Troubling Study: 1 in 5 children in UK do not see a problem with late tea or dinner!

[Reenk Roink]

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8516387.stm)


A study of schoolchildren has found that most of those questioned thought violence towards women was acceptable if there was a reason behind it.

The majority of the pupils said it was justified if the woman had an affair, or if she was late in making the tea.


The research involved 89 primary seven children at five Glasgow primaries.


They were asked to consider whether or not a man was justified in punching his partner when he found out she had had an affair.

Nearly all of the children thought that the woman deserved to be hit.

In another scenario, about 80% of the children said a man had cause to slap his partner because she did not have the dinner ready on time.

What is going on there!?! :furious3:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

In another scenario, about 80% of the children said a man had cause to slap his partner because she did not have the dinner ready on time.

So a man slaps his wife because she didn't have the dinner ready on time. Do 11 year olds know what "having cause to" entails? Or do they just think that the late dinner was the cause of the slap in the scenario, and that therefore he had cause.

It's not clear to me what "justification" and "had cause to" require exactly*, and I'm not even an 11 year old...

*this reminds me of a possibly fake story. They ran a test of high school students with the question "Is 120% of 80 greater (a), less than(b), or equal to 80(c)? Only 33% got the answer right. So the adults running the test concluded that only 33% of the students understood percentages.

[Reenk Roink]

So a man slaps his wife because she didn't have the dinner ready on time. Do 11 year olds know what "having cause to" entails? Or do they just think that the late dinner was the cause of the slap in the scenario, and that therefore he had cause.

It's not clear to me what "justification" and "had cause to" require exactly*, and I'm not even an 11 year old...

*this reminds me of a possibly fake story. They ran a test of high school students with the question "Is 120% of 80 greater (a), less than(b), or equal to 80(c)? Only 33% got the answer right. So the adults running the test concluded that only 33% of the students understood percentages.

My bet is you're over analyzing it. We don't have the exact questions asked, but given the phrase in the previous sentence "deserved to be hit" it seems likely that the writer of the story was trying to use synonyms instead of using the same word over and over again. The phrasing is much more likely to be a style issue for the news story. I doubt we can infer the wording of the questions of the study from it.

But I don't think the basic meaning of "justification" and "had cause to" are too puzzling for 11 year old kids. It's basically, does she deserve to be hit for doing/not doing something.

[Beskar]

This was brought up some time ago on the forum (or was it another one).

But the studies conclusion is fundamentally flawed, for a start, it claims "UK" when they have only tested Glasgow. Glasgow also has the highest rates of violence in the whole of the UK and is known for this reputation. A head-butt he is also known as a "Glasgow kiss". So when a study of one of the highest areas for violence (involving domestive abuse) is tested, you would see high figures, especially in a population of children, who wouldn't know any better.

Also the articles conclusion is this "The children didn't agree with violence, but gave reasons to try to justify it if the woman had done something 'wrong'."

This is vastly different to saying violence is justified, as they are simply trying to justify the reasons behind such violence, not actually condoning the violence itself.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It looks like it was just this lady going to schools and talking to kids, from what I can find on google.

Vikram:Sometimes you can hit hard and sometimes you can hit not very hard
Nancy: Right okay, so you are saying it's ok to hit a girl if the girl...
Sandeep: No it's not ok to hit a girl, but it's ok if they annoy you
Nancy: So if you have a reason?
Sandeep: yeah

Reported as:


A study of schoolchildren has found that most of those questioned thought violence towards women was acceptable if there was a reason behind it

:shrug:

[Reenk Roink]

This was brought up some time ago on the forum (or was it another one).

But the studies conclusion is fundamentally flawed, for a start, it claims "UK" when they have only tested Glasgow. Glasgow also has the highest rates of violence in the whole of the UK and is known for this reputation. A head-butt he is also known as a "Glasgow kiss". So when a study of one of the highest areas for violence (involving domestive abuse) is tested, you would see high figures, especially in a population of children, who wouldn't know any better.

Yeah, it's Glasgow, but the kids weren't 7 but 11-12.


Also the articles conclusion is this "The children didn't agree with violence, but gave reasons to try to justify it if the woman had done something 'wrong'."

This is vastly different to saying violence is justified, as they are simply trying to justify the reasons behind such violence, not actually condoning the violence itself.

