what would you have done if you saw this in a subway?

[Melchior]

The stairs are carpeted and soft; the situation is controlled, and the baby suffers no physical harm.

The fact that the stairs are carpeted doesn't in any way guarantee that the baby will not be injured, for a variety of reasons involving basic physics and soft skulls. The parents should immediately lose custody, be jailed and ideally be barred from ever reproducing again, being at best dangerous idiots (the mother for doing it, the father for not being there to stop her).

[2] A baby has learned to use her hands and whenever she's held she tries to take off the parent's glasses. So to dissuade the behavior, every time she reaches for glasses she receives a flick on the hand. She quickly learns not to reach for glasses.

[3] A young toddler is just learning to walk. Her mother and father decide it's time to teach her to come when called, so they take her and have her stand by one wall. Dad stands at the other end of the room and calls her to come over to him. If she chooses not to come over to where Dad is, she receives a flick on the hand; then the parent goes back across the room and tries again. If she does come over, then she is rewarded with great praise and perhaps a little bit of candy. If she is confused and doesn't know what is going on, one parent leads her to the other and then she is praised. She quickly learns to come when called.

"Flick" is a disgusting weasel-word and your scenarios are dishonest in supposing that inflicting pain on toddlers is a useful way to make them "learn quickly". The parents act harmfully, long-term, in every single case. There is basically no way, to inflict pain (remember, this is what these people are doing) to a small child safely, even if it wasn't ethically aberrant; if it's unpleasant enough to have any effect on behaviour, it has also carries a risk of causing injury (for example, the hands are very easily hurt).

[Surlethe]

The fact that the stairs are carpeted doesn't in any way guarantee that the baby will not be injured, for a variety of reasons involving basic physics and soft skulls.

That's a fair enough point - but suppose for the sake of discussion that it could be done in a way that the baby is not injured. What's your take then?

"Flick" is a disgusting weasel-word and your scenarios are dishonest in supposing that inflicting pain on toddlers is a useful way to make them "learn quickly".

"Flick" is the best word to describe what I'm talking about: I'm not describing taking a paddle to a baby's hand.

Anyway, the chief question in my mind when I posted the scenarios was: are the benefits of training toddlers or babies this way outweighed by the short-term or any long-term harm? The benefits are a better-behaved child. The short-term harm is, of course, the pain of the punishment itself. It's quite obviously a "useful" way to train, at least until a child is capable of reasoning. As long as it's not the only method of training, unless it is outweighed by long-term harm that utility is, to my mind, positive. So, what is the long-term harm? Which brings me to this next quote ...

The parents act harmfully, long-term, in every single case.

Evidence?

There is basically no way, to inflict pain (remember, this is what these people are doing) to a small child safely, even if it wasn't ethically aberrant; if it's unpleasant enough to have any effect on behaviour, it has also carries a risk of causing injury (for example, the hands are very easily hurt).

Again, evidence? I was under the impression that babies and toddlers are physically quite resilient - what do you think will happen, a flick (inflicting pain) will leave a bruise or break a bone or something?

[Melchior]

That's a fair enough point - but suppose for the sake of discussion that it could be done in a way that the baby is not injured. What's your take then?

There is no safe way to fall down stairs. Your scenario has no contact with reality and, as such, no relevance. If the experience is not very unpleasant (and, so, dangerous) it won't work to dissuade repetitions. There is no magical sweet spot were being made to fall down a ramp of stairs isn't dangerous but teaches you about avoiding falling down ramps of stairs.

"Flick" is the best word to describe what I'm talking about: I'm not describing taking a paddle to a baby's hand.

You're describing hitting the hand hard enough to cause significant pain.

Anyway, the chief question in my mind when I posted the scenarios was: are the benefits of training toddlers or babies this way outweighed by the short-term or any long-term harm? The benefits are a better-behaved child. The short-term harm is, of course, the pain of the punishment itself. It's quite obviously a "useful" way to train, at least until a child is capable of reasoning. As long as it's not the only method of training, unless it is outweighed by long-term harm that utility is, to my mind, positive. So, what is the long-term harm?

