Let's face it, there are adults out there who you can't get through to without a little force.
Yet even those adults are protected by battery laws, the same laws that specially exempt parents who hit children who are even less able to defend themselves.
If anything I've said is factually incorrect please show me the evidence that it is so that I can correct my facts.
If what I'm saying is factually true but makes you feel uncomfortable, angry or frightened that's something you should discuss with your therapist because it's your issue, not mine.
What, are you saying that sociopathy is environmentally-caused and not genetic? Sure, I'd like to see anything about that.
There are genetic factors that make a child less resilient to mistreatment but the mistreatment is necessary to form a sociopath. That can be demonstrated with twin studies.
However, I've seen too many examples of kids where a family has 2 or 3 kids or more, all of them grow up to be nice, well-adjusted people, but one is a big fuck-up.
I've seen many examples of people who call themselves and/or outwardly appear to be "nice and well-adjusted" who don't appear to be nearly as healthy upon closer examination.
Did you look into what those are or just dismiss an entire body of interdisciplinary research because you don't like anthropology?
I'm saying that because I haven't seen evidence that the field of anthropology is particularly diligent about correcting errors as soon as they are discovered it raises the bar in terms of the burden of proof for what I will consider credible.
Since you brought up credentials instead of empirical evidence I have to say that being an anthropologist lowers your credibility in my view. I've seen to many examples of famous anthropologists such as Margaret Mead blatantly distorting data on child abuse in order to make it fit into preconceived notions of cultural relativism to take anything from the field at face value without substantial supporting evidence.
Further the relationship between the principals is very different (caregiver/child v. interrogator/prisoner) and the direct connection between behavior-result is different (clear and limited v. random and continuous).
You might want to reexamine your premises. The difference in power between a caretaker and child is even greater than the difference in power between an interrogator and prisoner, thus more prone to being abused. Also as far as young children perceive it physical punishment is random. Most children who are hit start being spanked by the age of 12 months, long before they are able to perceive being hit as anything other than random.
It's a valid counterexample to invalidate the principle implied by the Onterio CAS definition. If behavior A differs from behavior B in only one respect, not leaving a mark, and based on this difference A is classified as not abusive while B is considered abusive this definition rests on the principle that not leaving a mark is sufficient to distinguish abusive from non-abusive behavior.
just remember that what constitutes 'social stress' like bullying is absolutely not constant from society to society.
Stress is an objective biological state that can be measured so it doesn't matter whether or not a particular culture endorses a certain behavior or not. Treatment that causes stress hormones to increase is stressful regardless of what their culture has to say about the desirability of said behavior.
Which is what? Society has failed to collapse in spite of widespread use of spankings?
You could answer that question if you watched the video series I linked in my original post.
If you want more historical context for the effects that different ways of treating children has on entire civilizations you could take a look at this book.
I agree with that. In typical government fashion CPS agencies tend to make any problem they claim to solve even worse.
What I'm talking about though is the fact that even today in 2012 it's hard to get a majority of adults in the US to agree that hitting a 12 month old infant is unambiguously wrong.
It's a very difficult problem to solve because some forms of abuse are nearly universal. Therefore you can't talk about them objectively without provoking all the emotional defenses of guilt and justification that people harbor from being exposed to or performing those actions.
An infant doesn't differentiate between subtle difference in forms of caretaker aggression. Since parents usually start hitting their children around the age of 12 months and this is time period is more important in terms of long-term brain development that's what I was talking about. An older child processes it differently but by the time they reach that age it doesn't really matter because the long term damage has largely already been done.
Unless, of course, you'd like the assert that the vast majority of all youths from prior to the those born in the last decade or so (when it because trendy to sling around terms like Child Abuse and dilute their true meaning) were all abused children?
Why don't you look at some of the evidence regarding historical levels of child abuse and then come back and say whether or not this is an unreasonable statement.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet even those adults are protected by battery laws, the same laws that specially exempt parents who hit children who are even less able to defend themselves.
If anything I've said is factually incorrect please show me the evidence that it is so that I can correct my facts.
If what I'm saying is factually true but makes you feel uncomfortable, angry or frightened that's something you should discuss with your therapist because it's your issue, not mine.
There are genetic factors that make a child less resilient to mistreatment but the mistreatment is necessary to form a sociopath. That can be demonstrated with twin studies.
I've seen many examples of people who call themselves and/or outwardly appear to be "nice and well-adjusted" who don't appear to be nearly as healthy upon closer examination.
Wikipedia has a good summary.
Is there any evidence that you could see that, if it were to exist, would convince you to rethink your position?
I'm saying that because I haven't seen evidence that the field of anthropology is particularly diligent about correcting errors as soon as they are discovered it raises the bar in terms of the burden of proof for what I will consider credible.
Here's one. You can find other studies that have found even higher frequencies than this one if you keep looking.
Yes, and it has very powerful long term effects on their personality.
Yet in spite of all this a majority of parents still think it's ok to hit infants at least some of the time.
What made them into sociopaths?
Since you brought up credentials instead of empirical evidence I have to say that being an anthropologist lowers your credibility in my view. I've seen to many examples of famous anthropologists such as Margaret Mead blatantly distorting data on child abuse in order to make it fit into preconceived notions of cultural relativism to take anything from the field at face value without substantial supporting evidence.
You might want to reexamine your premises. The difference in power between a caretaker and child is even greater than the difference in power between an interrogator and prisoner, thus more prone to being abused. Also as far as young children perceive it physical punishment is random. Most children who are hit start being spanked by the age of 12 months, long before they are able to perceive being hit as anything other than random.
Smallpox only kills 1 out of every 5 people it infects. The fact that not everybody dies isn't evidence that the disease isn't harmful.
How do you know?
It's a valid counterexample to invalidate the principle implied by the Onterio CAS definition. If behavior A differs from behavior B in only one respect, not leaving a mark, and based on this difference A is classified as not abusive while B is considered abusive this definition rests on the principle that not leaving a mark is sufficient to distinguish abusive from non-abusive behavior.
Is this the first time you've heard of epigenetics?
Stress is an objective biological state that can be measured so it doesn't matter whether or not a particular culture endorses a certain behavior or not. Treatment that causes stress hormones to increase is stressful regardless of what their culture has to say about the desirability of said behavior.
You could answer that question if you watched the video series I linked in my original post.
If you want more historical context for the effects that different ways of treating children has on entire civilizations you could take a look at this book.
"Even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked." -Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
I agree with that. In typical government fashion CPS agencies tend to make any problem they claim to solve even worse.
What I'm talking about though is the fact that even today in 2012 it's hard to get a majority of adults in the US to agree that hitting a 12 month old infant is unambiguously wrong.
Actually, if you read the link I posted you'd know that there's more evidence of the effects of child abuse known than just this study.
It's a very difficult problem to solve because some forms of abuse are nearly universal. Therefore you can't talk about them objectively without provoking all the emotional defenses of guilt and justification that people harbor from being exposed to or performing those actions.
An infant doesn't differentiate between subtle difference in forms of caretaker aggression. Since parents usually start hitting their children around the age of 12 months and this is time period is more important in terms of long-term brain development that's what I was talking about. An older child processes it differently but by the time they reach that age it doesn't really matter because the long term damage has largely already been done.
Even as recently as 2006 a majority of people still think it's acceptable to hit infants, so while some progress has been made it's hardly a solved problem.
Why don't you look at some of the evidence regarding historical levels of child abuse and then come back and say whether or not this is an unreasonable statement.
That's a common theory that has been debunked by improved evidence. All forms of physical aggression have the same effect on the child.