Anderson Cooper Rocks/Pearls=Another Death (MERGED)

[Rosa]

Chickeymonkey, I wouldn't push his face in - I did pinch my baby's nose when he bit as an infant, for the same reason, it makes them delatch to breathe - but older kids don't have flexible noses, so it might hurt (babies have flat, squashable noses so they can nurse), and even if he can't communicate with you, he understands when you say no, unlike the biting infant.

My son bit a lot, because of his impulse control problems, and we tried a variety of methods to get him to stop (saying "ow", saying no, giving time outs, putting him down when he bit - he really likes to be held) but I don't think any of them worked, what worked is that he finally got old enough to have more self control, sometime around 3? But it was only me he bit (and 2 different female friends who had him in their lap while wearing very low-cut shirts, one time each) and I really think part of it was that he hadn't really differentiated his own self from my self until sometime late in his second year.

And, that kind of treatment, like occasional spankings, I don't think it's abusive unless it's part of a pattern of abuse. But that doesn't make it effective, either.

[Austin]

I am wary of such things...my "official" IQ is 82 which makes me think sometimes tests just do not work for people. I make no claims to genius or even particular intelligence but the definition for someone of an IQ in the 80s doesn't seem like me. Mind you, I could just be in denial ;)

You are not in denial. I believe IQ scores have some validity, but they are not the be-all, end-all - at all. However, I've seen you post this before and from my experience in the children with learning disabilities community, you do not seem at all like someone with an IQ of 82. It may be that the test you took just doesn't work for you.

At any rate, it is a snapshot of a person at a single point in time, which can work both ways. I got an outrageously high score on my college admissions test, and believe me when I tell you I could not have been that well-prepared, since I signed up to take it at the last minute, took no prep classes and did no prep on my own. My math skills were weak relatively to my stronger verbal skills, but I do tend to just test well. I seriously had higher scores than people in my class who went on to become physicists and actual rocket scientists. So that's why I think the snapshot concept is well-applied to these sorts of tests, because I don't think a lot of people are as smart or as not smart as the scores would tend to suggest.

If I were you, I'd consider that number nonsense and forget about it. ;)

[ChickeyMonkey]

Chickeymonkey, I wouldn't push his face in - I did pinch my baby's nose when he bit as an infant, for the same reason, it makes them delatch to breathe - but older kids don't have flexible noses, so it might hurt (babies have flat, squashable noses so they can nurse), and even if he can't communicate with you, he understands when you say no, unlike the biting infant.

My son bit a lot, because of his impulse control problems, and we tried a variety of methods to get him to stop (saying "ow", saying no, giving time outs, putting him down when he bit - he really likes to be held) but I don't think any of them worked, what worked is that he finally got old enough to have more self control, sometime around 3? But it was only me he bit (and 2 different female friends who had him in their lap while wearing very low-cut shirts, one time each) and I really think part of it was that he hadn't really differentiated his own self from my self until sometime late in his second year.

And, that kind of treatment, like occasional spankings, I don't think it's abusive unless it's part of a pattern of abuse. But that doesn't make it effective, either.

Thanks for your reply, Rosa. Thankfully my son's stopped biting as much, but it still happens on occasion. Usually I end up holding him off so that he can't get his choppers near me and then I try to do something to get him to laugh and calm down ("I'm going to eat your elbows! etc.) If he were my first child, he may have been an ONLY child. ;)

[emmiedahl]

JFC, I think the test result was a mistake. Sometimes people with various forms of mental illness will test lower because of all the emotional stuff going on. Didn't you say that you have anxiety or OCD? That will definitely affect your IQ test score.

It also depends a bit on how you were taught as a child. I score in the genius range and I am not a genius. I can tell you, absolutely no. I think I am smart, but I really struggled with physics and calculus. Geniuses are the people who invented all these theories, not the people who can barely comprehend them. :)

[Austin]

Not to mention there are all different sorts of "intelligences". The type that IQ tests assess is but one kind. Howard Gardner does a good job of explaining this in his book Frames of Mind.

[hoipolloi]

From a transcript of AC's interview of Michael Pearl (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... cd.02.html):

M. PEARL: That's absolutely incorrect. We do not advocate hitting children, and we do not advocate any severe corporal punishment.

In fact, in my literature, if you read it, I speak against corporal punishment. What we teach is -- our book is called "To Train Up a Child." And we talk to parents about how they can train their children up to be happy, creative, cheerful, emotional -- emotionally stable. And so we teach that, in the process of training small children, we use corporal chastisement.

