The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Spanking Doesn't Make People Stupid
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Stefan Molyneux, an outspoken critic of corporal punishment, highlighting studies that have found a correlation between IQ and whether or not a child was spanked:

This video is from six years ago and Molyneux has made the admirable shift from libertarian to HBD realism over that period of time, so I’m not sure he’d insinuate causation now.

In any case, there’s a perfectly plausible, empirically sound mechanism to explain the fact that children who are spanked tend to have lower IQ than children who are not that has nothing to do with the corporal punishment itself. Intelligence is heritable, and less intelligent people are more likely to spank their kids than more intelligent people are.

The average IQ, as converted from wordsum scores assuming a mean American white IQ of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, of adults by how they feel about the statement that it is “sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good, hard spanking” (n = 14,874):

Spanking needed? IQ
Strongly agree 94.7
Agree 97.5
Disagree 100.5
Strongly disagree 102.9

Spanking doesn’t lower intelligence, parents of relatively low intelligence–who, on average, have kids with relatively low intelligence–are just more likely to spank.

My guess is corporal punishment, so long as it doesn’t result in serious injury, is about as consequential to life outcomes as other parenting behaviors are–that is, it doesn’t make a difference one way or the other. It’s long-term effects are as consequential as the decision of whether to play Baby Einstein or the local pop 40 station as you rock your child to sleep. It comes down to preference–I’ll opt for Baby Einstein and timeout, but everyone’s mileage will vary.

If it’s primarily a cathartic exercise for the parent, that strikes (heh) me as being closer to child abuse than good parenting, but people work things out in different ways. It’s not something my wife and I practice, but I see no reason to prohibit, say, blacks from doing it if they feel it necessary.

GSS variables used: WORDSUM, SPANKING, BORN(1)

(Republished from The Audacious Epigone by permission of author or representative)
• Tags: GSS, Hbd, IQ, Kids, Parenting 
Hide 15 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment but I remember a finding in The Bell Curve (that Charles Murray is everywhere this week!) that spanking's effectiveness was linked to its consistency with undesirable behaviors. Like if dad hits you randomly depending on whether he'd drunk or in a bad mood, it's not very effective at all, but if he spanks you in response to specific misbehaviors and makes the connection clear, it tends to correct them.

    Ok, I guess I'm not so lazy after all…Murray/Herrnstein cite a 1959 article by Melvin Kohn making the point I describe above.

    I'm with you though that it probably doesn't matter much either way in terms of ultimate outcomes in adulthood. I got spanked a lot as a kid and didn't mind it too much; it was actually good in the sense that it provided a sense of order to the world: you misbehave, you pay the price. On the other hand, other punishments also communicate this effectively.

    According to my mom, my grandfather would hit her with a belt when she misbehaved, which sounds horrible to 21st century sensibilities, but he would always clearly explain that he was doing it out of parental love, so there was never any long-term harm.

  2. How we feel about parenting is mostly influenced by whoever is in now in their 20's, 30's, and 40's. In the 80's and 90's Boomers raged about how to parent; they might not have necessarily agreed on what to do specifically but they were trying to do something, which is more than you can say for Silents in the 60's and 70's.Who turned a blind eye towards child issues which led to neglect and abuse of kids soaring in the 70's and 80's.

    As Gen X-ers have shaped parenting culture in the 2000's and 10's, they don't find it necessary to debate parenting like Boomers did. Why? For one thing, they've never been comfortable bossing other people around. For another, they experienced first hand an often cruel world. So they intuitively grasp what not to do with kids. Most Boomers did not experience abuse, thus why they would (at times publicly) try to reckon with and caution against things they believed were harmful to kids. Some of this was ego driven preening; I care more about kids than you!

