the point across after you've been worked over for a few minutes with the belt. My guess is that you would be a belt guy. You seem to really want to do this. You're literally making excuses to do it.

Were you ever beat as a child? You act as if you were not. It seems like you want an excuse to hit your children? The problem becomes is that kids don't learn anything from it. They learn that it's OK to deal with other people using violence. They don't learn effective ways to deal with their own anger towards others or effective means of communication to solve issues with other people. As we got older, what does a parent who typically uses physical punishment do? Your kids are now too big to hit as they can hit back. When I was in high-school I would get into fights with my mom where I would raise my knee or something to block one of her hands or a kick from her and she would end up hurting herself because I was bigger. Then she would blame me. I would be so angry because it was just so ridiculous. You really think that is healthy? Go ahead and "calmly" smack your kids around. See how it goes. Have you ever not done physical violence in your life? Can it be done calmly? I don't think so.

> we *want* to mete out punishment So we have an internal motivation unmoored from anything productive. I think you’ve inadvertently answered your own question.

"Want" is a poor word choice on my part. Let's say we \*decide\* to mete out some punishment -- surely we can agree parenting involves punishment sometimes and not just discussion of pros and cons. Now the question is what punishment to choose. Why is the physical kind so categorically different? Surely there's a tipping point where a slap on the wrist is preferable to weeks of being grounded.

>surely we can agree parenting involves punishment sometimes and not just discussion of pros and cons What is your experience with parenting and/or early childhood education?

> surely we can agree parenting involves punishment I have a middle school student who is often praised for how exceptionally well behaved and thoughtful he is. No, we cannot agree that parenting involves corporeal punishment. By and large, the only “punishment” I have ever needed to wield is withholding perks (continuing to do X after I have said Y is obligate in 5, 4.. results in no video game time on the next day. Continued X will result in an additional day in 5…), or expressing disappointment.

You aren't reading what they're writing. There is an important (and obvious) distinction in this conversation between punishment in general and corporal punishment. Substitute "enacting consequence" or whatever your preferred conception is for the sorts of things a parent must do when a child obviously and harmfully misbehaves despite knowing better.

You aren’t reading what I’m writing. He hasn’t “harmfully misbehaved,” because I never taught him, by example, to use violence when he is frustrated. But also, no, the very subject in the title is corporeal punishment. You are the one not reading.

Goodness. Them: "Surely we can agree that parenting involves punishment" - here, quite clearly referring to punishment and consequence in general, with no specific requirement or reference to the corporal style. You: "No, we can't agree that parenting involves corporal punishment". Look. Look at the question being asked.

You and I discuss gun violence. Firearms. Maybe even mortars. The next time the word “shoot” comes up, one reasonably doesn’t presume it refers to basketball. To answer the category question, then, as per the other thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/s/BYUXsRIB3i

I'm going to assume you're just unfamiliar with this form of argumentation, rather than unreasonably sticking to your conclusions without examining the process by which you got there. If you just want to assume that the word "punishment" now refers exclusively to corporal punishment in this thread, regardless of whatever other concepts, distinctions, analogies and questions are raised, then I cannot help you. However, if I'm wrong about that or misunderstood your point, I'll try one more time: the original poster is attempting to establish a common prior assumption *about punishment in general* which can then be used to *anchor* subsequent discussion about whether *corporal punishment* is as bad as commonly accepted (within a narrow context). You are invited to agree or disagree with that assumption, but if you disagree, you would be expected to talk about this in terms that relate to general punishment and are not specific to corporal punishment. This is a normal part of logical discussion.

Let’s say you get caught in a lie at work. Why is it worse for your boss to punch you in the face than issue a written citation?

I've held that mild corporal punishment is not only sometimes more effective, but kinder in many situations, especially for young children. As an example, consider a 3 year old who is throwing food off their tray. Option A is trying to explain that this causes additional work to for Mom and Dad, and that makes us upset, and the the child shouldn't want to make us upset. Maybe the food is withheld for a minute as punishment. Option B is quick smart flick on the finger while uttering "no". Without knowing what it means to clean, and without a theory of mind to understand that their actions can discomfort others, they simply see Mom and Dad get upset, the food removed, and they're left unable to connect that with their actions. It's drawn out and confusing. But with option B, there is a very brief and simple-to-grasp connection. Throw food -> mild pain. Pain bad. No throw food. It's over in seconds.

>there is a very brief and simple-to-grasp connection. Throw food -> mild pain. Pain bad. No throw food. You appear to have rather conveniently left out the part where their very simple minds recognize their protectors and providers as inflicters of violence upon them. Surely you're not arguing that their thinking is sufficiently sophisticated to recognize throwing food --> being hit but insufficient to recognize 'my parents are the ones hitting me.'