Corporal chastisement is not retributive justice designed to punish the child for the misdeeds. Corporal chastisement is getting the child's attention so that you can admonish him, teach him, instruct him, and guide him in the way he should go.

COOPER: I want to read something that you write about -- about what parents should use to spank their child. You said, "Any spanking, to effectively reinforce instruction, must cause pain. Select your instrument according to the child's size. For the under 1-year-old child, a small, 10- to 12-inch-long willowy branch stripped of any knots that might break the skin, about one-eighth inch in diameter is sufficient. Sometimes alternatives have to be sought. A one-foot ruler, or its equivalent in a paddle, is a suitable substitute. For the larger child, a belt or a three-foot cutting off a shrub is effective."

You say you -- you don't advocate hitting or hurting or beating kids or leaving any marks on them, which under the law is considered child abuse, but in fact, in your book, you are saying spankings have to cause pain, and you're talking about spanking a baby under one- year-old with a ruler. How does a baby not end up bruised and hurting when it's hit with a ruler?

M. PEARL: Well, your changing the word "spank" to "beat" or "hit" is inflammatory rhetoric that obscures what I'm saying.

So, not only are these bad parents "doing it wrong," the rest of us are using the wrong words to describe what's really happening.

A classic example of sophistry.

[FlorenceHamilton]

From a transcript of AC's interview of Michael Pearl (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... cd.02.html):

So, not only are these bad parents "doing it wrong," the rest of us are using the wrong words to describe what's really happening.

A classic example of sophistry.

[oscar]

JFC, I think the test result was a mistake. Sometimes people with various forms of mental illness will test lower because of all the emotional stuff going on. Didn't you say that you have anxiety or OCD? That will definitely affect your IQ test score.

It also depends a bit on how you were taught as a child. I score in the genius range and I am not a genius. I can tell you, absolutely no. I think I am smart, but I really struggled with physics and calculus. Geniuses are the people who invented all these theories, not the people who can barely comprehend them. :)

Both of these things are definitely true. Those of us who compensate for various cognitive or perceptual deficits using other reasoning skills will often score low on aptitude tests, because those tests aren't testing the skills we actually use.

And I think the opposite is true, too, even though this is just anecdote unsupported by any data. Subsequent to my brain injury, I still score high on IQ tests, even though I function at a much lower level in my daily life. I feel like the resources I used to use mostly just to be clever at math are now doing all the work, since I lost a lot of other skills and abilities.

[emmiedahl]

In my case, I think my OCD/anxiety helped my score. When I get stressed out, patterns become very important to me. I look for them to distract myself. I arrange things in patterns to sooth my nerves. I have a lot of extra 'training' in identifying and continuing patterns because it is something I do as a coping mechanism. A lot of the questions on the IQ test were related to my OCD behaviors in some way. Hell yes I scored high. But that does not make me a genius, in this case it indicates that certain things are over-represented as proof of intelligence on a very imperfect test.

[AnnoDomini]

Re: saying 'lick' instead of 'blows' or whatever, 'lick' is an old-fashioned term from a century ago.

[thoughtful]

Pearl seems proud of his answers -- he has posted the AC interview on his site:

http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/daily/post/ ... interview/

Oh, and as for "licks" -- I sometimes think Pearl thinks children are Timex watches and he is John Cameron Swayze (yes, I am that old):

[Witsec5]

About the IQ. verbal ability a predictor for school success. David Wechsler who developed the WISC and the WAIS (most common IQ tests) stole a lot of the original content from the military entrance exams so for a lot of years those tests were not based on research at all. (The nonverbal part of the IQ test was used for recruits not yet fluent in English.) Anyway, the tests are better now but are still heavily impacted by memory and processing speed. Sometimes it's better to look at index scores than at the full scale score because if someone bombs on processing speed because they are nervous, careful, or just pokey, the Full Scale IQ becomes the artificial mid-point of very disparate index scores.

Likewise, if someone has savant memory skills, it inflates the score, even if the person has poor reasoning skills.

Now back to AC. I can't believe Pearl is patting himself on the back over his interview. He's really in trouble and if he doesn't realize that, he is an idiot.

[hoipolloi]

Pearl seems proud of his answers -- he has posted the AC interview on his site: http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/daily/post/ ... interview/

If you read the transcript, which goes beyond the point at which the above clip ends, the following exchange appears:

COOPER: No doubt about that. The American Academy of Pediatrics told us that your teachings go way beyond most people's understanding of corporal punishment and spanking, that they say they're violent, unacceptable and that you can't train a child the same way you train a dog or a horse, because kids' brains develop differently. Human brains develop differently at a young age and are going to respond differently.

M. PEARL: Well, they are a small minority voice in a great number of scientists and researchers who say differently. There's just a lot of evidence...

COOPER: You say you can train a child like an animal? Like you would train a horse? Or...

M. PEARL: You know, I live on a farm. I have horses and cows and chickens and pigs and all that sort thing. And I read a lot. And I noticed that the zoologists and the people who work with animals study animals in terms of how it compares to human behavior.

When I was in college and took a course in psychology, there was quite a few articles in there that dealt with animal behavior and how it compares to human behavior.

So all I have said is that, if you can train a stubborn mule to go up a hill when he doesn't want to go, then you can train a 1- or a 2- or 3-year-old child that gets stubborn. So the training principles are similar.

Let me give you the first principle in training an animal. The first principle in training an animal is you establish a relationship with trust. The first principle in training a child is establish a relationship of trust.

The second principle is the animal must know that you're not going to hurt him, and you must know that he's not going to hurt you. And that's the second principle in training children. There has to be confidence that neither one of us are going to hurt the other one.

And then you have to communicate to the animal your will. That's the third principle in training children. Communicate your will.

Reader's Digest version of Michael Pearl's comments:

(1) He knows more about infant and child behavior than any pediatrician ever could because he took a course in a pyschology, reads a lot, and watches the animals on his farm.

(2) The three principles of training animals are trust, confidence that no one will be hurt during the training, and communication of the trainer's will.

Question for the Pearl-ites (like choleric, who appears to have skedaddled like the cowardly bully s/he is): How does an infant or child learn to trust a parent who trains by inflicting pain until the infant or child subjugates its will to the adult?

[Guest Anonymous]

In case anyone is interested, I found the following little gem, on connection with teaching children to assume more responsibility:

If they want a goldfish or a lizard, allow them to have full responsibility in the feeding

and care, even if they starve the poor creature to death

Our Mikey cares only slightly more about childtren than he does about the unfortunate animals that have found themselves under his "care".

[FJSharkJump]

Michael Pearl, in the interview with Anderson Cooper:

Let me give you the first principle in training an animal. The first principle in training an animal is you establish a relationship with trust. The first principle in training a child is establish a relationship of trust.

The second principle is the animal must know that you're not going to hurt him, and you must know that he's not going to hurt you. And that's the second principle in training children. There has to be confidence that neither one of us are going to hurt the other one.

And then you have to communicate to the animal your will. That's the third principle in training children. Communicate your will.

Michael Pearl, in To Train Up a Child:

Any spanking, to effectively reinforce instruction, must cause pain. Select your instrument according to the child's size. For the under 1-year-old child, a small, 10- to 12-inch-long willowy branch stripped of any knots that might break the skin, about one-eighth inch in diameter is sufficient. Sometimes alternatives have to be sought. A one-foot ruler, or its equivalent in a paddle, is a suitable substitute. For the larger child, a belt or a three-foot cutting off a shrub is effective.

Does. Not. Compute.

hurt [hurt]

verb (used with object)

1.to cause bodily injury to; injure: He was badly hurt in the accident.

2.to cause bodily pain to or in: The wound still hurts him.

3.to damage or decrease the efficiency of (a material object) by striking, rough use, improper care, etc.: Moths can't hurt this suit because it's mothproof. Dirty oil can hurt a car's engine.

4.to affect adversely; harm: to hurt one's reputation; It wouldn't hurt the lawn if you watered it more often.

5.to cause mental pain to; offend or grieve: She hurt his feelings by not asking him to the party.

verb (used without object)

6.to feel or suffer bodily or mental pain or distress: My back still hurts.

7.to cause bodily or mental pain or distress: The blow to his pride hurt most.

8.to cause injury, damage, or harm.

9.to suffer want or need.

noun

10.a blow that inflicts a wound; bodily injury or the cause of such injury.

11.injury, damage, or harm.

12.the cause of mental pain or offense, as an insult.

13.Heraldry. a rounded azure.

adjective

14.physically injured: The hurt child was taken to the hospital.

15.offended; unfavorably affected: hurt pride.

16.suggesting that one has been offended or is suffering in mind: Take that hurt look off your face!

17.damaged: hurt merchandise.

pain [peyn]

noun

1.physical suffering or distress, as due to injury, illness, etc.

