> There's some studies that shows that while effective at changing behavior, it also teaches the kid that violence is sometimes necessary, a lesson that I'm not sure if we should be teaching them.

Isn't that true, though? Violence is sometimes necessary.

Teaching a child that violence is never necessary is just as bad as teaching the child that violence is always necessary.

Outside of very few, select circumstances, violence isn't the answer inside of a household.

The exceptions are rape/sexual violence and self defense, and other crimes of that magnitude.

Even if two boys are fighting it out, I'm not sure if the right answer is to kick their ass and spank them / humiliate them over it.

People used to beat their kids up over bad grades or missing homework assignments. That's too much violence for sure.

> Outside of very few, select circumstances, violence isn't the answer inside of a household.

Sure, but we're teaching kids lessons for when they're adults, right? Is it really a good idea to raise a generation who will not act out of self-defense?

> Even if two boys are fighting it out, I'm not sure if the right answer is to kick their ass and spank them / humiliate them over it.

I don't think violence is an answer for that.

> People used to beat their kids up over bad grades or missing homework assignments. That's too much violence for sure.

That's way overboard, and not what I had in mind. Rewards and punishments with kids is complex, and I don't want to come off like I am trivialising it all.

Humans (and chimps, and dogs) have all been studied in-depth, and at this point we know for certain that the idea of fairness is not a uniquely human one.

Take for example this very common scenario: an older/stronger child slapping a younger/weaker sibling.

The victim in this case is likely not going to believe that any non-physical punishment is fair(In fact, it isn't fair), and all it would do is breed some resentment.

If it happens just once or twice, sure, the victim can move on. If it happens all the time and the only result is that the parents take away TV for the aggressor for a few days, then that's going to result in plenty of long-term resentment.

Even worse, sometimes if the victim responds, they're going to get punished as well because some parents don't usually care to adjudicate.

Schools are even worse - the victim is more of a legal liability to the school than the aggressor, hence schools are more likely to pretend it never happened, or to punish both parties equally.

Taking all this into account, I tell my boys that they should never hit first, and that if anyone ever hits them the only appropriate response to to hit back.

They've[1] never hit anyone thus far, but they are also not afraid to hit anyone who hits them, because that's only fair.

[1] The younger one is only 3, so not yet a proper data point.

> Sure, but we're teaching kids lessons for when they're adults, right? Is it really a good idea to raise a generation who will not act out of self-defense?

Perhaps this is my response to office gossip. But I'm talking about my coworker who regularly brags about corporal punishment and how he's a good father for hitting his kid on the regular.

There's a lot of people out there. I don't think you and I are in much disagreement, although perhaps I didn't write my words in a way that suited your perspective.

There's still a generation of parents who think that hitting their kids is the right response, be it from occasional spanking, or even wholesale beating them up to teach them a lesson.

Beating up kids / corporal punishment isn't about "self defense", but instead about "learned helplessness". Its a different strategy to parenting, and some people still believe in it.

> Perhaps this is my response to office gossip. But I'm talking about my coworker who regularly brags about corporal punishment and how he's a good father for hitting his kid on the regular.

Yeah, if its regular he's probably doing it wrong. In 16 years of parenting, I've smacked my kids a total of maybe 5 times.

> There's still a generation of parents who think that hitting their kids is the right response, be it from occasional spanking, or even wholesale beating them up to teach them a lesson.

I don't think physical punishment is the correct response to anything but physical violence, and even then it's a rare response and should be proportional.

I just don't think that it should be completely off the table as a response to physical violence. I also think the kid should know that it's on the table.

"Consequences for your actions" should mean something; the consequences should be proportional and similar to the actions.

"Consequences for your actions" should not mean "I lose TV if I hit my brother repeatedly when I am angry".

>Beating up kids / corporal punishment isn't about "self defense", but instead about "learned helplessness". Its a different strategy to parenting, and some people still believe in it.

It isn't about learning self-defense, it's about learning that even if they will never hit someone, they're living in a world where violence is never off the table. They need to be prepared for that.

> Perhaps this is my response to office gossip. But I'm talking about my coworker who regularly brags about corporal punishment and how he's a good father for hitting his kid on the regular.

