REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Oppositional Defiant Disorder

POSTED BY: BYTEMITE
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 8, 2011 18:51
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4377
PAGE 2 of 3

Saturday, February 5, 2011 5:16 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:


You and I have very different ideas about parenting then. I prefer family life where everything is not negotiable with infants, and where parents have authority. I aim for authoritative parenting, which incidentally has an excellent success rate for kids with behaviourable issues.



Oh?

"The learning theory suggests that the ODD develops as a response to negative interactions. The techniques used by parents and authority figures on these children bring about the disobedient behavior. The parents are not to blame when this happens. These same techniques work quite well for normal children."

http://addadhdadvances.com/ODD.html

"Oppositional defiant disorder may be related to - the child's temperament and the family's response to that temperament"

http://www.depression-guide.com/oppositional-defiant-disorder.htm

"Family instability, including economic stress, parental mental illness, harshly punitive behaviors, inconsistent parenting practices, multiple moves, and divorce, may also contribute to the development of oppositional and defiant behaviors. The interactions of a child who has a difficult temperament and irritable behavior with parents who are harsh, punitive, and inconsistent usually lead to a coercive, negative cycle of behavior in the family. In this pattern, the child's defiant behavior tends to intensify the parents' harsh reactions."

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/918095-overview

I could go on.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 5, 2011 5:18 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. That Van Gogh suffered from mental illness which was at times incredibly debilitating and led to his suicide is not disputed. It may or may not have contributed to his artistic ability.

The article you cite, goes on to say the following

Quote:

Recently acquitted from the hospital, Van Gogh suffered a severe setback in December 1889. Although he had been troubled by mental illness throughout his life, the episodes became more pronounced during his last few years. In some of these periods he was either unwilling or unable to paint, a factor which added to the mounting frustrations of an artist at the peak of his ability. His depression gradually deepened. On 27 July 1890, aged 37, he walked into a field and shot himself in the chest with a revolver. He survived the impact and managed to walk back to the Ravoux Inn. He died there two days later. Theo rushed to be at his side. Theo reported his brother's last words as "La tristesse durera toujours" (the sadness will last forever).[126]


Poor old Vincent. Probably would have jumped at the chance to soothe some of his pain, which he attempted to do so with alcohol and absinthe anyway.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 5, 2011 5:22 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:


You and I have very different ideas about parenting then. I prefer family life where everything is not negotiable with infants, and where parents have authority. I aim for authoritative parenting, which incidentally has an excellent success rate for kids with behaviourable issues.



Oh?

"The learning theory suggests that the ODD develops as a response to negative interactions. The techniques used by parents and authority figures on these children bring about the disobedient behavior. The parents are not to blame when this happens. These same techniques work quite well for normal children."

http://addadhdadvances.com/ODD.html

"Oppositional defiant disorder may be related to - the child's temperament and the family's response to that temperament"

http://www.depression-guide.com/oppositional-defiant-disorder.htm

"Family instability, including economic stress, parental mental illness, harshly punitive behaviors, inconsistent parenting practices, multiple moves, and divorce, may also contribute to the development of oppositional and defiant behaviors. The interactions of a child who has a difficult temperament and irritable behavior with parents who are harsh, punitive, and inconsistent usually lead to a coercive, negative cycle of behavior in the family. In this pattern, the child's defiant behavior tends to intensify the parents' harsh reactions."

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/918095-overview

I could go on.



Who says authoritative is harsh? You are mistaking it for authoritarian, quite different styles.

Quote:

What is Authoritative Parenting?

Authoritative parents exercise control over their children, without being controlling. They set rules and guidelines that they expect children to follow. But they also recognize that sometimes flexibility is called for. Authoritative parents often express love and affection to their children, without fear that such expressions of emotion may affect their ability to discipline. As their children get older, authoritative parents encourage more responsibility and freedom, within well-outlined rules. The American Academy of Pediatrics and other children’s health organizations state that children of authoritative parents usually grow up to be independent, socially successful, and respectful of authority.

Using snacks as an example, an authoritative parent might allow sweets in moderation, after explaining to the child that such treats are tasty, but not necessarily healthy.

Authoritarian Parenting

Like authoritative parenting, authoritarian parenting involves control. But unlike authoritative parenting, authoritarian parenting usually involves too much control. Authoritarian parents set rules and standards without flexibility, emphasize obedience and feel it is important to exert power over their children. Authoritarian parents may not show as much love and warmth as authoritative parents, which can lead to their children feeling rejected and unloved. Authoritarian parents are also more likely to label a child as “bad” if they fail to follow the strict rules set down for them. Children of authoritarian parents usually follow one of two paths; they either rebel against authority and escape their homes early (whether they are ready or not), or they remain dependent on their parents throughout adulthood.

Again using the snack analogy, an authoritarian parent would set a rule that sweet snacks are never allowed, no matter what the occasion.

Permissive Parenting

On the face of it, permissive parenting may seem like a much better idea than authoritarian parenting. Permissive parents show lots of love and affection, accept their children for what they are and make few demands of their children. But in doing this, permissive parents fail to teach their children the consequences of their actions, respect for authority and responsibility. By showing little or no control over their children, they risk raising a spoiled child who expects to be spoon-fed both physically and emotionally throughout life. Children of permissive parents are less likely to grow up independent and socially successful than children of authoritative parents.

In the snack example, a permissive parent would not limit a child’s intake of sweets, and would not explain the consequences of unlimited snack consumption.

Authoritative Works for All Children

Since authoritative parenting is inherently flexible, it works for all kinds of children. Whether a child is naturally anxious, easy-going or energetic, authoritative parents know that they can deal with any problems that arise as long as they stay firm in both their love, and their authority. Authoritative parents recognize that not all children are the same, and that rules may need some changing depending on the child. Being a flexible, authoritative parent shows your children the value of compromise and lets him or her know that while you are still in charge, you can make changes in rules if necessary.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 5, 2011 5:28 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. That Van Gogh suffered from mental illness which was at times incredibly debilitating and led to his suicide is not disputed. It may or may not have contributed to his artistic ability.