The benefits are debatable. For example, using his hands to explore and manipulate the world is important for the cognitive development of a baby; dissuading this with physical discipline could lead to problems in that area in exchange for minor personal convenience for the parents, whom should just deal with it, since nobody forced them to procreate at gunpoint. Moreover, it doesn't even work.

Evidence?

Here, but there are a lot of other studies: Parenting online and lay literature on infant spanking: information readily available to parents.

Professional consensus exists against the spanking of infants based on the risk of escalation and injury. Moreover, infants are unable to recognize connections between their behavior and punishment and to modify their behavior in response.

Before the inevitable nitpick, "spanking" is used in the sense of "physical discipline" and, anyway, hitting the hands is worse.

Again, evidence? I was under the impression that babies and toddlers are physically quite resilient - what do you think will happen, a flick (inflicting pain) will leave a bruise or break a bone or something?

Physically resilient? Where did you get that idea from? Their "bones", especially in the most articulated and thus frail areas, are still mostly made of hyaline cartilage, which isn't noted for its mechanical strenght. Also, their fat deposits and muscle mass are not adequate in shielding internal areas against trauma. It's much easier, for example, for a given blunt trauma to cause internal bleeding in small children than in adults.

[loomer]

I'm pretty sure by flick he meant, you know, an actual flick. Where you get your finger and hold it against your thumb, build up some force, and then release. It's uncomfortable and a very clear indicator of 'no', not something with significant chance of injury or even pain.

[Surlethe]

That's a fair enough point - but suppose for the sake of discussion that it could be done in a way that the baby is not injured. What's your take then?

There is no safe way to fall down stairs. Your scenario has no contact with reality and, as such, no relevance. If the experience is not very unpleasant (and, so, dangerous) it won't work to dissuade repetitions. There is no magical sweet spot were being made to fall down a ramp of stairs isn't dangerous but teaches you about avoiding falling down ramps of stairs.

Hmm. If the mother has her hands on the baby at all times, protecting the head? I guess the point is for surprise and shock to teach the baby, not the actual pain.

"Flick" is the best word to describe what I'm talking about: I'm not describing taking a paddle to a baby's hand.

You're describing hitting the hand hard enough to cause significant pain.

No I'm not. Flick the back of your hand. That's not "significant pain". Edit: Loomer has the right of it.

Anyway, the chief question in my mind when I posted the scenarios was: are the benefits of training toddlers or babies this way outweighed by the short-term or any long-term harm? The benefits are a better-behaved child. The short-term harm is, of course, the pain of the punishment itself. It's quite obviously a "useful" way to train, at least until a child is capable of reasoning. As long as it's not the only method of training, unless it is outweighed by long-term harm that utility is, to my mind, positive. So, what is the long-term harm?

The benefits are debatable. For example, using his hands to explore and manipulate the world is important for the cognitive development of a baby; dissuading this with physical discipline could lead to problems in that area in exchange for minor personal convenience for the parents, whom should just deal with it, since nobody forced them to procreate at gunpoint. Moreover, it doesn't even work.

It's not using the hands at all, it's using them to grab mommy's glasses. Why would the baby make an association between all exploration and punishment when it's only applied in one area?

Evidence?

Here, but there are a lot of other studies: Parenting online and lay literature on infant spanking: information readily available to parents.

Professional consensus exists against the spanking of infants based on the risk of escalation and injury. Moreover, infants are unable to recognize connections between their behavior and punishment and to modify their behavior in response.

Where is the risk of escalation and injury present in this scenario? And I'd like to read the article to see their justification for infants being unable to recognize connections between behavior and punishment - the scenarios I posed describe instant feedback, which babies by six months surely must understand as it forms the basis of exploration and play, so without more evidence, I'm skeptical that babies of age to be thus disciplined do not recognize the connection between their actions and the sensations that result.