Depending on country and legislation, you may want to report this. In some places you may even be legally obligated to report child abuse, which this sounds like.

It is not your (or mine) place to judge whether your coworker actually abuses his children (or if it is "just" talk, for example), only to report to the relevant authority so that they can investigate. Please, if you are worried for them, act

This is a scary proposition though, at least in the US, because you cannot always trust good judgement from the investigators. The answer seems to be either: “there is no problem” or “you lose your kids entirely”. The likelihood of an investigator taking a nuanced response doesn’t seem very good. And the options of foster care in the US are not great, and there are child-abusers within that system too.

People have gotten their kids taken away for silly things. It’s a very real fear, even for genuinely good people. Unless it’s truly horrible abuse, I’d postulate that it’s better for a kid to stay with their parents. If you call Child Services on that parent, there is a real chance that you make the kids life significantly worse than the abuse they’re receiving at home.

My initial comment may have been too strongly worded, and it is normal to feel conflicted in such circumstances. There are hotlines for these matters in many countries and you can often discuss the specific case anonymously with the Child Protection Services without naming the family.

The CPS do make mistakes sometimes, and I am not from the US, but I find it hard to believe the either-we-take-your-child-or-do-nothing dichotomy. A general problem with these cases is that only one part can go to the media, whereas the other part is bound by their confidentiality requirements. And those who successfully receives other forms of support may not want to talk publicly about it.

Also, we are generally not in a position to assess or grade the abuse, which is why there should be a low threshold for reporting suspected abuse. If there are physical abuse, there may be other forms as well. It may escalate. Depending on their resilience, the children might be traumatized or have their development impaired. Whereas the CPS have the means to do such investigations and judgements. Perhaps they are already doing investigations on the family?

And if the CPS do make a mistake, it would not be the fault or responsibility of the lay-man who reports, although it may feel differently

> Also, we are generally not in a position to assess or grade the abuse, which is why there should be a low threshold for reporting suspected abuse.

So if you overhear someone saying they spanked their child you are saying you should call CPS and say that you suspect child abuse that should be investigated?

> And if the CPS do make a mistake, it would not be the fault or responsibility of the lay-man who reports, although it may feel differently

No, this is not how it works when you know you are reporting people to a flawed system. See “swatting” or just generally how well received calling cops to intervene in a poor minority neighborhood goes.

> So if you overhear someone saying they spanked their child you are saying you should call CPS and say that you suspect child abuse that should be investigated?

If that gives you reasonable suspicion that a child is being maltreated or abused, then yes. If you have reason to suspect that the child is in immediate danger from being hurt, then you should probably call the emergency services directly

> No, this is not how it works when you know you are reporting people to a flawed system. See “swatting” or just generally how well received calling cops to intervene in a poor minority neighborhood goes.

To my knowledge, swatting is fundamentally different as it involves both conscious deceit and a motive to harm. Something being a consequence of your actions is different from you having ethical responsibility for the outcome. I guess the question is how flawed? Is the CPS in the US really as dysfunctional as you seem to assert?

> If that gives you reasonable suspicion that a child is being maltreated or abused, then yes.

Someone saying they spanked their child is not reasonable suspicion of abuse.

> Is the CPS in the US really as dysfunctional as you seem to assert?

It's just as flawed in most countries, it's just that few people interact with it so they never get a sense of how out of proportion the CPS response is.

Lets look at the scenario you painted: Mummy/Daddy smacks toddler firmly on the well-padded (diaper) bottom.

You think that's abuse. So does the CPS. They remove the child "while they investigate", which could take anything from a week to a year in most countries (the investigation is done in most jurisdictions in tandem with the court proceedings arising from this, which take long[1]).

You have to ask yourself whether the child is more harmed by the smack or by the removal from the parents, from the family unit, etc.

There's no contention that the period in question is an important bonding period for the child (tons of research), prevention of which can cause lifelong issues.

The argument of CPS in most western countries is that the smack is more damaging than breaking the childs bonds with the family.

Many people don't believe that. I want to know whether you believe that the smack is more damaging to the child than the removal from the family.