  3. My father grew up during the depression and, like many men of that era, never finished high school, and it was not from lack of intelligence. He spanked me, with his belt, when I did something wrong. It taught me that there are consequences to one's acts and that certain things are just plain wrong and should not be done in a civilized world. The spankings were never that painful but they conveyed a pretty strong message. Some transgressions only require a stern warning, others require corporal punishment and the failure to administer corporal punishment when warranted is a mistake and I think we see evidence of that today. Look at all the spoiled brat protesters who are throwing a tantrum over recent political events. Maybe a good swatting when they were younger might have made them more responsible adults.

  4. I've always had the impression that corporal punishment is a lot more likely to be effective with less intelligent children than 'time out', or worse, actually trying to reason with a child.

    I'm sure that 'peaceful parenting' works great with most 115 IQ kids. I'm also pretty sure that it's a terrible idea for most 85 IQ kids, even if their parents are smart enough to implement it effectively.

    It would be nice if there was evidence of this, but common sense is enough for me.

    Nothing makes me more angry than when SWPL types try to claim that because they grew up a spoilt brat with no siblings, and their parents never spanked them, and they 'turned out alright' (even though they didn't, really)- that spanking is wrong for everyone. These insensitive featherheads who advocate anti-spanking laws should be forced to live among the class of people who actually do need spanking to control their kids.

  5. 1. I saw this video many years ago (fairly early on after discovering Stef), and was so flabbergasted that I posted on FDR about it, cannot find a record of that though. Looks like the mods purge old threads.
    2. Molyneux makes some extravagant claims here that are not in any way warranted by the evidence he cites.
    3. I believe he actually went so far as to say that Africa was held back with respect to East Asia due to spanking (!).
    4. His broader point is that being spanked (i.e., abused) is what makes children violent.
    5. One of the studies was sensible enough to point that since they failed to control for pre-existing aggression, the results were not meaningful.
    6. As I recall another one that purported to show an IQ difference failed to control for race.

    To be fair Stef has evolved considerably since then…but FDR was alleged to be more than a little looney back in those days.

  6. "it doesn't make a difference one way or the other."

    I would expect that spanking a child normalizes them to violence. Or at least makes them more resilient to it. I would think that might be a good thing. Too many liberal pacifists is the problem we have right now.

  7. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    There is no need to pass an anti-spanking law, but personally I'm against it. If/when I have kids in the future, I won't spank them for 2 reasons:

    1. I probably won't need to. As a previous commenter mentioned, high IQ children have less need to be spanked because it's easier to talk logic and reason with them. I plan on marrying a high IQ, low T man so that I can have high IQ, well-behaved children.

    2. I don't want them to spank their kids when they grow up.

    Let the low IQ and high T folks raise their kids how they want and let the high IQ and low T folks raise their kids however they want.

  8. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    "There is no need to pass an anti-spanking law, but personally I'm against it. If/when I have kids in the future, I won't spank them for 2 reasons:

    1. I probably won't need to. As a previous commenter mentioned, high IQ children have less need to be spanked because it's easier to talk logic and reason with them."

    I can tell you have no children.

    Reasoning with an intelligent 6 year old is still reasoning with a 6 year old-it's not reasoning with an intelligent person.

    "I plan on marrying a high IQ, low T man so that I can have high IQ, well-behaved children."

    I can tell you have no children.


  9. Dan says:

    As with all things, it depends.

    If Jeb Bush had spanked his daughter Noelle when she was little she might not have grown up to be a crack addict. (Boy did 2016 bring the best available first family or what?)

    Jeb's challenge was that parenting techniques that worked on him were different from what was appropriate for his kids because aich-bee-dee.

