rationalskepticism.org

Mr.Samsa wrote:

riddlemethis wrote:
Whilst I'm a proponent of the Triple P approach MrS, I'm going to have to say I think mandatory parenting classes is an extraordinary leap & I can't see upon what basis the expense could be justified (although I can see why the people with the license to the method might lobby that it is necessary!). These kinds of methodologies are only as good as the consistency with which they are applied in the first place & secondly it is an enormous value-judgment that there is only one 'correct' way to raise a child. I don't want to derail this too much, and perhaps I'll look to see if we have a thread on this in the psych section, but I did want to put these points on the table.

I suppose that's just where we differ then, I think parents being taught how to properly raise their kids is worth almost any expense (and with things like triple-P being done online these days, the costs are minimal). And whilst I agree there is no "one right way" to raise your kid, there is only "one right way" to control their behavior and prevent problem behaviors. That is to say, whilst the values and opinions you wish to pass on to your children is ultimately up to you, there is literally only one way to increase good behaviors and reduce bad behaviors, and that's what parents need training on.

Hmmm, well, I think there are generations of successfully raised children that demonstrate this may not be the case. None-the-less, a child's behaviours is simply the manifestation of the values of a family as far as I can see. The best way to promote good behaviour in children is by modeling it. Where adults behave badly, children behave badly. There also simply has to be some latitude given for the age of the child you are dealing with (which is why the program is pitched only at families with 4-12 yr olds). What I do like about Triple P is that it isn't a plan for controlling children's behaviour, it is more about controlling the parents behaviour (ie: be consistent, be clear & simple in your expectations, follow through, keep your temper), just spun in a pretty package . However, not all adults who become parents need this behaviour control & engaging the people who desperately do is going to take a bit more than an online course before they have any experience in kid-wrangling.

Mr Samsa wrote:

riddlemethis wrote:As to the 'dog test'. Nup. It simply isn't worth the cost involved to the community just as a starting point. Although as an exercise in diminishing the numbers of 'owned' animals I kind of like the idea, but that is simply a personal bias which I'd never really think it is ok to force on others. I am definitely for mandatory registration & wouldn't mind if more 'renowned' breeds required dog & owner to do some intensive training to ensure public safety perhaps. . .hmmm

As far as I'm aware, the biggest predictor of a dog attacking someone is the training they receive, and the type of dog has no predictive value (once you account for the fact that certain breeds being trained to attack, making them more likely to bite due to the training). Which makes sense, considering all dogs are the same sub-species so we wouldn't expect any major behavioral differences across breeds.

In other words, giving extra training to certain breeds to reduce dog attacks won't help any more than trying to reduce the effects of global warming by eliminating pirates..

Fair enough. In that case, send 'em all to school, 'cause dogs bite.