[1]The reason it takes so long is because someone claimed abuse, and that claim has to be investigated. Unlike the scientific process, where human testimony is the lowest form of evidence and usually ignored, in the legal system human testimony is the highest form of evidence.

I taught my kids how to dodge and block various physical attacks and that if anyone tries to hit them they should extract themselves from the situation and retreat to a safe place.

I'm 28. In my life so far, I cannot think of a single time when I have ever needed to engage in violence.

Now, if someone attacked me, would I defend myself? Absolutely, as a last resort. And it's true that children should be told it's okay to defend themselves by whatever means necessary. I don't think this distinction is particularly difficult to understand.

Corporal punishment in particular socializes children to let themselves be attacked and not defend themselves.

> Corporal punishment in particular socializes children to let themselves be attacked and not defend themselves.

I was spanked as a kid. As an adult I've violently defended myself without hesitation from an unprovoked attack by a criminal stranger in the parking lot of a big box store. So that part doesn't seem to me to be true.

This is kind of like saying "My grandmother smoked cigarettes all her life and lived until 83, so they must be safe." We have a lot of data showing the corporal punishment has negative effects on children, on average across the population.

It's hard to say exactly what causes that. However, the idea that it teaches children to defend themselves doesn't make sense to me because children who are spanked are not defending themselves.

> We have a lot of data showing the corporal punishment has negative effects on children, on average across the population.

I think the problem is that "corporal punishment" as a term is just too broad. You just used it upthread as "getting a spank" which is relatively minor.

The studies I am aware of showing negative effects use the term to mean "regular and systemic caning".

Those are two very different things; the studies are not studying the thing you referred to.

But that's the point: for corporal punishment to exist, you already have to have authority over someone by other means.

"Comply and let me inflict pain on you" seems very weird when it's equally true that "comply and be bored for a while" is right there as an option.

> Isn't that true, though? Violence is sometimes necessary.

People sometimes ask, when will humans finally stop killing each others in wars and crime. I believe that not until violence goes off the table completely as an option. Not sometimes, not only for hideous criminals, not for stopping violence, not as a play, not as teaching implement. Literally never, not-even-coming-to-mind never, physically-incapable never, gone-in-any-form-from-the-culture never, no-hunting-animals-too never. Otherwise it will always be the ultimate option which can always escalate.

Reminds me some public opinions from Western Europe countries (especially from Germany) during first months of war in Ukraine – "Why they are fighting? Just stop killing, please and give Russians what they want."

I don’t see how we get there though because all it takes is one defector to steamroll everyone else who refuses to use violence to defend themselves.

The horrifying stereotypical faulty AI answer is that the dead are violent only in fiction. Which illustrates the ironic essential hypocrisy involved in getting a stable solution. I don't think it is a routable solution or achievible even if we may see the path. Like how we can easily see "be born a billionaire" as an answer to personal fiscal woes.

Slightly less extreme and horrifying than omnicide but persistent are somehow inflicting widespread learned helplessness that somehow persists across generations. Even if we could all be "honey-beed" and all die from inflicting serious harm, any defect would make the "violence capable mutants" monarchs.

> Isn't that true, though? Violence is sometimes necessary.

It's doesn't need to be strictly true. This isn't a mathematical proof, but a behavior used to influence other behavior.

> Teaching a child that violence is never necessary is just as bad as teaching the child that violence is always necessary.

I'm not sure what kind of thinking leads you to this conclusion, nor is it clear what this statement means if I'm being open about it. "Violence is always necessary"? If someone doesn't get out of your way you are supposed to shove them? If someone honks their horn at you, you should smash their windshield? If someone tells you something you don't like you punch them? You'd never learn anything of substance with this viewpoint.

violence is never necessary != violence is always necessary

The tradeoffs for survival (much less society) are unequal.

Violence by an adult to a child is just the domination of the weak by the strong - on an individual basis.

You're bigger, so you can physically overpower them. The rules bind the child but not the adult - after all if child uses violence to try and get what they want, you'll just respond with more.

The violence used by society at large doesn't work that way: no one person can successfully fight off 5 people detaining them. One person with a weapon destroys any physical advantage. No one person can physically overpower civilization, and so hey, this is all about rules, negotiation, and enlightened self interest after all.