No, I don't think that's how it is to be interpreted, because of this sentence:


They were asked to consider whether or not a man was justified in punching his partner when he found out she had had an affair.

Nearly all of the children thought that the woman deserved to be hit.

This isn't a "I can see why he hit her though I don't condone it" sentiment.

P.S: I'll give this 20 posts before someone brings up the growing Muslim demographic :rolleyes:

edit


Vikram:Sometimes you can hit hard and sometimes you can hit not very hard
Nancy: Right okay, so you are saying it's ok to hit a girl if the girl...
Sandeep: No it's not ok to hit a girl, but it's ok if they annoy you
Nancy: So if you have a reason?
Sandeep: yeah

Reported as:

:shrug:

Sasaki, I would consider that a pretty good way to report that little dialogue. The kid says that it's not ok EXCEPT for some reason. Then he explicitly affirms it is ok if there is a reason. Did you have something else in mind on how to report it, I think the reported did a pretty good job?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

P.S: I'll give this 20 posts before someone brings up the growing Muslim demographic

Disputing a study isn't denying a problem.

[rory_20_uk]

Using the descriptive terms of my choice would probably get me banned, as using terms such as "scum", "vermin", "dross", or "Scottish" are viewed as overly pejorative.

OK, I'll try... Ask darlings from such charming locations as the salty boroughs of Glasgow, and what do you expect?

I'm sure having the Northern Territories will be of extreme use if we need to re-fight the Somme.

~:smoking:

[Reenk Roink]

Disputing a study isn't denying a problem.

I don't understand this statement in reference to my statement. :huh:

[Tellos Athenaios]

Why do I get the feeling I read this before? ...

[Reenk Roink]

Why do I get the feeling I read this before? ...

Just read the story date... my bad. :shame:

[Beskar]

They were asked to consider whether or not a man was justified in punching his partner when he found out she had had an affair.

Nearly all of the children thought that the woman deserved to be hit.
This isn't a "I can see why he hit her though I don't condone it" sentiment.


Yes, it is exactly that. The children are simply trying to rationalise the answer, they are not condoning the answer. They are assuming that this theoritical person is not getting in trouble over what is happening, so they are trying to rationalise this so it makes sense to them. Also, it would have been the same exact results if you replaced "girl" with "boy".

The studies jumps at too many conclusion while leaving glaring potholes in its wake.

[Reenk Roink]

Yes, it is exactly that. The children are simply trying to rationalise the answer, they are not condoning the answer. They are assuming that this theoritical person is not getting in trouble over what is happening, so they are trying to rationalise this so it makes sense to them.

Where the heck did you pull all that out from? How did you infer that they assume the person isn't getting in trouble? I'll stick with the normal interpretation of "deserved to get hit" myself thank you... :rolleyes:


Also, it would have been the same exact results if you replaced "girl" with "boy".

First how do you know? Second, does it somehow matter?


The studies jumps at too many conclusion while leaving glaring potholes in its wake.

It would be more convincing if you had tried to explain the results by saying the kids were trolling... Because your interpretations and criticisms of the study are worse than anything the study itself says (and the fault was mine about extrapolating Glasgow to UK, the article was careful and sober).

[Pannonian]

Using the descriptive terms of my choice would probably get me banned, as using terms such as "scum", "vermin", "dross", or :daisy: are viewed as overly pejorative.


I'm sure the mods are reasonable enough to take context into account.

[Beskar]

It would be more convincing if you had tried to explain the results by saying the kids were trolling... Because your interpretations and criticisms of the study are worse than anything the study itself says (and the fault was mine about extrapolating Glasgow to UK, the article was careful and sober).

No, they are not. Don't get your hat in a twist.

[Reenk Roink]

No, they are not. Don't get your hat in a twist.

Yes they are Beskar, and I'm not wearing a hat. :kid: You can try addressing the points next time though.

You are basically resting your wrong interpretation of how you wrongly believe the kids answered on this quote from the initial story: "The children didn't agree with violence, but gave reasons to try to justify it if the woman had done something 'wrong'."

Well, let's dig a bit deeper into it: http://www.scotsman.com/education/Children-39say-it39s-OK-for.6074152.jp


Researcher Nancy Lombard said: "Initially, when we started discussing it, the youngsters said all violence was wrong.

"However, on further discussion, they found justification for the violence if the woman had done something 'wrong'."

She added: "Young people justified violence by using gender stereotypes."

This is aside from the fact that you have ignored or chose to interpret statements vastly differently from standard use like: "They were asked to consider whether or not a man was justified in punching his partner when he found out she had had an affair. Nearly all of the children thought that the woman deserved to be hit."

Basically, the evidence is insurmountable that you simply cannot dismiss the results of this study as explicated by these articles by a wishy-washy hand waving.

Your later statements clearly show that you are bringing things up without any backing such as:


The children are simply trying to rationalise the answer, they are not condoning the answer. They are assuming that this theoritical person is not getting in trouble over what is happening, so they are trying to rationalise this so it makes sense to them.

Again I ask, how do you know they are assuming this "theoretical person" is not going to get into trouble? Why do you believe that it is THAT factor which is the main reason the kids feel it is justified to hit? Citations please.

And this statement is curious:
Also, it would have been the same exact results if you replaced "girl" with "boy".

It seems you are simply more interested in discrediting this study using whatever technique is available to you. :rolleyes: Well, since you dodged last time, I'll ask again. How are you so sure that the results would be the exact same? Did you run the test on the same children? Also, why does it matter if they were the same? Is it somehow more acceptable then?

Again, Sasaki actually found a dialogue between the researcher and kids, it is definitely one concrete case where your interpretation is wrong:


Vikram:Sometimes you can hit hard and sometimes you can hit not very hard
Nancy: Right okay, so you are saying it's ok to hit a girl if the girl...
Sandeep: No it's not ok to hit a girl, but it's ok if they annoy you
Nancy: So if you have a reason?
Sandeep: yeah

Is the kid just 'rationalizing without condoning' here too? :rolleyes:

[PanzerJaeger]

89 subjects in one limited geographic area? Can you really base a study on such small numbers and then carry that over to an entire country?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

My point with the dialogue is that she was asking leading questions. The kid said that it isn't ok to hit a girl, but it's ok if they annoy you, which sounds like a play ground squabble. She turned it into "it's ok if you have a reason", which is the reported headline, where the study is characterized as revealing that our society raises boys with the idea that it is ok to beat your wife if you have a reason.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This was brought up some time ago on the forum (or was it another one).

But the studies conclusion is fundamentally flawed, for a start, it claims "UK" when they have only tested Glasgow. Glasgow also has the highest rates of violence in the whole of the UK and is known for this reputation. A head-butt he is also known as a "Glasgow kiss". So when a study of one of the highest areas for violence (involving domestive abuse) is tested, you would see high figures, especially in a population of children, who wouldn't know any better.

I think it was me that made this thread before...

And that time it also ended up in Glasgow-bashing. The Gorbals aren't what they used to be you know, I wouldnt' be surprised if Glasgow is now safer than many English cities, you're certainly less likely to get shot there.

From the last thread, I also remember people questioning the methods used to question the children. For example, you can sort of lead them into saying 'yes' just by phrasing the question a certain way. For example, if they children were asked if they thought wife-beating was wrong, a lot more of them would probably have said 'yes'.

[HoreTore]

Bah.

Kids are kids - they're not supposed to be smart. Heck, I even thought Carl I Hagen was a terrific fellow at age 13. And that the King was one of the coolest guys in the country....

But I grew that off me, just like these kids will do.

[Reenk Roink]

89 subjects in one limited geographic area? Can you really base a study on such small numbers and then carry that over to an entire country?

The title is my own work, and was meant in a more lighthearted way, not to be exactly what the study was concluding. The study doesn't conclude that 1 in 5 children in the UK dont have a problem with late dinner you see.

But if the sample is representative of schools around Glasgow, then it has a bit more statistical rigor. Sample sizes don't have to be as big as many people intuitively think according to statistics.

Of course, since we don't have the exact details of her study, we don't know how she sampled the schools in Glasgow, whether she went to all types of schools and various ones, or whether she picked the school in an area with a reputation to the expense of all others. Though I'd say it's fair to assume given her institution, the latter kind of study would be avoided even if the former ideal wasn't exactly met either.


My point with the dialogue is that she was asking leading questions. The kid said that it isn't ok to hit a girl, but it's ok if they annoy you, which sounds like a play ground squabble. She turned it into "it's ok if you have a reason", which is the reported headline, where the study is characterized as revealing that our society raises boys with the idea that it is ok to beat your wife if you have a reason.

