Now, maybe kids who are spanked ARE more optimistic, but is that really what the study proved? Maybe not. First, it’s a VERY small sample. This finding may well not be replicated. Second, it is well established in the literature that kids who are spanked are more psychologically defended. People who are more psychologically defended tend to have less nuanced, more conventional interpretations of things and to rely on the defense of denial. Kids who are more psychologically defended might well be expected to express more determined optimism about their futures than kids who can allow themselves to see things more realistically. This is reminiscent of the kids I worked with in inner-city Newark who couldn’t get through high school. They needed their denial to survive, and often told me with great optimism how they were going to be famous rappers or basketball players.

It’s also worth noting that no peer reviewed psychology journal was willing to publish her article, because they don’t think her methodology was good enough.

Now, maybe kids who are spanked ARE more optimistic, but is that really what the study proved? Maybe not. First, it’s a VERY small sample. This finding may well not be replicated. Second, it is well established in the literature that kids who are spanked are more psychologically defended. People who are more psychologically defended tend to have less nuanced, more conventional interpretations of things and to rely on the defense of denial. Kids who are more psychologically defended might well be expected to express more determined optimism about their futures than kids who can allow themselves to see things more realistically. This is reminiscent of the kids I worked with in inner-city Newark who couldn’t get through high school. They needed their denial to survive, and often told me with great optimism how they were going to be famous rappers or basketball players.

It’s also worth noting that no peer reviewed psychology journal was willing to publish her article, because they don’t think her methodology was good enough.

http://gymshoesonline.com/

They have people , that will go out ,and deliberately manipulate a person’s (real-time) social environment in an extremely negative, unpleasant and intolerable way that causes that individual to be faced with problems that will cause them to suffer from long term social and emotional distress!

They purposely manipulate an individuals daily social environment in a negative way, so that they will begin to suffer extreme amounts of emotional and visceral pain on a daily basis …all, due to the problems that dr. Matthew Lieberman and dr. Naomi Eisenberger’s group has deliberately caused for them!

Their victims begins to suffer long episodes of rejection, isolation, ostracism, loss, abandonment and cannot find any social support. They are not told why or who has done this to them! Their lives are deliberately destroyed !They begin to suffer extreme amounts of pain all …so , Dr. Matthew Lieberman and his wife, UCLA’s Dr. Naomi Eisenberger can get a more original view of individuals suffering from social distress! The focus of their research experiments!

Dr. Matthew Lieberman and Dr. Naomi Eisenberger ‘ s research projects need to be investigated ,
shut down and held accountable for the lives and health of the individuals that they have tortured and destroyed all for their own financial greed, job security and to manipulate a way to get their research published in journals!

Had they done so, and had the content been surprisingly acceptable, the reception might have been better.

Instead we get this “Hi! Welcome to ShillBlog!” (crickets) and everyone, quite reasonably, expects the worst.