I think it's probably correct to read this within the context of a parent-child relationship eg one of wildly disparate power imbalance where one has significant latitude to use violence and the other has virtually none to stop it.

We can probably assume that people who want to model this behavior also tackle things like self-defense, protection of the innocent, righteous wrath, etc when it's appropriate to discuss them.

> Punishments are absolutely necessary …

No, this isn’t true at all. My teenager has never been punished once in his life, and he’s turning into an excellent human: hard-working, compassionate with self and others, honest.

I would define punishment as “intentional infliction of suffering for purposes of behavior modification.” As stated, that’s flatly unethical, especially with your own family.

Now, he experiences consequences of his actions all the time. Scratch the counter-top? Win an afternoon of helping me refinish it. That works because it’s directly connected to his actions, and because I treat it as a learning opportunity rather than yelling at him or banishing him.

There are more possibilities than “punishment or permissiveness.” Kids need structure and to understand and experience age-appropriate consequences for their actions. But that doesn’t mean they need arbitrary suffering imposed by people they’re supposed to love.

As kindly as possible - if your anecdote about your teenager misbehaving is scratching the countertop, you may just have an unusually well behaved teenager. What would your response be if he drove drunk and crashed your car? Or if he you got in an argument and he took a swing at you?

If those are outside the realm of possibility for you guys, that’s awesome, you probably have an awesome kid. But for most parents I know, their teenagers have seriously test their limits at least a few times and it seemed like a punitive approach worked well. Depending on the “crime”, grounding them at home or taking away their phone/car/screens for x amount of time is a perfectly reasonable punishment IMO. It certainly worked well enough on my four siblings and I when we did dumb crap as teenagers.

Punishment isn't typically defined that way though. That's a bit of a harsh definition

In psychology it's often defined as any behavioral method used to decrease an undesired behavior - split into positive and negative punishment. Positive punishment is adding stimuli that they don't like (physical punishment is included here, but lecturing can be too), and negative punishment is removing things that they like. If a child asks rudely for ice cream and you don't give it to them because of the way they asked, that's a form of (negative) punishment.

Your countertop example is too - from a behavioral perspective, that's just a form of (positive) punishment - you're making them do something they don't like in response to unwanted behavior. You might have an added rationale to connect things, but that's still what the behavioral effect is.

> To change a person's behavior. If someone keeps lying, cheating, and stealing in society, we want to make them to stop so that they can reintegrate and become a beneficial member of society.

I think a common criticism of this stance is, that it does not ask why a person does something that others want to punish. Obviously there sometimes are no answers, but often it's poverty and lack of options. So this begs the question, why people come to steal and murder etc.

I personally don't believe that "punishment" is usually well invested in a person. Rehabilitation and support structures are probably the better option.

I am also realising that it gets very interesting for white collar crime "without a victim" such as tax evasion or manipulation of stocks. My intuition is to punish exactly these crimes, but I think that's my bias showing.

> Anyone who has ever trained a dog or other animal knows how to use animal psychology / punishments / rewards to change the animal's behavior.

Use of punishment in dog training is actually pretty hotly debated. Not that it doesn't work, but that it has consequences beyond what are intended and that substitution, redirection, and rewards result in a happier and more obedient pet.

Yeah it works way better to establish the fact that you're the alpha dog via some basic obedience involved in feeding and stuff like that, then build up the dog to want your approval, establish boundaries around things like playtime, give the dog adequate "jobs" and stimulation for the breed so its not bored and anxious, etc. One the dogs needs are all met like that within some structure you're going to have a way happier dog compared to not understanding why the dog is acting out and having to tell it 'no' and discipline it all the time. That requires a commitment from the human a well though, it isn't a one-way street.

Which is more less how society should treat humans as well.

If we're going to have an article called "Why Punish?" there should really be a companion article on "Why Steal?" And given the right conditions literally every one of us will steal to survive. Every single one of us are still just animals at our core anyway, that means you dear reader.

Debated? B. F. Skinner already found out back in the 1950s that punishment does not lead to any learning of the desired behavior. Rather, it leads to avoidance. So I would argue that the fact that punishment is the most inefficient way to change behavior is pretty much established. In fact, you can look at any area - dog training, marriage, marketing, computer games - and you will find that the most efficient and effective methods of shaping behavior of those that employ positive reinforcement. Things like Facebook and social media are pretty much just Skinner’s techniques amplified by the internet.

> and you will find that the most efficient and effective methods of shaping behavior of those that employ positive reinforcement.

I attack my opponent when he's waking up (Oki position), he uses a Dragon Punch / Reversal and punishes me.

I attack my opponent when he's waking up (Oki position), he uses a Dragon Punch / reversal and punishes me.

I attack my opponent when he's waking up. He uses a dragon punch/reversal and punishes me.

I block while my opponent is waking up. He uses a dragon punch, loses to my block and I punish him.

------------

An entire genre of video games, fighting games, revolves around conditioning your opponent and getting into their head. The rock-paper-scissors battle of attack vs block vs grab takes place so quickly, you often don't have the time to react (though some players do have insane reaction speeds).

When you can't leverage reaction, you leverage conditioning. And over the long term, the only way to really learn the game at a high level is by getting your bad habits repeatedly-punished by a stronger player.

Perhaps its not "efficient" to learn, but in this case, it is the only way to learn. Expert players are bad at vocalizing what is or isn't working. There are very few coaches, and almost none of them know how to take you to the highest level (even if they themselves have reached peak form).

-------------

There's other forms of punishment as learning. Ex: fall into a pit in Mario. You die, so you try again.

Or "Boar Lure" in AoE2. If you fail, your villager dies, and/or you don't get the precious early-game food you need to sustain your production.

Or in Basketball. If you get crossed up, you fail to block the opponent and they get a free shot at the basket.

FWIW I agree with you, but many people still employ it and tell others it works despite the academic and professional evidence to the contrary. I probably should have phrased it a little better to make that clear.

As well, we need to clearly distinguish "punishment" and "revenge".

Revenge is an emotional response by those who have been wronged in the past.

Punishment can mean many things (so perhaps we need more specific words), but I believe in this context it is meant to be a rational, conscious act to influence behaviour - though there are other kinds of punishment, and it can be difficult to distinguish. A parent may raise their voice very intentionally, without actually being angry, to gain attention, distinguish and underline a point, or elicit quick obedience (i.e. a "STOP!!!" when a child is about to dart on the road), but they may also raise their voice out of impulse, emotion, frustration, with no specific goal in mind and thus no clear direction or "win conditions".

(I've only recently learned of the phrase "omnidirectional ass-chewing" [1], which is a very intentional demenour and environment for receiving marines to put them into a constantly stressful environment to train focus. It LOOKS like random angry yelling, but is in fact extremely studied, careful, and intentional. )

1: Section 6, "Yelling" https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/03/why-is-boot-camp-so...

>>Perhaps we've gone too far with jail times in the USA

Perhaps? I dont think that is even debatable at this point. I would encourage you to research actual treatment of prisoners in the US, we in the US are critical of nations like Russia, and China while willfully ignoring the abuse that occurs every day in US prisons.

>Anyone who has ever trained a dog or other animal

This right here is the exact reason for this abuse, it is common for the US prison system, and the correctional officers to dehumanize the prisoners and treat them like animals, not cuddly pets or dogs, but like the worst animal abuse stories you here from the traveling carnivals that used to keep Elephants and Loins for show.....

We need MASSIVE reform of both the criminal system, and prison system. I am not talking about being "weak" on crime like seems to be the norm today, refusing to prosecute crimes, and letting people out immediately but "tough on crime" does not have to involve the dehumanizing treatment, and outright abuse that occurs that leads to nothing productive, no rehabilitation, and more often than not non-violent criminals go in non-violent but come out extremely violent.

There is NOTHING redeeming about the US Prison system

Negative Reinforcement ≠ Punishment. This is a common mistake. Negative Reinforcement is the removal of an adverse stimuli. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement#Negative_reinfor...

A lot of adults punish children, because it makes them feel good. They do it again and again despite kids behavior not getting better.

People often punish out of anger and their kids are badly behaved as a result.