2.a distressing sensation in a particular part of the body: a back pain.

3.mental or emotional suffering or torment: I am sorry my news causes you such pain.

4.pains,

a.laborious or careful efforts; assiduous care: Great pains have been taken to repair the engine perfectly.

b.the suffering of childbirth.

5.Informal. an annoying or troublesome person or thing.

verb (used with object)

6.to cause physical pain to; hurt.

7.to cause (someone) mental or emotional pain; distress: Your sarcasm pained me.  

verb (used without object)

8.to have or give pain.

Idioms

9.feel no pain, Informal. to be intoxicated: After all that free beer, we were feeling no pain.

10.on/upon/under pain of, liable to the penalty of: on pain of death.

11.pain in the ass, Slang: Vulgar. pain (def. 5).

12.pain in the neck, Informal. pain (def. 5).

[thoughtful]

He clearly either wasn't paying attention in those classes that covered behavioral science, or he took them so long ago that he was actually taught that physical punishment was considered necessary.

That school of thought is long-gone, even when working with the simplest animals, among people who truly understand behavioral work.

To prove it, we have the example of ABE.

ABE, Animal Behavior Enterprises, was run by people who had studied directly with B. F. Skinner. They were in business from 1947 on (Bob Bailey, who ran it for years, is still teaching), and trained more than 15,000 animals from over 140 different species, from whales to cockroaches.

They were practical people trying to make a buck -- Bob still is -- with no moral objection to using punishment. In a 2001 interview, Bob said "I allow myself to use punishment if I believe it is necessary to accomplish the task and if the task merits the use of punishment. I rarely have need of punishment."

When asked "Do you believe it's possible to train a performance animal to competition-precision without using aversives?" he answered:

"I have trained and utilized dogs, and other animals, under some pretty difficult, and even stressful environments. Our dogs, cats, ravens, vultures, dolphins, and other animals, had to perform complex tasks in novel and even hostile environments, sometimes over many hours. Only rarely did I resort to punishment, and then only to preserve life and limb (literally). I find it difficult to understand why punishment would be necessary to teach the relatively simple behaviors asked for in 'competition.'"

I generally hear, from the many trainers who have gone to Bob's "chicken camp," and Bob's own writing, that, in the entire history of his work, he has used punishment less than a dozen times. At least one of those was at the express request of the client (the Army, ill-at-ease that dogs trained to indicate trip wires to protect soldiers, might fail to do so).

And, as I always point out, this is all just talking about working with animals, not beloved children, who are much more complex from a very early age, and can learn language, morality, etc.

Pearl hasn't got a clue, morally - that's obvious. But he also hasn't got a clue about the simplest mechanics involved.

It sounds like he took one badly-taught and/or long-ago class, sees the Amish who live nearby beat their animals, and has decided that makes it all scientifically sound, as well as "Godly."

http://www.clickersolutions.com/article ... eptics.htm

http://www.clickersolutions.com/interviews/bailey.htm

http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/bailey2.html

http://tinyurl.com/BaileyBreland

[Brainsample]

In case anyone is interested, I found the following little gem, on connection with teaching children to assume more responsibility:

If they want a goldfish or a lizard, allow them to have full responsibility in the feeding

and care, even if they starve the poor creature to death

Our Mikey cares only slightly more about childtren than he does about the unfortunate animals that have found themselves under his "care".

Jan,

Where is the reference to this? This is part of an epic blog post for me. I am constantly trying to point out that his approach is Darwinian, and this is classic survival of the fittest.

[Guest Anonymous]

Jan,

Where is the reference to this? This is part of an epic blog post for me. I am constantly trying to point out that his approach is Darwinian, and this is classic survival of the fittest.

It's on the No Greater Joy website, about 3/4 of the way through his article "Angry Children-Part 2". Not that there isn't other equally reprehensible material in that article, but this was the sentence that really grabbed me by the throat.

[emmiedahl]

Pearl has said that he draws his inspiration from Amish child-rearing and animal training techniques. That in itself says a lot. The Amish have been accused of animal cruelty on numerous occasions and run puppy mills. Bestiality is not uncommon, and they have been accused of covering up sexual abuse of children as well. They believe that beating children *is* the right way to raise them.

[ChickeyMonkey]

I know that "licks" is an old fashioned term for hitting, it's just that it sounds extra creepy coming from Michael Pearl.

Emmiedahl, what kinds of puppies were they breeding? Just out of curiosity.