  10. I posted above, as "Unknown" (because that was the only option available to me on this site) and indicated that I was spanked as a child. That, apparently, prompted other posters to suggest that only low IQ parents "spank" their children who, in turn, grow up to be low IQ and violent adults. I like to think that my IQ is on par with most everyone else and I think my career as a successful corporate lawyer provides evidence of that. Moreover, I have never had to engage in acts of violence against persons or property.
    also, I do not think that I am the exception in that regard. The problem with surveys and studies that deal with such issues is that the definitions of "spanking", "corporal punishment", etc. are highly subjective. When does a spanking become a beating? Is it duration, amount of force; what distinguishes an appropriate swat on the rear from a beating? What may be a warranted spanking to me might be a brutal beating to someone else who is more squeamish and sensitive to such things (e.g. the poster who thinks she will marry a high IQ fellow).
    Old, established wisdoms and experiences, while not always infallible, became conventional wisdom for a reason. Maybe the old folks who believed in "Spare the rod and spoil the child." knew what they were talking about.

  11. As the parent of a high IQ, high T boy, I can tell you that spanking is effective and reasoning isn't because masculine leader types use their intelligence to get their own way and not to find ways to obey women. With my oldest son, the leader type, I tried reasoning etc. I didn't even bother with the second child. If he did something wrong, he got spanked, then an explanation, then the promise of another spanking if he did it again. The threat of a spanking is so much more believable after they have already got one. Anyway, the second child is much more compliant than the first. Smarter people are often more compliant sorts, but not always.

  12. I was a huge dork growing up. I never got spanked but my parents would take away my Nintendo if I did something wrong. I you asked me at eight years old if I would have rather been spanked than my NES taken away, I would have said yes!

  13. Feryl says: • Website

    'The only time I can imagine doing it is if one of my kids put themselves in serious danger (walking out into a busy street"

    I remember my dad reprimanding me (and/or possibly my friend) for doing that. Once me and my brother got older, though, we had free rein. But we stayed mostly out of trouble, so it's not like our parents should've had a heavier hand.

    The helicopter thing isn't as strong as it used to be, but that's because parents and kids have changed. Late Boomer parents with Millennial young kids in the 90's and 2000's were pretty officious. Understand that Boomers hated Gen X culture so Boomers were trying desperately to make sure that their kids were getting different signals than previous generations.

    X-ers overseeing late Millennial and Homeland kids are quietly regimenting their kid's lives to remove any kind of excitement, uncertainty, danger, or fear. Boomers are rather erroneously criticized for being too soft on their kids; in fact, they often pushed their kids to achieve and do the right thing. And Boomers tended to approach parenting with an attitude of providing a map to their kids but not necessarily telling them the exact path to take. The tendency to ostentatiously badger anyone around their kids is not really the same thing as over-protectiveness. Granted, ANY form of parenting would seem over-protective compared to what Gen X kids experienced in the 70's thru mid 80's.

    Now that egoist Boomers are no longer shouting at people for hurting their kid's feelings or teaching them evil ideas, it seems like parents have calmed down a lot. I think it's because X-ers intuitively guide their kids while still not being "over" the notion that they shouldn't engage with a world that never appreciated them. Ya know how activism skipped a generation in the 80's and 90's. Why put that much effort into even thinking about society when society treats you like you don't exist. Besides, the Boomers sure thought they were making a difference, and look at how that turned out.

    Strauss and Howe say that mercenary generations become reclusive as they age. We've seen ample evidence of Silents and Boomers trying to remain as powerful and active as they were as youngsters. You can imagine why X-ers get more comfortable sitting things out.

  14. Great story about your son! From what I can tell this sort of thing is a common dilemma among parents; it's hard to punish something that's technically wrong but also quite cute or clever.

  15. Why did taboo against spanking and other kinds of physical punishment develop so quickly in the west, though there seemed to be long tradition of it and much of it was supported by scripture and even secular parenting guides.

    I'm under impression that the rate of spanking declined for a long time and that fewer men who were veterans of WWII spanked their children than their fathers had done. My parents born in the fifties were influenced by being afraid of their parents and took every measure possible not to be scary authoritarians themselves.

    But I guess it depends on children. If you have a violent child you will be more likely to use violent methods to control him. A lot of criminal adults seem to blame their violence on being beaten as children by parents or teachers. More likely correlation is that violent, impulsive, unempathic children are more likely to be punished physically and otherwise.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS