5 ms·

Removing actual firm discipline for all the young boys has been a disaster. We replaced strict and perhaps unpleasant discipline in favor of medicine, and its

Removing actual firm discipline for all the young boys has been a disaster. We replaced strict and perhaps unpleasant discipline in favor of medicine, and its worse long term side effect profile.

afarrell 11y ago
> Removing actual firm discipline What are some concrete examples of disciplinary tactics we should resume using?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
benologist 11y ago
You say strict but don't you really just mean threatening children with violence? The last time someone told me to stand still so they could hit me as hard as they could with a cane was when I was 7 or 8 years old. That's not education. Real educators, much like real democracy, do not rely on fear and violence to control others.
- adrusi 11y ago
  I definitely understand why using fear to control children is a bad thing, but as for violence, it's at the root of all power anyway. Whenever you impose a disciplinary sanction, it's implicit that if the sanction is not respected, it will be replaced by an alternative, at least as harsh sanction, and eventually the alternative sanction will be violent. Fear is clearly not a great way of controlling your children, but no one does it in any other way. If instead of corporal punishment you discipline your child by revoking privileges, you're still using threats and fear. The alternative is to reason with your child, to present a convincing argument for why they should listen to you. But kids aren't (always) rational actors, so that doesn't always work. Both hitting your child and grounding your child are based on fear and violence. They each have their disadvantages. Hitting your child might end up teaching them that hitting people is OK, grounding your child gives them a lot of time to build resentment and keeps them cooped up with negativity and inactivity so that they're more likely to get into trouble again. I'm not sure which I would have chosen as a kid, but now I'd choose corporal punishment.
  - true_religion 11y ago
    While it's often pointed out that children are not rational actors, I'd also like to include that parents are not rational actors all the time either. Often people want to impose a rule on their children without properly evaluating it because its what they were taught, and has become part and parcel of their socialization. Other times people must impose a rule on their children due to government regulation (e.g. you can't leave children under X age home without someone over Y age responsible for them). In those cases, people fail to explain their guiding logic because no one likes to say "I have to do this, the government is making me do it through threat of jail time" and thus their justification---both to themselves and their children---comes off as flimsy.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    > Whenever you impose a disciplinary sanction, it's implicit that if the sanction is not respected, it will be replaced by an alternative, at least as harsh sanction, and eventually the alternative sanction will be violent. Jesus fucking christ no it isn't. Your boss doesn't punch you for not filing your TPS reports; your spouse doesn't hit you for not doing the shopping. Don't hit children. Learn how to parent. The rest of your post shows a mind-boggling lack of knowledge of parenting methods. (EG: Time outs are not long - one minute per year of age. A 12 year old gets a 12 minute time out.)
    - over 11y ago
      > Your boss doesn't punch you for not filing your TPS reports; your spouse doesn't hit you for not doing the shopping. You're right, but he also has a point in that eventually, if you just don't do things, the cops will drag you away. Eventual violence is a cornerstone of order in our society. I find this unpalatable, but at least another cornerstone of order is motivation to do good things. Just as short timeouts are not solitary confinement, open-handed slaps on the butt are not gang beatings. It's generally the parent that determines whether the punishment is abusive, not the type of punishment itself.
      - DanBC 11y ago
financedfuture 11y ago
Although hated, this comment raises interesting points. Indeed, kids are given much more freedom and are less "disciplined" than ever before. At the same time, there's never been so much pressure and coerciveness than right now. You "don't have to take the meds", but you most likely will do that. Sort of a hidden, more hurtful, authoritarianism.
- adrusi 11y ago
  Indeed, kids are given much more freedom and are less "disciplined" than ever before. Excuse me? Less disciplined, sure, but not more free. Kids today have no freedom. They are supervised by adults from when they wake up til they go to sleep. In school they are explicitly encouraged to not resolve conflicts on their own but instead to go to a teacher. The play that they engage in is not only always supervised, but also usually adult-structured. No groups of 2–5 kids going off to play by themselves and making up their own games, they have to participate in whatever nonsense the adults are forcing on them. Children aren't children in the brave new world, they're liabilities.
guard-of-terra 11y ago
Hey, have you seen The Lawnmower Man movie? Because you have that coming.
skywhopper 11y ago
As an adult male with ADHD that went undiagnosed until I was in my late 20s, who was one of the youngest in his class, who faced the potential of "corporal punishment" (spanking on the rear-end with a wooden paddle was the threat) both at school and at home (it was only ever administered to me at home by my parents), and who now has a daughter who has just passed through the elementary years at a school that does not practice any physical punishment, and who has never practiced any sort of physical punishment on my daughter, I strongly disagree. The biggest change I've seen in the style of schooling between my elementary years and today is not the administration of corporal punishment. Yes, it was an option when I was a child, but it was rarely administered. Less than half a dozen times a year across six grades and about 1000 children, perhaps, is my rough guesstimate. Instead, the biggest change I see is the near total removal of recess as a part of the day. When I was in elementary school, we had two 15-minute recesses, one 25-minute recess, and an additional 10-15 minute recess period after lunch. My daughter, throughout her elementary school years, was given a single 15 minute recess, and this was often taken away from the entire class as a collective punishment. To me, it's no wonder the kids can't sit still or pay attention. Children that age need to run and play without structure and with as few rules as possible. That physical energy has to go somewhere. And it too often goes to acting up and inability to pay attention in class.
zhemao 11y ago
Or we could recognize that young boys are naturally energetic and that this is not a bad thing. If we could teach them in a way that channels that energy instead of forcing them to sit in a chair for 6 hours a day, they might actually learn something.

Removing actual firm discipline for all the young boys has been a disaster. We replaced strict and perhaps unpleasant discipline in favor of medicine, and its worse long term side effect profile.

afarrell 11y ago

> Removing actual firm discipline What are some concrete examples of disciplinary tactics we should resume using?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

benologist 11y ago

You say strict but don't you really just mean threatening children with violence? The last time someone told me to stand still so they could hit me as hard as they could with a cane was when I was 7 or 8 years old. That's not education. Real educators, much like real democracy, do not rely on fear and violence to control others.

adrusi 11y ago
I definitely understand why using fear to control children is a bad thing, but as for violence, it's at the root of all power anyway. Whenever you impose a disciplinary sanction, it's implicit that if the sanction is not respected, it will be replaced by an alternative, at least as harsh sanction, and eventually the alternative sanction will be violent. Fear is clearly not a great way of controlling your children, but no one does it in any other way. If instead of corporal punishment you discipline your child by revoking privileges, you're still using threats and fear. The alternative is to reason with your child, to present a convincing argument for why they should listen to you. But kids aren't (always) rational actors, so that doesn't always work. Both hitting your child and grounding your child are based on fear and violence. They each have their disadvantages. Hitting your child might end up teaching them that hitting people is OK, grounding your child gives them a lot of time to build resentment and keeps them cooped up with negativity and inactivity so that they're more likely to get into trouble again. I'm not sure which I would have chosen as a kid, but now I'd choose corporal punishment.
- true_religion 11y ago
  While it's often pointed out that children are not rational actors, I'd also like to include that parents are not rational actors all the time either. Often people want to impose a rule on their children without properly evaluating it because its what they were taught, and has become part and parcel of their socialization. Other times people must impose a rule on their children due to government regulation (e.g. you can't leave children under X age home without someone over Y age responsible for them). In those cases, people fail to explain their guiding logic because no one likes to say "I have to do this, the government is making me do it through threat of jail time" and thus their justification---both to themselves and their children---comes off as flimsy.
- DanBC 11y ago
  > Whenever you impose a disciplinary sanction, it's implicit that if the sanction is not respected, it will be replaced by an alternative, at least as harsh sanction, and eventually the alternative sanction will be violent. Jesus fucking christ no it isn't. Your boss doesn't punch you for not filing your TPS reports; your spouse doesn't hit you for not doing the shopping. Don't hit children. Learn how to parent. The rest of your post shows a mind-boggling lack of knowledge of parenting methods. (EG: Time outs are not long - one minute per year of age. A 12 year old gets a 12 minute time out.)
  - over 11y ago
    > Your boss doesn't punch you for not filing your TPS reports; your spouse doesn't hit you for not doing the shopping. You're right, but he also has a point in that eventually, if you just don't do things, the cops will drag you away. Eventual violence is a cornerstone of order in our society. I find this unpalatable, but at least another cornerstone of order is motivation to do good things. Just as short timeouts are not solitary confinement, open-handed slaps on the butt are not gang beatings. It's generally the parent that determines whether the punishment is abusive, not the type of punishment itself.
    - DanBC 11y ago

financedfuture 11y ago

Although hated, this comment raises interesting points. Indeed, kids are given much more freedom and are less "disciplined" than ever before. At the same time, there's never been so much pressure and coerciveness than right now. You "don't have to take the meds", but you most likely will do that. Sort of a hidden, more hurtful, authoritarianism.

adrusi 11y ago
Indeed, kids are given much more freedom and are less "disciplined" than ever before. Excuse me? Less disciplined, sure, but not more free. Kids today have no freedom. They are supervised by adults from when they wake up til they go to sleep. In school they are explicitly encouraged to not resolve conflicts on their own but instead to go to a teacher. The play that they engage in is not only always supervised, but also usually adult-structured. No groups of 2–5 kids going off to play by themselves and making up their own games, they have to participate in whatever nonsense the adults are forcing on them. Children aren't children in the brave new world, they're liabilities.

guard-of-terra 11y ago

Hey, have you seen The Lawnmower Man movie? Because you have that coming.

skywhopper 11y ago

As an adult male with ADHD that went undiagnosed until I was in my late 20s, who was one of the youngest in his class, who faced the potential of "corporal punishment" (spanking on the rear-end with a wooden paddle was the threat) both at school and at home (it was only ever administered to me at home by my parents), and who now has a daughter who has just passed through the elementary years at a school that does not practice any physical punishment, and who has never practiced any sort of physical punishment on my daughter, I strongly disagree. The biggest change I've seen in the style of schooling between my elementary years and today is not the administration of corporal punishment. Yes, it was an option when I was a child, but it was rarely administered. Less than half a dozen times a year across six grades and about 1000 children, perhaps, is my rough guesstimate. Instead, the biggest change I see is the near total removal of recess as a part of the day. When I was in elementary school, we had two 15-minute recesses, one 25-minute recess, and an additional 10-15 minute recess period after lunch. My daughter, throughout her elementary school years, was given a single 15 minute recess, and this was often taken away from the entire class as a collective punishment. To me, it's no wonder the kids can't sit still or pay attention. Children that age need to run and play without structure and with as few rules as possible. That physical energy has to go somewhere. And it too often goes to acting up and inability to pay attention in class.

zhemao 11y ago

Or we could recognize that young boys are naturally energetic and that this is not a bad thing. If we could teach them in a way that channels that energy instead of forcing them to sit in a chair for 6 hours a day, they might actually learn something.