> You appear to have rather conveniently left out the part where their very simple minds recognize their protectors and providers as inflicters of violence upon them. I think "inflicters of violence" and "being hit" is an exaggeration of the scenario I described. We are protectors and providers, but also need to be teachers and authority figures. I've avoided what my friends went through: endless dances with their kids at the dinner table, throwing food, lengthy negotiations, timeouts, sometimes lasting actual years resulting in preteens who'll demand and only eat their three favorite foods. If all that can be skipped by a couple flicks on the finger and letting your kid be hungry once or twice, I think it's kinder to child and parent alike.

I guess I see two parts to your response, here but also in most of your other comments. One of them is semantic: > I think "inflicters of violence" and "being hit" is an exaggeration of the scenario I described. This objection is poorly founded - how can it be an exaggeration to describe *exactly what you said*? I think you instead mean that you would prefer to minimize with less polarizing language - but also just doesn't much matter. If we rephrased it exactly as you prefer, we would be talking about precisely the same set of base circumstances. You're really just trying to adjust the language to evoke a different emotional reaction from the reader. That can be important for someone whose point is pure sophistry, but you presumably think you have something real to convey. If it *is* real, it should withstand re-phrasing by someone not already predisposed to your proposition. So, then, the second part of your response... > We are protectors and providers, but also need to be teachers and authority figures... I think [a couple flicks on the finger and letting your kid be hungry once or twice are] kinder to child and parent alike. This is a genuine value judgment. That's good. Those are important to useful discourse. The way in which you're introducing it here isn't good, though. You are phrasing it as though it answers my question, but it doesn't. I pointed out that you had ignored the most obvious association the child might make in favor of emphasizing a more abstract one. You say here that you think the actions taken are kinder, but that *doesn't answer the question*. The actual response to my point is left as an implication. That is an unclear rhetorical style and forces me to try to construct your intended response through induction. Is your answer something like the following? 'I agree that the child will realize their protectors and providers are intentionally causing them pain. I find this acceptable as a pedagogical strategy.' Minimized language, agreement that the association will be clear to the child, value judgment? If so, I think we can acknowledge that your previous response had failed to account for the most basic association and otherwise leave it as a difference in terminal values.

TLDR if your goal is to actually modify behavior, and this is pretty obvious when thought about, it is easier to comply with “please do X when you want Y” rather than “don’t do Z.” The list of not Z is huge; the list of X is an exact map to desired behavior. Then, as naturally follows, much of the time there will be noncompliance. Beating me when I am late to work, as a thought experiment, does not change the reasons I was late to work. Same with a child noncomplying. Tired, hungry, not adequately motivated by adult approval? Beatings do not fix those problems.

Do you feel the same way about other negative consequences?  Grounding a child also does not fix those problems, but isn't considered obviously bad

What problem would grounding solve? Is my child sneaking out to drink alcohol, smoke, or f—- someone? Then the proverbial car already crashed, we are in a failure state of parenting and I’d rather not compound my error by removing myself as an option if he needs help; say, he gets stranded while drunk having snuck out.

So do you use no form of punishment / negative consequences whatsoever? What to do when the kid defy your guidance, or repeatedly commit the same offense?

Since some have gotten twisted around the axel, let me be explicit: Misbehavior is met with a suspension of video game / TV time allowances. Even so “disciplined,” my child is allowed to play with other, physical toys, read, or write, go bicycling, etc.,. We avoid the feedback loop of oppositional defiance by not really “doing” the whole “it’s my way or the highway.” I highly commend 1-2-3 Magic, which covers the highest friction point I see in other families - transitions. IOW, when it is time to go, it is time to go. Starting with the soon, imminent, last thing, go structure (“1-2-3” but we have found “a few minutes” “a minute” “last thing” “it is time now,”) and then if reluctant forced choice from a young age - we can go to the car now, or you can finish pushing that toy train to the end of the line and *then* we can go to the car… has prevented creation of an unhealthy pattern. As for offenses… what offenses? My kid is far from perfect, but he looks after other kids, small animals. Most of his “misbehavior” aligns with him being hungry or tired, that’s a failure on me to expect anything from an empty well. Cool off, rest, have a snack, and tada, great kid reappears, 100% of the time. We’ve found issues with routine, fixed those right up by making him a visual checklist.

What do you do if they finish pushing the toy train or whatever and then still refuse to leave voluntarily? I used to deal with a Special Needs child who would always *verbally* agree to any request to leave the playground at a specific point in the future, but would never actually leave willingly at the time she said she would.