Am I trying to prove something? I was just proposing an alternative take on him. Yes, he had mental illness, yes, he was an artist, and cared enough about his art being "good" in his estimation that he destroyed a number of them. But there's some suggestion that he's been over-romanticized, and did consider money to be a fair motivation.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 5, 2011 5:32 PM

BYTEMITE


...What on earth is this link and thing you've quoted? None of it means anything to me.

I also note, again the point in my previous post saying that the parenting style that can generate ODD can work for other children, but only makes things worse for the defiant kid.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 5, 2011 5:46 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. That Van Gogh suffered from mental illness which was at times incredibly debilitating and led to his suicide is not disputed. It may or may not have contributed to his artistic ability.


Am I trying to prove something? I was just proposing an alternative take on him. Yes, he had mental illness, yes, he was an artist, and cared enough about his art being "good" in his estimation that he destroyed a number of them. But there's some suggestion that he's been over-romanticized, and did consider money to be a fair motivation.



Oh god, I'm sure he wanted money and success. That makes it all the more poignant, don't you think? And that possibly his mental health or lack of may not have contributed to his art but may have actually hindered it and most probably hindered any capacity to achieve success as he would have seen it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 5, 2011 5:52 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
...What on earth is this link and thing you've quoted? None of it means anything to me.

I also note, again the point in my previous post saying that the parenting style that can generate ODD can work for other children, but only makes things worse for the defiant kid.



http://www.essortment.com/all/authoritativepa_tvxe.htm

I took from your previous post that harsh and puntive (along with chaotic and inconsistent) parenting had very poor outcomes for kids with ODD. You posted that in reponse to my say that authoritative parenting worked well with kids with behavioural problems, as well as most other kids. I assumed you thought that I meant 'authoritarian' parenting, and posted the extract to define the differences.

Authoritative = firm limits and boundaries but loving and kind and accepting of emotions.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 5, 2011 5:52 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:


Oh god, I'm sure he wanted money and success. That makes it all the more poignant, don't you think? And that possibly his mental health or lack of may not have contributed to his art but may have actually hindered it and most probably hindered any capacity to achieve success as he would have seen it.



It's true he clearly had anxiety and depression, but there are also a number of other behaviours that researchers have tried to define as one disorder or another. It's possible that some of them may have influenced his unique view of the world as much as impressionists he encountered in France.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 5, 2011 5:58 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


From a website on ODD>
http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/disorders/oppositional-defiant-dis
order.shtml


Quote:

Research has found that there are three basic parenting styles:

Cop – Authoritarian Parenting Style. The parent implements behavioral programs and dishes out consequences for behavior. Tries to control situations to insure appropriate behavior. Fosters fear and conformity. Wants the child to always be obedient.

Social Worker – Permissive Parenting Style. The parent protects the child and tries to minimize consequences for behavior. Always tries to understand the child and wants others to understand and accept the child. Fosters dependence. Wants the child to always be happy.

Coach – Authoritative Parenting Style. The parent works alongside the child to encourage and teach him or her to develop an attitude and a set of skills that will lead to success. Helps the child to set reasonable goals and achieve them. Fosters independence. Wants the child to be as successful as possible.

[Research indicates that the Authoritative Parenting Style works best for all children].


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 5, 2011 5:58 PM

BYTEMITE


I still don't really understand. I wasn't calling you harsh and punitive, I was refuting what I thought was a claim that a lot of rules, structures, and discipline can be effective at reigning in a kid with a behavioural problem. It doesn't appear to be the case with ODD, as the parenting method is a cause for it.

I'm afraid classification of parenting styles into categories means absolutely nothing to me, as does an unsubstantiated claim, with no links to further studies or citations, that one works better than any other. I suspect all families are different, and all children are different, and people will revert to whatever feels natural to them on a case by case basis.

Do you have kids with behavioural issues? If so, I'd be interested to hear your personal experience with that. I don't know what these links are you're giving me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 5, 2011 6:41 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Are you interested in mine? Because I have a daughter with behavioral issues. Or will you dismiss me as being an enemy?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 5, 2011 7:36 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, see, you really don't want to hear the voice of hard experience, do you Byte?

But, I'm going to tell you anyway.

My dd had a brain bleed when she was born, a bleed so bad it should have killed her- but didn't. As a result of her bleed, she developed a rare syndrome... not hydrocephalus but rarer... which caused unrelenting seizures and regression. I can tell you with absolute certainty that it was heartbreaking to watch her disappear under an onslaught of unending seizures into a mute, trembling, shell of a child who was lost in her own house. Trust me... I KNOW that the brain can screw up.

She also became extremely hyperactive. Oh yeah... and oppositional. She couldn't keep her mind on a single activity for more than ten seconds at a time. I was offered the option of Ritalin. But because I knew the cause of her problem, I chose not to medicate for that particular issue.

I have to say, that keeping her attention was like fishing a 50-lb fish with a 10-lb line. Too hard, I would lose her. Too easy, she would be bored and I would lose her. You have no frigging IDEA what we went through. But we did try non-prescription approaches. Now, I did aggressively pursue medical treatments for her other problems. NON-medication was not an option. Steroids and dopamine-preserving drugs proved to be the cure. She is still brain-damaged, but at least her brain chemistry is altered... permanently, one hopes... into functionality. She talks and even talks back, she finds her way around, she learns. We love her. She loves us. We're glad she's "with us" again.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 5, 2011 8:10 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Did you happen to watch this Firefly show? It's pretty cool I here.

I'm sorry, I'm a fan of the world. I like it as it is, unmodified, uncontrolled, chaotic, not hydrogenated methylated chloro-fluoro-ethoxylated. Just good old planet earth, with people. Not a clone army of zombies. Ordinary, crazy, dangeous, funny, lovable people.

Awwww. You just gave me the warm fuzzies.

As you say, "Spot on."


-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.



Thanks


Magon,

that was of course part of the point. So did Tchaikovsky, and Nietzsche was institutionalized. But if they had all been "normal" we never would have heard of any of them.

Aside from being schitzo, Van Gogh had a terrible drinking problem, and was terrible with women. Not sure that these things are connected.


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

The human mind. We're not talking about a neurodegenerative condition here, a malformed brain that will cause disability and death, we're talking about the human mind.
Where does the mind end and the brain begin?



Easy. Brain is hardward, mind is software. If there's a physical problem, that's brain damage. Like a stroke, aneurysm, or tumor, or alzheimers. Something is structurally wrong. The mind is effected by cognitive patterns and neurotransmitters. The latter is fixable, the former, alas, not yet.


Byte,

Vincent was a huge liability to Theo, who had a life, a wife, a music and art career. But he never made any money that I know of. Theo supported him. If Vincent had been normal, perhaps Theo would have been someone, who knows. But it's not going to alter my outlook. I'd rather have a world with Terry Pratchett and Terry Gilliam.

And yes, byte, well said: Everyone has to make their own choice. If they choose to be sane and not artistic, that's their choice. But society should not correct them. I made that choice once, and I regret it, I hope it can be reversed.



Oh, and yes, Kudos, Byte: you created the thread that really lays bear where the core difference lies: I think you, me, frem and cts are all essentially falling here on the side of chaos as the natural order of the world, magon and sig are falling on the side of human-imposed order on the world. I haven't really scanned to see where others fall, but it shows a core belief deep down which underlies the differences I have with socialists, and it turns out not to be political, left right, or social-justice oriented, but in fact a radically different world view.


Sig,

That's brain damage. It's physical. It's not the same as psychological problems. But that's a horrible story.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 5, 2011 8:23 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I still don't really understand. I wasn't calling you harsh and punitive, I was refuting what I thought was a claim that a lot of rules, structures, and discipline can be effective at reigning in a kid with a behavioural problem. It doesn't appear to be the case with ODD, as the parenting method is a cause for it.

I'm afraid classification of parenting styles into categories means absolutely nothing to me, as does an unsubstantiated claim, with no links to further studies or citations, that one works better than any other. I suspect all families are different, and all children are different, and people will revert to whatever feels natural to them on a case by case basis.

Do you have kids with behavioural issues? If so, I'd be interested to hear your personal experience with that. I don't know what these links are you're giving me.



Why should my links be any different to yours? I'm not expressing bewilderment at what you have provided. In fact one of yours was just a whole heap of advertising junk. Not very relevant.

I'm sorry that you can't get the idea of parenting styles, although I'm not sure why it should mean nothing to you. Research seems to indicate that different parenting styles result in different outcomes for children. Of course parents will adapt for different children's needs, and parent as they see fit, but basically an authorative style seems to provide good outcomes for children, including children with behavioural issues.

I'm not going to link you to any research. Partly because a quick google should provide you with what you require and partly because when I have provided links to research, you've still dismissed what I have said because it conflicts with what you believe to be true.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 5, 2011 8:27 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, see, you really don't want to hear the voice of hard experience, do you Byte?

But, I'm going to tell you anyway.

My dd had a brain bleed when she was born, a bleed so bad it should have killed her- but didn't. As a result of her bleed, she developed a rare syndrome... not hydrocephalus but rarer... which caused unrelenting seizures and regression. I can tell you with absolute certainty that it was heartbreaking to watch her disappear under an onslaught of unending seizures into a mute, trembling, shell of a child who was lost in her own house. Trust me... I KNOW that the brain can screw up.

She also became extremely hyperactive. Oh yeah... and oppositional. She couldn't keep her mind on a single activity for more than ten seconds at a time. I was offered the option of Ritalin. But because I knew the cause of her problem, I chose not to medicate for that particular issue.

I have to say, that keeping her attention was like fishing a 50-lb fish with a 10-lb line. Too hard, I would lose her. Too easy, she would be bored and I would lose her. You have no frigging IDEA what we went through. But we did try non-prescription approaches. Now, I did aggressively pursue medical treatments for her other problems. NON-medication was not an option. Steroids and dopamine-preserving drugs proved to be the cure. She is still brain-damaged, but at least her brain chemistry is altered... permanently, one hopes... into functionality. She talks and even talks back, she finds her way around, she learns. We love her. She loves us. We're glad she's "with us" again.



Sorry to hear what you have been through, but glad that after all that your daughter has found a way to function in this world.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 5, 2011 8:31 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:




Oh, and yes, Kudos, Byte: you created the thread that really lays bear where the core difference lies: I think you, me, frem and cts are all essentially falling here on the side of chaos as the natural order of the world, magon and sig are falling on the side of human-imposed order on the world.



Nope. Not even close. Just think that there is somewhere between dosing everyone up to the eyeballs because they are not happy and letting people live with chronic mental illness which prevents them from functioning
,
Aint enough medicine in this whole world to get rid of chaos, and I wouldn't want it gone anyway.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 5, 2011 8:35 PM

BYTEMITE


Hey, come on, I was watching my grandma for a few hours there. I can't be on Fireflyfans all the time.

Let me read your post now. Yes, I am actually interested in hearing.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 5, 2011 8:46 PM

BYTEMITE


Sig, what you're telling me is potentially good news. 1) It sounds like the initial damage altered brain chemistry, but 2) it sounds like you found something to alter it into state that was liveable (no seizures, allows interaction with outside world).

It looks to me like my cousins brain chemistry has been altered into a Ritalin-dependent state, and also something has happened to increase aggression. Choosing the right treatment could alter it back permanently, it's a question of understanding what the changes are.

Going to still have to be very careful about approaching kid or parents or both. Also with research.

I have a lot to think about. Thank you for your story. I am glad for your daughter.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 5, 2011 8:46 PM

DREAMTROVE


Magon,

How *much* order you want to impose upon the world isn't really the question. I used to think that the socialists of the board just wanted to solve the same problems I did, just in a different manner. Now I see that there is truly an irreconcilable difference there. It's not personal, it's just an observation.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 5, 2011 8:51 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Ah I see, its the old 'when in doubt make some sweeping generalisations' time.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 5, 2011 9:09 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Easy. Brain is hardward (sic), mind is software.
Except in this case the hardware affects the software, and the software rewires the hardware. Your sister's brain tumor should tell you that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 5, 2011 9:17 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

I'm not going to link you to any research. Partly because a quick google should provide you with what you require and partly because when I have provided links to research, you've still dismissed what I have said because it conflicts with what you believe to be true.



...Those were articles as far as I can see, not research.

I apologize for the ad-only link, it must auto-redirect on visit. Check your computer for virus or malware if you don't have a blocker, ad sites are notorious for that kind of crap. This was unintentional. Sorry again.

On googlng, I see a lot of websites with the information about the theory, but no research or published studies. A wikipedia entry on the subject is helpful, because they have citations, and historical information on the theory you've introduced, and then I can go look at the data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenting_styles

Now, I'm seeing that someone who proposed these parenting styles is someone named Diana Braumind. She has written about deception in psychology and also has criticized the Milgram experiments.

This goes a long way to winning credibility with me, because the Milgram experiments are woefully flawed and rife with sampling bias and systematic error. It does not look like she is particularly agenda driven, which is usually my big red flag.

She is, however, potentially a product of her time. Many of the expressed viewpoints do seem to be consistent with a reactionary point of view to counter the United States 1960s hippie culture.

She is also potentially a product of her upbringing.

Quote:

when appropriate controls are made for family income and other independent variables, Baumrind believes that mild corporal punishment per se does not increase the likelihood of bad outcomes.[11] This assertion has in turn attracted criticism and counter-points from other researchers in the same publication, for example: Whether harmful or not, there is still no consistent evidence of beneficial effects.[12]


I too was hit as a kid, and I don't see that as particularly being anything that messed me up. (I am messed up, but other factors were the cause)

Someone like Frem would find that abhorrent. Of course, I don't plan to have children, so speculating on what parenting style I'd advocate is somewhat pointless. I don't particularly have an opinion on them either.

Quote:

Research into the child behavior outcomes associated with each type of parenting has traditionally shown a strong benefit to authoritative parenting. These children have been shown to have more self-discipline, emotional self-control, more friends and better school performance. However, recent research has identified a number of caveats. First, authoritarian parenting may be more effective in certain contexts and in social groups other than those studied in early research. Secondly, little research has examined the genetic influences that may underlie the findings. For instance, harsh parents may produce harsher children through the mechanism of genetic transmission of these traits. Behavior genetics research is currently examining the influence of genes as they pertain to parenting styles.

An additional criticism of the parenting styles research is that parenting has been shown to be part of a bi-directional relationship between parent and child. Thus, characterizing a parenting style as arising from the parent leaves out the essential influence of the child on the parent-child dyad.



I also note that hers is not the only theory on parenting out there. There are a group of scholars advancing her theory, there seem to be eight major studies into it. One of the few I can review is from BYU, which is a school I'm familiar with... It can be an accredited research school, but there are also religious influences. I can however clear Diane of this, as she was from Berkeley, but I can see how her theory might appeal to the administration at BYU. I am looking at the paper anyway. Bleh, it's only a thesis? Ugh. Still trying. Hmm. It's exploring persistent childhood behaviour in adults, particularly the tendency for young adults to remain at home into their twenties. I'm not prepared to say the article is neutral. The theory may well have merit, so I'd be interested in seeing any text you have from Diane, it's not available from wikipedia.

I'm mostly concerned that excessive punishment and effort to make my cousin conform have resulted in harm. Parenting style is probably irrelevant in this case, as they strike me as more negligent and this issue more the fault of this one teacher than anything. But I don't know for sure, as I've never been in a position to observe the kid's interaction with his parents.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 5, 2011 10:49 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


I've never advocated harsh punishments and in fact I am against them for any child. I advocate for having clear and firm boundaries, being warm and loving in ones parenting, and being able to accept emotions, even difficult ones. I've said that all along. I don't agree with kids having equal say with adults, nor having the burden of adult responsibilities. I've also consistently said that. I've also said that kids take on responsibilities and more say in what happens to them as they grow. Also said that.

There has been considerable research into parenting styles and I am glad that you were interested enough to look them up. John Gottman and Daniel Goleman have also done much research on both parenting styles and emotional intelligence, which I am very interested in.

For a lot of kids, how parents 'parent' will affect their behaviour and then there are those that will still present with difficulties no matter what the parents do. Kids with autism for example. They may not be 'cured' but it will be beneficial.

I might also add that I am against medicating children for behavioural issues in most circumstances, although ritalin does seem to have some success, I am concerned at the overall affect on a child's brain when it is still developing. I am definitely against anti depressants as recent research has shown that they can produce opposite reactions in the immature brain ie suicidiality. However, as signy has demonstrated not everything is clear cut and some situations are desperate. I do know that it is the easiest thing in the world to criticize other people's parenting and their choices with out having the full story and not having experienced how damned hard it can be to have a child with behavioural issues.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 6, 2011 12:34 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
deal with people like Story and Nicki, and may end up with custody of the kid.




I just pointed out your incorreect assumption), as opposed to someone like you, who is ignorant of simple facts?

Once again, Wulfie, you reveal how intelectually stunted you are.B]




Maybe the spelling fairy can come on by and point out your incorreect spelling....fucking genius.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 6, 2011 3:46 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Easy. Brain is hardward, mind is software. If there's a physical problem, that's brain damage.


I love how each era's latest technological marvel is the goto for the brain's operation. The brain used to be described as an incredibly complex clockwork, then it was an incredibly complex telephone switch, now it's computer hardware and software.

The issue is that the mind is somewhat an emergent property of the underlying "hardware", and the underlying hardware "rewires" itself in response to the pre-dominate mind-state.

I don't think a general Hardware/Software analogy bears any scrutiny, at least until computers are programmed by rewiring their hardware. In the brain, unlike computers, there isn't much distinction between hardware and software because the brains "hardware" rewrites itself so that it is also the brain's "software".

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 6, 2011 4:02 AM

DREAMTROVE


Citizen,

It's been around for about 30 years, but I think it's its an excellent analogy. Synaptic changes are more like switched than wires, because the brain can change them at will. The hardware is stuff which cannot be changed by the software, it needs to be physically altered. I spend a lot of time studying the brain and have for the last decade. There are definitely two distinct levels, and I think the hardware/software is a pretty perfect match. We, our personalities, are programs, running on giant computers. I get that it's more complex than that, but to answer a simple question like where does the brain end and the mind begin, I think it's a solid answer: The brain is hardware. It never changes unless there's a physical damage. If there is a physical damage, it cannot be repaired by changing the software. If there is a glitch in the software, it is overwhelmingly not caused by a problem in the hardware* and fixing it requires software solutions, which for the brain is psychology (any technique) or psychopharmacology (even if it's alt. med.)

*even in extreme cases like mine. That said, therapy isn't going to cure a brain tumor. That's what I mean by a clear delineation.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 6, 2011 4:05 AM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Ah I see, its the old 'when in doubt make some sweeping generalisations' time.




Is this directed at me?

If so then... yeah, pretty much ;)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 6, 2011 5:02 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Citizen,

It's been around for about 30 years,


So? Christian Theology has been around for thousands of years, hardly proof evolution is wrong.

Other analogies for the brain have been around a lot longer, and they're also wrong. It's longevity says nothing about it's correctness.
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Synaptic changes are more like switched than wires, because the brain can change them at will.


Yeah, and it's the brains interconnections that actually give rise to it's emergent behaviour, not the raw meat of the Neurons.

Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The hardware is stuff which cannot be changed by the software, it needs to be physically altered.


Which is why it's a bad analogy, because the brain's "hardware" is constantly changing, neurons die and are replaced, while the interconnections, which you say yourself the brain is able to change "at will", are what drive the brains function and behaviour. These change constantly under the dictates of environmental factors and the "mind-state". The "mind" is an emergent property of the physical brain, and the physical brain changes to reflect the mind, so separating them out as distinct and separate entities makes little sense to me.

Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I spend a lot of time studying the brain and have for the last decade. There are definitely two distinct levels, and I think the hardware/software is a pretty perfect match. We, our personalities, are programs, running on giant computers.


And I 100% disagree, because the "software" is an emergent property of the brain structure, not something separate that could be imposed on another brain without changing the physical properties of that brain itself. The two distinct levels I see in the human brain would be more like the Conscious and the Sub-Conscious. Reading between the lines (and admitting I'm interpreting what you're saying, so please don't be offended if I'm getting it wrong) you're argument is that the sub-conscious is "hardware" and the conscious mind is "Software". I think that's a fine distinction purely for some psychological theoretical framework, but falls short when attempting to apply it as an actual explanation of the brains operation as you are doing.

To jump back to the computer analogy, the conscious and sub-conscious are much more like the difference between a text-console and a GUI environment, quite different, but at the end of the day just a different expression of the same thing.

Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

The brain is hardware. It never changes unless there's a physical damage.


Which again is why it's a bad analogy. For the analogy to work we have to accept that the physical brain and it's structure doesn't change without externally administered damage; yet that's not even remotely true, the physical brain and it's structure is constantly changing.

Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
If there is a physical damage, it cannot be repaired by changing the software.


A required conclusion from the Hardware/Software analogy, also flat-dead wrong. Talk therapy is used in brain disorders (physical brain problems) as much as drugs, and has quantifiably been shown to work.

Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

If there is a glitch in the software, it is overwhelmingly not caused by a problem in the hardware


That's a very flat and sweeping statement, that seems to ignore the facts. Mental disorders, from depression to schizophrenia, pretty much always have some physical changes to go along with them.

If "software" problems we're merely a software thing and the hardware had nothing to do with it, you could dope someone up to the eyeballs and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to their condition.

Therapies routinely combine, what in your analogy would be hardware and software therapies (drugs and talk therapy). Further such combinations of techniques are proven to be more effective than doing either alone, if your analogy were correct, it shouldn't be that way.

Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
and fixing it requires software solutions, which for the brain is psychology (any technique) or psychopharmacology (even if it's alt. med.)


That's odd, now you seem to be suggesting that therapies that work solely on the mind (talk therapy) and therapies that work on the brain's physical structure and operation (drugs) are both software therapies. In which case I have no idea where you're getting the hardware part of your analogy from.
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

*even in extreme cases like mine. That said, therapy isn't going to cure a brain tumor. That's what I mean by a clear delineation.


But a brain tumour can change and often does change the persons personality, as does the surgery to remove it. Brain damage (such as that guy who got a rail road spike through his head, whose personality was drastically altered) changes the "software" along with the "hardware", and sustained "software" conditions change the underlying "hardware". The hardware and software of the brain are expressions of the same thing, and a mutual feedback mechanism, separating them out requires we focus merely on the very narrow short term extremes at the end of a wide and long-term spectrum; by doing so we miss what's really going on.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 6, 2011 6:01 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

She is, however, potentially a product of her time. Many of the expressed viewpoints do seem to be consistent with a reactionary point of view to counter the United States 1960s hippie culture. She is also potentially a product of her upbringing.
As are we all, Byte. And being a product of our culture, HER focus seems to be on "success", and how best to generate that hypomanic state which this culture assumes to be the norm.

So, your point is...?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 6, 2011 6:12 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Thank you Citizen for explaining the duality of the mind/brain.

DT, on many things you are rather mystical and understand that phenomena are often interconnected, and similarly that many characteristics are on a spectrum, with no bright line between them. On this, however, you're uncharacteristically dogmatic. There is, as far as I know, no EASY analogy for the brain. We simply don't have computers in which the software can partially rewire the hardware.

On the bright side of this mind/ brain mutuality, however, is the fact that self-aware and disciplined mental/emotional exercise can partially rewire the brain. So a person with compulsions, for example, can become less compulsive with time, just as John Nash (the subject of A Beautiful Mind) learned not to listen to the voices in his head. The underlying issue is not "cured", but the effects are lessened.