I see your point but to be honest, with the dialogue, I'm thinking there is less of a reason to assume the questions were disastrously problematic (obviously any type of poll question has a degree of being problematic due to language).

If she had left it at:

Nancy: Right okay, so you are saying it's ok to hit a girl if the girl...
Sandeep: No it's not ok to hit a girl, but it's ok if they annoy you

And then went on to conclude what she did, you could see where the conclusion might take a leap, although with that dialogue alone I'd say the conclusion is justified.

The fact that this was added:

Nancy: So if you have a reason?
Sandeep: yeah

...reinforces it.

Essentially, the default position seems to be it's not ok to hit (something mentioned in the article) but then the reasons given as exceptions is what is problematic. Furthermore, given the high percentages cited, even if we adjust for hypothetical error, the conclusion remains quite strong.

[gaelic cowboy]

Depends what ye mean by tea or dinner man not too long ago was not unusual for the dinner to be eaten a twelve o'clock in the day here and I'm sure same applies in UK.

[Myrddraal]

You've also got to remember the kids judge things by their own standards. If any of these kids have been slapped for being bad, they probably think that translates directly into adult relationship (i.e. if a woman has been naughty, she gets slapped)


From the last thread, I also remember people questioning the methods used to question the children. For example, you can sort of lead them into saying 'yes' just by phrasing the question a certain way. For example, if they children were asked if they thought wife-beating was wrong, a lot more of them would probably have said 'yes'

Indeed, this was very much in the media with the recent rape case of the very young girl who, when cross examined, told the defence lawyer that she had made the whole story up. The defence lawyer had said something like: "You made all this up didn't you?".

[Fragony]

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8516387.stm)







What is going on there!?! :furious3:

Flat-hand theory

In all seriousness, if you ask 'when would YOU hit your wive' aren't you being kinda irresponsible; you don't hit women basta.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Flat-hand theory

In all seriousness, if you ask 'when would YOU hit your wive' aren't you being kinda irresponsible; you don't hit women basta.

Your response is unclear. Please explain (feel free to use small words, I am not all that bright).

[Beskar]

Your response is unclear. Please explain (feel free to use small words, I am not all that bright).

I think "flat-hand theory" means, that you don't punch your wife, you slap her with an open flat hand, so you don't ruin her looks.

Then he states "in seriousness" (implying the previous statement was a joke), he mentions that asking "when would you hit your wife" is being irresponsible, as should not hit her in the first place, then he proceeds to call the investigator parentless.

[Centurion1]

I think the thought frag is attempting to convey the idea that the question is loaded. Meaning when asked, "when is it okay to hit a woman?" So the child is almost forced to give an answer and he chooses something that matters in his mind, in this case feeding or fidelity.

Annoying to me is that the study is never applied to girls. I guess its okay fir women to hit men

[PanzerJaeger]

WWSCD (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo0d1zTAFKA)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlTCu0wDczc&feature=related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynoiBF7OjkI&feature=related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzHuW4MGUd4&feature=related

[Fragony]

Your response is unclear. Please explain (feel free to use small words, I am not all that bright).

When you ask when violence is permitable you are already implying it is permitable in some cases. It really isn't, you simply don't hit your wife.

[Louis VI the Fat]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynoiBF7OjkI&feature=relatedI am sooo going to test this one out on all the girls I know. :jumping:


(after I've increased my dental insurance - got to be prepared for some teeth knocked out - those girls are vicious nowadays)


'Man talk', *slap* :laugh4:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I am sooo going to test this one out on all the girls I know. :jumping:


(after I've increased my dental insurance - got to be prepared for some teeth knocked out - those girls are vicious nowadays)


'Man talk', *slap* :laugh4:

Bon chance, mon ami. Je suppose que vous en aurez besoin.

[Centurion1]

Lol just an epic lol for that one seamus

[Skullheadhq]

The kids who said this were probably trolling, something which I would have done as well if they asked me.

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[Vladimir]

Wait, wait, wait. Is it bad that I hit my gf for messing up my sammich? I have to plead ignorance on this.

Do you mean hit like "I'd hit that" or "Your pimp hand is strong!"

[a completely inoffensive name]

...