Before the inevitable nitpick, "spanking" is used in the sense of "physical discipline" and, anyway, hitting the hands is worse.

I wasn't going there. Anyway, why is hitting (or flicking, or spanking, or whatever) the hands worse?

Again, evidence? I was under the impression that babies and toddlers are physically quite resilient - what do you think will happen, a flick (inflicting pain) will leave a bruise or break a bone or something?

Physically resilient? Where did you get that idea from? Their "bones", especially in the most articulated and thus frail areas, are still mostly made of hyaline cartilage, which isn't noted for its mechanical strenght. Also, their fat deposits and muscle mass are not adequate in shielding internal areas against trauma. It's much easier, for example, for a given blunt trauma to cause internal bleeding in small children than in adults.

A couple of sources: baby's bones are pliant and flexible enough that they don't break easily. In any case, it's a good thing I'm not talking about anything that can cause significant pain (except for perhaps the fall), let alone blunt trauma.

[loomer]

Well, specifically hitting the hands is bad because the bones there are fairly fragile and have little muscle/fat protection, so they can fracture or bruise easily - I've had a bruised bone for my thumb, located at the base of my palm, just from stopping a fall with that hand. Flicking, though, lacks such forces.

[Melchior]

Hmm. If the mother has her hands on the baby at all times, protecting the head? I guess the point is for surprise and shock to teach the baby, not the actual pain.

It's still dangerous. Actually, it's textbook child abuse.

No I'm not. Flick the back of your hand. That's not "significant pain". Edit: Loomer has the right of it.

If it's not significant, how can it work, even short-term?

It's not using the hands at all, it's using them to grab mommy's glasses. Why would the baby make an association between all exploration and punishment when it's only applied in one area?

Because the baby is not very good at recognizing cause and effect.

Where is the risk of escalation and injury present in this scenario? And I'd like to read the article to see their justification for infants being unable to recognize connections between behavior and punishment - the scenarios I posed describe instant feedback, which babies by six months surely must understand as it forms the basis of exploration and play, so without more evidence, I'm skeptical that babies of age to be thus disciplined do not recognize the connection between their actions and the sensations that result.

I'll look for more, but, as reported, it's the consensus, there are a lot of studies on the matter (I think that Mr. Wong cited this fact). The risk of escalation is there: parents that employ such method are statistically more likely than parents that do not to be abusive.

A couple of sources: baby's bones are pliant and flexible enough that they don't break easily. In any case, it's a good thing I'm not talking about anything that can cause significant pain (except for perhaps the fall), let alone blunt trauma.

Little children are physically frailer than an adult, even if they can bend more. Are you seriously arguing this point?

[Surlethe]

Hmm. If the mother has her hands on the baby at all times, protecting the head? I guess the point is for surprise and shock to teach the baby, not the actual pain.

It's still dangerous. Actually, it's textbook child abuse.

I'd argue that you're overstating the danger: a mother isn't going to let her child fall uncontrolled, there's no physical harm, and she only has to do it once.

No I'm not. Flick the back of your hand. That's not "significant pain". Edit: Loomer has the right of it.

If it's not significant, how can it work, even short-term?

Are you seriously asking how a disciplinary method that doesn't involve significant pain can work? The point is to take advantage of the combination of surprise, shock, and (not significant) pain to create an impression and modify behavior.

Because the baby is not very good at recognizing cause and effect.

A quick google shows that babies definitely have learned to recognize cause and effect by 7-9 months, another (p. 197) indicated that babies learn basics of cause and effect in 4-7 mo. and understand "no" during that period, and one (this) indicated that babies can recognize basic causes and effects by four months. In fact, being able to use hands at all indicates ability to recognize cause and effect. Especially for an action that results in immediate surprise and pain, the baby should be able to create an association, especially if he understands what "no" means.