HOWEVER, the most successful therapies often combine both meds and awareness. And, you can't completely talk away seizures, for example, or autism, or Alzheimer's, or schizophrenia or even compulsions. There is an underlying biological process driving all of this.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 6, 2011 6:38 AM

BYTEMITE


Well, a reactionary viewpoint to 1960s hippie culture is difficult for me to call a neutral starting point. However, I do give her credit that she didn't say there were only two types of parenting and advocated the extreme opposite of hippie parenting, and instead recognized that there was also a such thing as too much discipline.

The particular problem I see is that once again in the web page I looked at a claim is made that "Research into the child behavior outcomes associated with each type of parenting has traditionally shown a strong benefit to authoritative parenting." But I see no cites or links leading to these studies. This makes me think that it is opinion, and also that there is a subset of the population for some reason interested in pushing this opinion.

I would have no problem if the three proposed parenting types listed had pros and cons for all of them, instead of holding up one better than another. It comes across to me as a subjective preference for authoritative parenting, but to be fair I'm not sure who or what group is responsible for the claim.

I also wonder how much parenting style can vary within a family, inevitably some parents are going to be more permissive with some children than with others. It seems like a generalization to say "all parents fall into these three styles, two have bad results, one has good results that works for all children."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 6, 2011 7:31 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Hooo boy, thread explosion.

Imma take in order here from my last post - things have been wacky around here so I've been haring off hither and yon, especially since one of our guys found hisself a human freeziepop with a couple large caliber holes in him and isn't mentally dealin with that too well, not to mention about half the jerks involved in that little palace coup/company defection have come back practically on their knees beggin for their old jobs back and I ain't quite decided what to do about that yet...
(Frankly, trust being a huge factor in this biz, they stand little chance of convincing me.)


Anyhow, to biz;

EPMCHRISTENSEN, if talkin about it helps you cope, by all means you go on and do that, even if we are lobbing fireballs at each other most of the time, RWED is kind of familial what with the venting and the bickering, so by all means vent if ya need to.

And yes, I understand the general drift of those kinda feelings well enough to articulate them quite reasonantly, but of course every case is an individual thing and that is why folks really, really NEED to learn to listen to what the hell kids are saying, which most people never do because of the idiotic social concept that kids don't know anything - well, they know what their own issues are, and askin them, then LISTENING TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY is IMHO the first and most important step in helping them deal.

As for finding that "just one person" to listen, to commisserate, and this is important to you as well Byte, that phenomenae is known as a "Helping Witness", and is quite critically important, as described by Alice Miller.

The Essential Role of an Enlightened Witness in Society
http://www.alice-miller.com/index_en.php?page=2

Simply by being there, listening, understanding, you can do a world of good even if you are powerless to act.


Now, onto the notion of it "not being his decision to make" - well in order to answer that, you have to ask yourself the very important question, is this a person, or is this a piece of property ?
Because if it's the former, it's absolutely imperative that they have a say, maybe not the LAST say, but a true, honest say in the matter, rather than let's-pretend-to-hear-them-out...
And I find it damn rare that they're actually given such, thus generally regarding them to the category of livestock or pets, something I will ever find offensive, and will also point out that once included minorities and women, with much the same excuses.

One must also note that I have seen this pattern more times than I can count, a child who doesn't truly have ADD/ADHD shoved onto meds for convenience, a secondary med to disperse the aggression, and then Clonidine to address the sleep disorders the first two cause - all of which are in fact, off-label and NEVER properly tested for longterm effects on the age group they are applied to, something which disturbs me greatly.
When dealing with a problem like this, there is a certain mentality about it, going for the quick fix, slapping a patch on it, treating the symptoms - which is, IMHO, a damn bad idea, it's like taking nyquil for tuberculosis.

Firstoff, what needs to be identified is that is this a mere BEHAVIORAL disorder, or an actual brain misfire, a proper diagnosis is absolutely key to treatment of any kind, and medication should play a role of primarily symptom-abatement while the root cause is being addressed and as part of a full spectrum treatment plan intended to get back to "normal" or at least normal enough to function in what we call society (and for the moment I'll save my breath on what I think of normal/society for brevity) and eventually if possible without chemical assistance or a minimum of such.

We need to look beyond just shovelling pills and symptom treatment, to helping folk get better, instead of slapping a patch on it, cause over time medication loses it's effectiveness or even becomes counterproductive, and then what, more meds and more meds ?
Sure, that might help Big Pharma make a profit, but what about the patient, here ?
Proper diagnosis, full spectrum treatment plan aimed at normalising the patient - we clear ?


MAGONSDAUGHTER, yanno, I actually *winced* when you said "Authoritarian Parenting", but I am glad you explained what you meant - I think that some of y'all aren't getting across cause of the different logic structures you use, and lemme see if I can bridge that, a bit, at the risk of maybe failing and getting flamed by both sides.
Nothin ventured, nothin gained, right ?

You remember me saying Autism-spectrum kids hate, hate, hate uncertainty, and that by eliminating every possible uncertainty, giving them a solid, eminently predictable structure, it gives them a kind of mental bedrock to set their back against, giving them more mental ammunition to deal with lifes little surprises and whatnot ?
This is the kind of parenting Magonsdaughter is talking about, firm limits, solid policies, the kid always, ALWAYS knows where things stand, what the rules are, where the line is, there's no flimflam, no uncertainty, you see ?

Now, yes, I'll say right up front that grinds my gears to even THINK about, cause imma damn Anarchist, of COURSE it's going to, HOWEVER, for Autism-spectrum kids, and a perhaps a few without mental affliction, that parenting structure can and does work damn well - it would NOT work for most ODD-classed kids (despite my opinion that diagnosis is pure bullshit), and it sure as hell would not whatever have worked with me.
But children are, above all, individuals - good parenting is all about what works for the child, what they need to prosper and grow, and some children really do function better when they can be absolutely certain of what the rules and limits are.

There's a big difference between that kind of parenting, and what I call poisonous pedagogy, the force-resistance-more-force model which is so damnably destructive - and yes, I suppose conventional Authoritarian parenting does hold a risk of crossing that line, but till it does I rather think we should trust a parent to do what is right for a child so long as the child appears to be happy, healthy and prospering, yes ?
Even if it *does* come into conflict with our own worldview and notions - there's no one-true-path for parenting, we don't have all the answers, and the person most qualified to make that decision is in most cases, the parent closest to the child.


SIGNYM, well in your case there is an obvious physical cause, and you didn't skimp on diagnosis and considering all possible alternatives, that's a whole different thing - and I know sometimes you feel your back is against the wall and folks are throwing rotten fruit at you, but seriously, there's a big difference between a situation like yours, where the child has an obvious, well diagnosed cause, and an involved parent who has evaluated all the options - and the quick-fix mentality, which you do not suffer from, but in your defensiveness of your own situation, tend to overlook, or think folks are flaming all medication use.

This is not the case, at least with me, I am against the *improper* use of medication, the quick-fix mentality, and a lack of appropriate diagnosis and longterm treatment plan other than more meds and more meds, when they should be focused on normalising - in your case, normalisation is unlikely if impossible, but "better" is a reachable goal, and DOES require the use of meds to alter brain chemistry closer to normal on a permanent basis.

I dunno the specifics, and that level of brain chem alteration is really stretching the bounds of my competence since my specialty is more behavioral, as you well know - but seriously, you shouldn't take it as a judgement against you when people decry folk who did *not* go the distance, as you have, I know you're kinda sensitive about it, but so far as I am concerned you got nothin to feel guilty ABOUT, and I really think you kinda needed to hear that, ok ?


For the rest...
So far as how the brain works, and the neuro-chem-bio details in the purest sense, you're gonna have to go digging in Doc Perrys work for that, as again, stretching the boundries of my competence here.

As for Byte's situation, I posited the most likely scenario based on the information and experience I have, and what the most likely outcome is likely to be, with caveats that there's no easy, simple solution and that the kid in question's opinion and decision is going to affect the situation - I simply feel that they should be fully informed and make their own decision about what to do from that point, because one thing I have seen as of late in ever more alarming and increasing numbers, is parents *lying* to the child about what those pills ARE.

Perhaps this is because children these days are ever more aware of the world around them than each successive generation, and they DO communicate with each other, thus giving rise to a certain resistance to the notion of being medicated - especially when they see other students they once regarded as perfectly normal, or at least normal in a childs sense of the world, reduced to something... less... by medication.
Even back in MY day we desperately pitied the "Ritalin Kids", especially if we knew them before zombification.
Of course, that might not be so accurate a sample, since it was a second-chance school to begin with and fodder for the hellcamps and other nefarious concepts at the time as well, but I do recall we pitied them, it was like seeing McMurphy in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest after he got lobotomized, you see ?
And worse were the "graduates" which returned from the hellcamps, all of which killed themselves within the year of their return.

But even in a more 'normal' school, complete with it's penal system pecking order and rabidly authoritarian structure, there's a certain eerie revulsion at watching someone get changed that way, and when the other kids can put a name to the cause, and that name is a medication - you can damn sure imagine when THEIR parents get the notion to put THEM on that stuff, what their reaction is going to be...

So more and more, I am seeing parents LIE to their kids about what the pills are, and I think that's pretty damn unforgiveable - remember you're talking about someone who underwent a high dosage Thioridazine withdrawl unexpectedly, because I had been told it was a medication for my food and pollen allergies, and thus you can imagine I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Anyhows, that's all I got on the topic, and I need to get back to work here.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 6, 2011 8:46 AM

DREAMTROVE


Sig,

The brain is a physical thing, the mind is the information on it. Seems cut and dried to me. Anyway, sorry to hear.

Byte's problem here doesn't necessarily require repair though, it seem mental/chemical.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 6, 2011 2:14 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Well, a reactionary viewpoint to 1960s hippie culture is difficult for me to call a neutral starting point. However, I do give her credit that she didn't say there were only two types of parenting and advocated the extreme opposite of hippie parenting, and instead recognized that there was also a such thing as too much discipline.

The particular problem I see is that once again in the web page I looked at a claim is made that "Research into the child behavior outcomes associated with each type of parenting has traditionally shown a strong benefit to authoritative parenting." But I see no cites or links leading to these studies. This makes me think that it is opinion, and also that there is a subset of the population for some reason interested in pushing this opinion.

I would have no problem if the three proposed parenting types listed had pros and cons for all of them, instead of holding up one better than another. It comes across to me as a subjective preference for authoritative parenting, but to be fair I'm not sure who or what group is responsible for the claim.

I also wonder how much parenting style can vary within a family, inevitably some parents are going to be more permissive with some children than with others. It seems like a generalization to say "all parents fall into these three styles, two have bad results, one has good results that works for all children."



I saw plenty of cites in the wiki entry, so I'm not sure what your issue is. If you want the actual research however, you are probably going to have to buy it. That's how this capitalist system seems to function.

Some parenting styles don't have many pros. If you beat your child with a broom handle every night before bed, it's not going to be a parenting style that produces positive outcomes in a child. Not all things are equal and some ways of doing things produce better results than others.

Your thinking about this matter appears to be excessively rigid. The styles are broad. Researchers would have observed that parents who do certain things most of the time had the best outcomes. No one expects parents to tick a long list of boxes on what to do. It's pretty basic stuff, kids do well if parents provide structure and limits, are consistent with them, are warm and loving and provide emotional support. It's kind of Parenting 101 as far as I can see. Most of us don't do it all the time, and we all do it differently and all that is fine. Parents who impose harsh punishment, are emotionally cold and disapproving of emotions, and conversely those who set no limits are likely to have kids that don't do so well. And I say 'likely' because these are only indicators and not predictions. Kids individual temperaments will also be a significant factor. Many people survive horrific childhoods and come out in reasonable shape. It's kind of like letting kids play in the traffic, they won't necessarily get hit by a car but there chances of doing so are significantly increased.