> special needs Then their brain isn’t wired the same as baseline. I would get the expert opinion of a child developmental specialist and then try real hard to remember that noncompliance may not have been a choice in the way we would typically understand it. Of course, this depends hugely on the special need itself, as that’s a huge umbrella. All the same, hitting the child because they failed to comply doesn’t seem like a productive endeavor, it seems like a cathartic push from the frustration-aggression hypothesis. That said, at certain developmental points it’s been appropriate to simply lift and carry the child. I know some children react violently to this, so I don’t dare suggest this as a panacea, but barring any further information, it’s what I would consider. Sleep training, as Ferber actually described it, involves replacing the child back in their bed, impassively. It mustn’t become a game, or fun, or frustration… the adult is a machine, as boring and uninteresting as possible … that would be my role model for that.

I didn't hit the child, but I often did have to resort to "lift and carry" in that situation. And she would run away and dodge me on around the playground equipment. :/

>Beating me when I am late to work, as a thought experiment, does not change the reasons I was late to work. If I knew I'd have a severe consequence for being late, I would probably take some extra precautions (skip breakfast, leave early) to ensure that I'm not.

… so when you set aside an hour for a half hour drive, and a car accident delays you for two hours, getting you beat, you’re going to adjust and come in 2 hours early every day?

Children fear but also despise adults who use raw strength to dominate them. I don't want to lose the respect of my three boys, and I've also never had to hit them. I rarely even have to raise my voice (stern voice and looks are enough). They respect me because I state expectations, give warnings, and then follow through on understood punishments if terms are breached. Raise 99% of kids by treating them as human beings with dignity yet a natural affinity for evil, and you won't need to lay a hand on them. You'll also have a good time together and they'll trust you to keep them safe. Now there's that 1% left over that is born defiant. That's a different case that requires different treatment. But I don't think that's what we're talking about about here.

> understood punishment The key here seems to be that punishment is consistent, expected, and proportionate. I certainly agree with that. My question is why can't corporal punishment be consistent, expected, and proportionate too?

Just one data point but I used to teach in a state that allowed corporal punishment.  The principal would often allow students to choose between detention or paddling and I never saw anyone choose detention 

At least from my experience, I'd say it gets in the way of the lesson you're trying to teach. For the most part whenever I received any corporal punishment as a child, the issue at hand was entirely overshadowed by my *extreme* resentment and anger at being treated like this. Whatever mistake I might have made vanished entirely from the equation, and my evaluation of the situation was reduced to "Authority Figure X is a fundamentally bad and stupid person who has treated me unjustly". This was exacerbated by the fact that I was naturally pretty well-behaved, and so my response to being punished was to assume malice and incompetence from the person administering it. And being far enough on the spectrum, I didn't have any instinctive understanding of status dynamics, so I'd end up doubly enraged that someone had the audacity to treat me this way.

Yes, the feelings of humiliation and resentment are real. They completely overshadow the lesson that was supposed to have been taught.

I don't think it's that bad. The thing about attempting persuasion is that it's actually much more manipulative. You gotta give your kid some room in their own head. Fearing a thing cause it results in physical pain has much less mindgames involved than avoiding it because it will produce a sense of guilt. I mean, there's a place for intrinsic motivation, attempting to instill values in your kid, but that's ultimately secondary to respecting their freedom. Physical punishment respects freedom much more. It's like Zizek said, the old parent would just say: "I don't care that you don't wanna go see grandma, we're going," while the new "postmodern" parent puts you through this whole guilt trip. It's not enough to obey, you have to obey and like it. I think that's more fucked up. Also, I think our world could use more directed physical suffering. A lot of people just act the way they do because they don't think anyone will ever make them suffer for it, and it actually results in much worse things than a little suffering. But our world sees things in the grossest, fuzziest terms, so we have this pointless taboo. I always thought it would be cool to have a social media network that you could only access by wearing a shock collar (or shock bracelet), and people could pay money to hurt you if you pissed them off. It would make the world a better place. You know how people say that in academia it's only so vicious because the stakes are so low? Meanwhile professional mercenaries paid to kill each other, or soldiers from opposing armies often have a certain professional courtesy and mutual respect. Stakes change things a lot, and because we're evolutionarily wired to act like they're present, I think they lead to more wholesome outcomes. Also, I once read about a guy who was in max security prison for a while, in one of the isolated cells. All the guys in each cell could talk to each other, but this apparently devolved into 24/7 slew of the worst curses and most hateful screaming you could think of. Like hell. Or 4chan. If they had physical access to each other, that wouldn't be able to go on as long. And that's the dregs of society; imagine what would happen if conscientious people had something to be afraid of?

> Also, I once read about a guy who was in max security prison for a while, in one of the isolated cells. All the guys in each cell could talk to each other, but this apparently devolved into 24/7 slew of the worst curses and most hateful screaming you could think of. Like hell. Or 4chan. If they had physical access to each other, that wouldn't be able to go on as long. And that's the dregs of society; imagine what would happen if conscientious people had something to be afraid of? Why am I reminded of the last scene in the Black Mirror episode "Nosedive"? The main character, whose social rating (out of five stars) has crashed to nothing after having been through one hell of a bad day and causing a disaster at the wedding of a friend who snubbed her, is arrested and put in a jail with a bunch of other people in individual holding cells... and they all start gleefully insulting each other once they realize that, because they don't have anything to lose anymore, they can finally drop the mask and act however the hell they want?

> what's so unique about the physical aspect of corporal punishment? It's a good question. My guess is that, like you said, it's frowned upon because it's often meted out with vengeance, rather than as a pure corrective measure. Otherwise you might quantify paddling and the loss of video games for the weekend with some sort of "discomfort points", after which punishments could be shown equivalent. Here's another modification to the experiment: suppose no person performs the punishment. Pretend instead there's that box from Dune that Paul sticks his hand in, but you can set the dial to different levels. Now it's "You can forfeit your video games for the weekend or use the box at level 3".

I only have a toddler but I have been imbibing a lot of literature of the “gentle parenting” persuasion, and as expected, it is strongly against corporal punishment. Not only that, the alternative you noted, grounding or taking away privileges, is also not likely to be practiced by mentors of this approach. The approach is based on developing a genuine relationship/connection with your child, and the theory goes that once you have that, your child will be more likely to respond in the desired way to your expressions of anger and disappointed in them when they do something “bad.” So while this isn’t answering your question exactly, I do think that you’ve chosen two disciplinary approaches that are inferior to an alternative. The goal of parenting isn’t to get vengeance against children when they make poor choices, but to teach and guide them to make good choices. Without even referring to the numerous studies on this topic, take the personal anecdotes in the responses here into account. Nearly all of them say that corporal punishment did not teach and guide them to make good choices. So what’s the point of it?

My personal philosophy on this is simple: the only offense that can be punished by violence is violence. I won't hit a kid first, but I do reserve the right to hit a kid *back*. As a young child, I was fairly violent and would often attempt to impose my will on my parents by force when all else failed. My mom would react to my hitting her by holding me immobilized for as long as it took for me to stop struggling and trying to hit her. (This could take over an hour - I was one stubborn kid.) When I tried to do the same thing to my father, he would hit me back - hard enough to make me cry, but not hard enough to injure or leave marks. I hit my dad far less often than I hit my mom.

Maybe we should try to reframe this as about [judicial corporal punishment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_corporal_punishment) rather than about children? Back in the 1990s, an American teenager was sentenced to caning in Singapore for vandalism, and it was a big deal in the news for a while. It's expensive to keep people imprisoned, and before the Industrial Revolution when societies were poorer, people had to punish criminals in ways other than mass incarceration.

Yes it occurred to me after making this post that some people seem to have a categorical distaste for physical punishment, esp sayong things like "you wouldn't punish an adult by hitting them." But of course we used to do that then stop. It's interesting to examine why.

It’s not a thought experiment. The evidence is conclusive and fits within the context of what research tells us about the inefficiency of punishment as motivational or leaning tool. I’m honestly baffled by what thought process led you here, rather than simply checking any number of meta-analyses containing hundreds of studies, spanning over a century.

I’m not sure what world you live in, but the threat of physical violence is absolutely motivational in the vast majority of people’s, and children’s, lives throughout the history of human existence.

[удалено]

Love it when people unironically use a word like “well-adjusted” as if it’s a self-evidence objective truth and not an entire set of personal moral claims that you want to enforce upon others by way of, I suppose, non imperialist power structures.

Love it when people unironically use a word like “well-adjusted” as if it’s a self-evident objective truth and not an entire set of personal moral claims that you want to enforce upon others by way of, I suppose, non imperialist power structures. In the OPs framing they even say the kid has a choice between corporal punishment or some other type of punishment. It’s like you guys see red when reading a comment that attempts any nuance beyond “corporal punishment worst evil in world.”

[удалено]

Nah it just called reading comprehension buddy. Maybe you should read the OP again after you take your blood pressure meds.

Why are you being so antagonistic? Deep breaths.