Where is the risk of escalation and injury present in this scenario? And I'd like to read the article to see their justification for infants being unable to recognize connections between behavior and punishment - the scenarios I posed describe instant feedback, which babies by six months surely must understand as it forms the basis of exploration and play, so without more evidence, I'm skeptical that babies of age to be thus disciplined do not recognize the connection between their actions and the sensations that result.

I'll look for more, but, as reported, it's the consensus, there are a lot of studies on the matter (I think that Mr. Wong cited this fact). The risk of escalation is there: parents that employ such method are statistically more likely than parents that do not to be abusive.

I'm willing to believe that parents who spank children are statistically more likely to be abusive. However, that does not imply that a specific set of parents employing the "flick-on-the-hand spank" are abusive, or that the parents described in the scenario are at risk of escalating the punishment or causing injury.

A couple of sources: baby's bones are pliant and flexible enough that they don't break easily. In any case, it's a good thing I'm not talking about anything that can cause significant pain (except for perhaps the fall), let alone blunt trauma.

Little children are physically frailer than an adult, even if they can bend more. Are you seriously arguing this point?

I could ask you the same thing: are you seriously arguing that a flick on the back of the hand could leave a bruise, let alone break a bone?

[Melchior]

I'd argue that you're overstating the danger: a mother isn't going to let her child fall uncontrolled, there's no physical harm, and she only has to do it once.

It's a domestic accident (actually, not, it's premeditated) waiting to happen. The mother can fail to protect the children in a variety of ways, and I'm not convinced of the deterrent value.

The point is to take advantage of the combination of surprise, shock, and (not significant) pain to create an impression and modify behavior.

Studies show that this doesn't work. And behold, consequences:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1512 ... d_RVDocSum

Especially for an action that results in immediate surprise and pain, the baby should be able to create an association, especially if he understands what "no" means.

You are misusing your sources. The problem resides in linking the right "action" to the punishment, not in just linking it to something.

I'm willing to believe that parents who spank children are statistically more likely to be abusive. However, that does not imply that a specific set of parents employing the "flick-on-the-hand spank" are abusive, or that the parents described in the scenario are at risk of escalating the punishment or causing injury.

Only because your scenario selectively reports only success.

I could ask you the same thing: are you seriously arguing that a flick on the back of the hand could leave a bruise, let alone break a bone?

I'm arguing that young children that are subject to physical discipline happen to get more injuries that children who are not. Doesn't it seem suspect to you?

[Surlethe]

It's a domestic accident (actually, not, it's premeditated) waiting to happen. The mother can fail to protect the children in a variety of ways, and I'm not convinced of the deterrent value.

You might as well argue that parents shouldn't hold their children in their arms since they might drop them. As far as deterrent value, I can only appeal to my in-laws' experience: they've done this with all of their children, none were hurt in any way, and none ever went near the stairs again until they were old enough to be trained to go up and down them safely. (One of the reasons I posted these scenarios was to hash out in debate whether we'll follow this aspect of my in-laws' parenting; my wife swears by this type of infant spanking, but I'm skeptical.)

The point is to take advantage of the combination of surprise, shock, and (not significant) pain to create an impression and modify behavior.

Studies show that this doesn't work.

Studies such as ... ?

And behold, consequences:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1512 ... d_RVDocSum

Nice. Here is the article itself. A couple of points. First, on p. 3 of the pdf (1322), it points out that the results are strictly correlative. Second, spanking frequency only measures punishment by the mother, and does not take into account any punishment by the father. Third, it only conducts some generic measure of "spanking": punishment like the scenario describes is lumped in with punishment that could indeed cause blunt-force trauma. Fourth, the conclusion of the paper itself advises cautions against its use in precisely the capacity for which you are attempting to employ it.

Especially for an action that results in immediate surprise and pain, the baby should be able to create an association, especially if he understands what "no" means.

You are misusing your sources. The problem resides in linking the right "action" to the punishment, not in just linking it to something.

What other action would the baby link it to?

