You cannot say “well you probably haven’t done this one, specific, highly unlikely thing for someone in the UK to do. So yeah caning probably worked, right!”
I haven’t knived anyone. I was never caned at school.
The absence of someone doing a thing is not proof of a thing doing what you believe it does.
You act like ‘back in my day’ there wasn’t any crime.
If you look at murder rates in the UK they peaked in the early 2000’s. Maybe those abused boys were taught violence is the answer?
Letting your baby ‘cry it out’ is abuse in my eyes and you can sleep train them without doing this.
With my daughter we soothed her in her cot instead of picking her up.
She will now link her sleep cycles and only cry when there is something wrong
The murder rate in the UK tracked the presence of environmental lead from things like paint, leaded petrol, &. The murder rate in the UK is now trending towards what it was in the Edwardian period, when it was introduced.
Beating children doesn't make them obedient and law-abiding adults.
> If you look at murder rates in the UK they peaked in the early 2000’s. Maybe those abused boys were taught violence is the answer?
There were earlier HN posts attributing the decline in the rate of murder rate/violence crime to countries phasing out lead-gasoline. Now we might never know unless we do a properly controlled experiment.
We've seen exactly the same pattern everywhere in the world when leaded petrol was banned. At this point, we've had our controls, because different countries scrapped lead at different times, and exactly the same trend has been observed. Think of the ones who scrapped it later as acting as the control group for those countries who scrapped it later.
Besides, the effect of lead on the human brain had been well known before leaded petrol was banned.
> We perform the first meta-analysis of the effect of lead on crime by pooling 529 estimates from 24 studies. We find evidence of publication bias across a range of tests.
> When we restrict our analysis to only high-quality studies that address endogeneity the estimated mean effect size is close to zero.
> When we use the full sample, the mean effect size is a partial correlation coefficient of 0.11, over ten times larger than the high-quality sample.
Interestingly, I met someone on HN once who insisted that effect sizes are always smaller in larger trials because that's just the nature of reality. This does not say anything good about scientists' conceptual understanding of what they're doing.
I think early 80s is when it becomes tricky to _legally_ beat kids in schools in the uk. I suspect collective punishment was actually illegal long before that but it wasn’t tested in courts.
It is legal in every home of the US. It is legal in many states' public schools. We were spanked in Houston public schools through the 90s. And it was a lot milder than what my cousins in Calcutta got. Good stuff.
If I recall correctly, it was illegal by the 90s in the UK. That didn't stop the odd occasion of it happening. The cane remained on the wall as a relic, but there was always a handy slipper around.