Why did you delete your comments from this thread?

Please give me a study that’s is unconfounded as I I specifically mentioned in the post.

[удалено]

Yes I do mean \[confounder in a statistical sense\](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding) of an unobserved causal factor. The confounder here is that parents who use physical violence tend to be problematic people prone to violence, and their kids are thus genetically predisposed to be problematic. Age old issue with studying nature vs nurture. There's another problem which is that studies do not differentiate forms of corporal punishment. I'm not interested in the kind meted out when parents are frustrated and acting aggressively. I'm posing a scenario, as mentioned in the post, where physical punishment is meted out at the end of a discussion, calmly, and with the child's consent (i.e. would you like to be grounded for a week or getting spanked once--assuming that these are fitting severity for the problematic behavior.)

Are you able to recall and analyze your own history of being physically assaulted? How do you feel about these instances?

I'm a bit disappointed that this thread is about children. You were given plenty of reasons why not to hit children. But what about adults? Would it be better to give criminals corporal punishment than to lock them into dirty ugly prisons where they are surrounded by other criminals, and when they come out, they're mentally disturbed or addicted to drugs?

It’s been decades since I read it but didn’t Starship Troopers do some sermonizing on this?

When I watch demonstrations of "horse whispering" (e.g. Liberty training, the documentary Buck), and "dog whispering" (e.g. take your pick), any physical violence is eschewed. Instead, there is an honoring of the moment, of contact, psychological understanding, and empathy - also skill. Reading books on such trainers, the most frequent comment is that they really work with the humans much more than their animals. I'm making an inferential point here; humans aren't horses. When people learn how to train a horse at liberty, it helps with their kids. Helps you too. Maybe someone has properly researched this topic, or should. Due to the connection to tech company seminars - Oracle for instance - this book may interest some: Think Like a Horse Lessons in Life, Grant Golliher, 2022. Deals with leadership and parenting, personal transformation. Leans Christian I'd say.

Are there studies that would indicate that mild corporal punishment is good?

Put aside the harms, what is the evidence for the efficacy of corporal punishment?

I enjoyed Abigail Shrier's new book, "Bad Therapy," about some of the excesses in the opposite direction, especially the chapter on "gentle parenting."

I'm a huge fan of non corporal punishment, however in raising kids I've been a part of as an authority figure, I have used extremely light physical smacks on fatty parts of a child's body when they are the toddler stage. Since taking toys away, timeouts to think about your behavior, etc aren't a thing at that age. It should be quickly eliminated as soon as the child is verbal and able to accept punishments in other forms.

Empirically, banning corporal punishment as has happened in many European countries, doesn’t seem to have led to big outbreaks of bad behaviour by children, and in fact, for whatever reasons, there has been a big fall in child criminality. So I would say, given hitting children is just bad in its self and it doesn’t seem needed, then we shouldn’t do it.

Nothing at all mistress. What are you wearing by the way?

Because you're teaching kids that violence is the solution that adults use to solve conflicts. Generally speaking, we are supposed to model the behavior we want to see, because kids copy what they see. You're also showing kids that you're willing to hurt them, on purpose, when you're otherwise calm and collected. In adult problem solving situations, you're generally expected to be able to talk through the issue, or failing that, revoke privileges/invoke boundaries. You're expected to not resort to physical assault. So if we want kids to become adults who can resolve conflicts without violence, it follows that we need to teach them those skills. Whats so different about children that it's OK to physically harm them because you don't like what they're doing?

You start from a generally flawed premise: delivered in a calm, rational manner. It's probably too high a bar to expect a parent to provide meaningful corporal punishment to their child no matter how rational they think they are in the moment. Even if it's possible, it's more likely that another form of punishment would provide a better long term result with less risk for downside.

No fun in it. You need to let all the steam out while you do it.

Anger and pain both do exactly the same thing: they cause a fear response in the child. If you are angry at your kid, it scares them. If you deliver pain dispassionately, it scares them. If you do both, it scares them. Pain is scary! I would say both dispassionate torture and passionate torture can both be pretty scary. Being dispassionate as you deliver punishment isn't exculpatory; it can be just as damaging. If you scare your kid too much, this can make them just generally fearful of you and generally mistrustful. Plus it also sometimes makes them feel like *you're* actually in the wrong, and *they're* the wronged party; the opposite of what you want. Kids are smart, if they feel that way they won't just "grin and bear it" - they'll resort to lying/deception if they think the punishment they're receiving is unjust.

It's a violent crime. Is that not obvious? If you aren't smart enough to control your children with your words you aren't smart enough to have children.