[Witsec5]

I believe that Micheal Pearl is a narcissistic sadist who twists passages from the bible and information from whoever and wherever to validate his sick agenda and satisfy his own needs. He is a very dangerous man and I hope he is under investiation.

[Austin]

@Chickey, I don't think they breed one specific breed. It's a widespread problem with the Amish in a number of states. This article references up to 600 Amish puppy mills (unlicensed breeding facilities) in Lancaster, PA, but there's a big problem with it here in Ohio, too.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7187712&page=1

[choleric]

Red Herring.

How is it a red herring? Sending your child to their room is a perfectly normal method of child training. Some insane "parents" have taken the concept to the extreme and taken their own children prisoner and it has led to many deaths. Do you call people who send their children to their room evil simply because some nut job can't handle the proper application of an otherwise useful parenting tool?

[choleric]

You don't have the intellectual honesty to actually grasp the argument that I made earlier.

Pearl refuses to give an upper limit to the number of times a child can be hit with a flexible rubber hose. A flexible rubber hose can lead to tissue breakdown under the skin, leading to kidney damage, another poster detailed the process above. The renal failure that caused Lydia Schatz' death was not due to blunt trauma, but gradual tissue breakdown. If a parent accepts the premises Pearl puts forward in the passage I quoted, they have no option but to continue the repeated striking sessions, alternating with breaks for the child to exhibit the proper degree of compliance (which is never objectively spelled out), In Lydia's case, her body was broken before her will. Her parents followed the advice I quoted to a T, and a child died. That is torture, and Pearl gives instructions in how to do it.

If the child experienced tissue breakdown, then the parents did not follow the teaching to a T. If you want to take issue with whether the book is specific enough for your tastes, then fine. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and don't attack the man for trying to teach a perfectly normal parenting behavior for thousands of years. If tissue breakdown was experienced, they were not spanking, they were beating, on that we agree

[choleric]

I think the best place to start is not to end any recommended parenting advice with "until their will is broken." Sending a child to their room, with express purpose of leaving them there UNTIL THEIR WILL IS BROKEN, is torture. While I happen to believe violent punishment is worse, you certainly can take any otherwise reasonable punishment (sending a child to bed without supper, standing in a corner, etc.) and make it abuse or torture.

Your friend "Mike" has the express aim of breaking the will of children. That is pretty much torture no matter how you accomplish it, but spanking them into submission (which is violent, is hitting, is beating, and all the other words you seem so intent on misunderstanding) is an especially egregious way of doing that. And also, criminal.

If there's one thing I really enjoyed about the interview with "Mike" it was that he called attention to how many people (I believe he said 230 million?) are breaking the law and abusing their children. While I'm sure his numbers were exaggerated, hopefully the viewers and AC himself now realize just how widespread these "nut jobs" are and how important it is to crack down on these child abusers.

what we have here is a clear example of the failure of one person to have any idea what they are reading, and you are putting on quite a show. I would be willing to bet that you don't have any children, otherwise you would know better what you are talking about.

I would love to know how you define "break the child's will". It is obvious you view it as something very 'sinister' and 'evil' yet it is something every single parent has done with their children and is a necessary part of effective child training.

When my daughter hits her sister and calls her a name, it is my duty as a parent to bring the offending child to a place of remorse and acceptance that the behavior they have demonstrated is unacceptable. I can spank, remove a privilege, put them in "time-out" or whatever I see is an appropriate response. If my child is still screaming names and is still intent on causing more harm, then the child has not learned any lesson. Allowing them to go on about their day without helping them to gain control of themselves, and see that they have hurt a person who they love, will do more harm than good to that child. "breaking their will" is simply getting them past the anger, past the attitude of "I have been wronged and I deserve to get revenge". It is the "I am the center of the universe" mentality that children all have and we as parents all attempt to teach them to be more considerate of others, caring, loving, etc.

"Breaking the child's will" is not some evil, sinister concept that deprives the child of self-worth and love. Once you have children (God forbid) you will quickly learn that you will be busy doing the same thing.

And if you choose not to, then you will be the parent in the middle of the grocery store, who is trying to calmly speak to a screaming, raging 3 year old, who is flailing on the ground making a giant scene in an attempt to get his way. Which he will surely get, as the child has the parent trained very well, and is still the center of the universe and all his wishes are met with rapid fulfillment. That parent is "above" punishment and thinks that they just need to "talk calmly and reason with the child" who has no empathy or remorse as the child has never been taught those things.

Good luck with that ;)