I'm willing to believe that parents who spank children are statistically more likely to be abusive. However, that does not imply that a specific set of parents employing the "flick-on-the-hand spank" are abusive, or that the parents described in the scenario are at risk of escalating the punishment or causing injury.

Only because your scenario selectively reports only success.

Well, of course; that's the point of posing the scenario: even if this particular form of corporal punishment works as advertised, is it still poor parenting? If it doesn't work and the parents continue to employ it, to the point of escalating to punishments that actually cause significant pain, then obviously they're being poor parents.

I could ask you the same thing: are you seriously arguing that a flick on the back of the hand could leave a bruise, let alone break a bone?

I'm arguing that young children that are subject to physical discipline happen to get more injuries that children who are not. Doesn't it seem suspect to you?

If that's what you've been arguing, you've been entirely sidestepping my point.

[Cairber]

Hmm...Ruby has fallen down the two steps into our living room about four times now. She has not learned This method (however inadvertently it has happened here) does not seem to work. In fact, all my kids have tested the stairs even after falling as babies. Our stairs are designed so that a gate has to be on the third stair up because there's nothing to brace it against until then, so we get a lot of 3 stair falls around here.

[Surlethe]

It should be noted that even at my in-laws', the basement door, which opens to hard wooden stairs, was always kept shut. All the training occurred on the thickly-carpeted first-to-second floor stairs.

Out of curiosity, how old is Ruby? My wife says that as soon as the babies could crawl backward they were taught to go down the stairs, so this sort of thing was just a stopgap between the 7-8 mo. mark and whenever they had enough control to go down the stairs backwards.

[Cairber]

Yeah I think the teaching thing is what we do I guess.

What works for us is to constantly turn the new-crawler so that they go down the stairs feet first on their belly-- kinda teach them how to do it. It's not fool-proof (obviously based on Ruby's fall record) but she's gotten the hang of it well. I feel this is discipline; she has gotten the hang of it and sometimes suffers the natural consequence of tackling the two steps into the living room, but she is learning. I would say she started crawling at 8 months and could do the steps this way pretty well by 11 months and now she is walking and still having to go down that way at 14 months.


ETA
I guess I don't see the benefit of the fake fall thing. It's kind of like if I decided one day "I want to teach you not to go outside in the rain without shoes" and then took the child out and got their feet all wet and made them spend the day in wet socks. But we have had a situation where Valo didn't want to wear his shoes, and I let him go out in his socks; then he hated being in wet socks the whole ride home. I guess I just feel like the second method would be more effective.

[Lusankya]

[2] A baby has learned to use her hands and whenever she's held she tries to take off the parent's glasses. So to dissuade the behavior, every time she reaches for glasses she receives a flick on the hand. She quickly learns not to reach for glasses.

For this one, the important aspect seems to be the fact that the action is repeated and consistent, and not that the baby was flicked. Since you said yourself in a later post that babies learn "No" at about the same time that they learn cause and effect, it seems to me that just moving the hand away and saying "No, they're my glasses" would give the same result as flicking the child, so why not just do that?

[Cairber]

I was just about to post that. I wear glasses and that is what I do; I just move their hand and say no. I have not had a problem. I also use to have long hair and would sometimes have to deal with having the baby on my back in a carrier and he/she pulling on my hair. I would just move their hand and say no and consistency lead to change.

The one on the kid coming when you call; is that something people train their kids to do? I don't know...I think maybe they come when we call because we are the authority figures/their parents and they know to come to us. I don't really remember explicitly teaching this in any way.

But I also wouldn't want my previous post to be misinterpreted when I made that sock comparison. I didn't mean it to come out as if you should let your baby fall down the stairs to learn a lesson/ suffer consequences of their choices naturally; I basically just meant that the lesson learned by a parent putting them in a situation of terror would be different than the lesson learned when they were trying to go down a few steps and slid down wrong. In the same way that my son probably would have been more concentrated on the idea that 'mommy was mean to me'.