I like all the John Gottman stuff. He comes at parenting from the framework of fostering emotional resilience in children, but the outcomes of his research are pretty consistent with the other research. he talks about parents emotional styles - and the one he found worked best was 'emotion coaching' which consisted of, guess what, setting limits and boundaries and supporting kids emotionally. Actually he puts it the other way around but you get my point. He says that most parents use a variety of different styles - he calls them 'emotion dismissing' 'emotion disapproving' 'laissez faire' and as I said earlier 'emotion coaching'. Again he comes at it from a different angle from Baumrind but they correlate. But children who have a parent parent who uses the emotion coaching style enough of the time, have the best outcomes.

These sort of theories go hand in hand with new research into the brain's plasticity, which we've drifted into again in this thread. Interaction and experience changes the brain and has the capacity to change and improve behaviour and cognition, not just in childhood but throughout our lives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 6, 2011 2:40 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And yes, I understand the general drift of those kinda feelings well enough to articulate them quite reasonantly, but of course every case is an individual thing and that is why folks really, really NEED to learn to listen to what the hell kids are saying, which most people never do because of the idiotic social concept that kids don't know anything - well, they know what their own issues are, and askin them, then LISTENING TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY is IMHO the first and most important step in helping them deal.


I agree totally. We need to hear what kids say and let them voice their concerns, just like we need to keep them informed about important things in their life, something my parent's generation never did.


Quote:

Simply by being there, listening, understanding, you can do a world of good even if you are powerless to act.

This is the stuff that changes the brain.

Quote:

Now, onto the notion of it "not being his decision to make" - well in order to answer that, you have to ask yourself the very important question, is this a person, or is this a piece of property ?
Because if it's the former, it's absolutely imperative that they have a say, maybe not the LAST say, but a true, honest say in the matter, rather than let's-pretend-to-hear-them-out...
And I find it damn rare that they're actually given such, thus generally regarding them to the category of livestock or pets, something I will ever find offensive, and will also point out that once included minorities and women, with much the same excuses.


Again, we're are saying the same things but in a different way. Of course a child should have voice - I've said this over and over again - but I believe parents/caregivers have the final say. This stuff is really too complicated for most laymen adults to comprehend, let alone a 7 year old child.

Which leads me to a point around expert advice. I've notice a lot of posters on these boards pretty much shun expert advice = preferring to do their own 'research'. well I can tell you, I can do all the reading on the internet I like and it aint going to make a neurosurgeon of me. People who study and practice in their field for years are going to have much more expertise than I will, and frankly, although I'm going to read about things that affect me, I'm not going to study every decision in my life indepth enough to be an expert on everything. To even think that is possible is incredibly conceited. If i want my car fixed I go to a mechanic. If I'm sick, I go to a doctor, need my teeth fixed, a dentist etc etc.

If I get expert advice that I don't like, I might see someone else, but it seems to me to be a very fraught path to constantly doubt all experts, all conventional wisdom, because of distaste for the status quo. Otherwise I'm going to have rely on my being able to research every single decision I make in my life to an expert level, and given the amount of dross and misinformation on the Internet, I'm going to struggle with even finding properly researched and valid material to read. I'd rather have a life, frankly, a put a smidge of trust that the world isn't out to get me for some [insert favourite conspiracy theory] reaspon.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 6, 2011 3:35 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

I'd rather have a life, frankly, a put a smidge of trust that the world isn't out to get me for some [insert favourite conspiracy theory] reason.



I have OCD, anxiety, and paranoia, I can't NOT do this. It's a fair point about the consequences though, I know them well.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 6, 2011 5:55 PM

FREMDFIRMA



More like you have trust issues, and a compulsively burning *need* to know the truth of things, from my perspective, Byte - makes me wonder if you ain't related to Hunter S Thompson...


As far as expert advice goes, one of the side effects of a passion for information which borders on the legendary greed of dragons, is a pretty solid awareness that even experts are neither infallible, nor immune to human misperception, bias and whatnot - that said it comes down to trust, and you'll note that when something reaches the limits of my own competence I do tend to reccommend where to go for more expert advice, although I do think one should at least have done enough looking into the matter to ask the expert useful questions and to comprehend the answers.
One reason I tend to reccommend Doc Perry isn't just that he and his team are damn good at this, it's also that he's got a way of getting it across to the layman in simple no-nonsense terms so that someone without a background in neuro-bio-chem sciences can actually comprehend what the hell he's talkin about, and that is as critically important as the knowledge itself, if you mean to help folks apply it, right ?

Mostly it's a matter of realizing people are human, even if they do have the benefit of far more experience and education in a given field.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 6, 2011 7:36 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I'm sorry about this situation with your cousin, it doesn't sound like it has been handled correctly and I think I know how you feel about not being able to do anything about it.

ADD is indeed over diagnosed, I think a decent chunk of kids that they say have it are just at the more rambunctious end of the normal spectrum. I do believe that there are some children, and adults, that do have it, but it has become such a fad diagnosis these days, I think the reported number is way higher than the actual number. Second, or even third opinions, especially with little ones, are important when you think something isn't being figured correctly.

I also think schools need to be more flexible with children who learn differently. If kids are having a hard time at school, there are so many factors that could be involved, and I think those things should be looked at and addressed.

I don't have time to read this whole thread, sorry.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 6, 2011 9:12 PM

DREAMTROVE


apparently she's related to me, just take out the paranoia and replace with schizophrenia ;)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 7, 2011 6:45 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Sig, The brain is a physical thing, the mind is the information on it. Seems cut and dried to me.... Byte's problem here doesn't necessarily require repair though, it seem mental/chemical.
DT, I see where we differ. I include "chemical" with "hardware". I think of the brain is a big electrochemical cell, it generates its own electricity, its own clocks etc through electrochemistry. To me, the neurotransmitters and receptors are as much a part of the "hardware" as anatomic features like the hippocampus or the parietal lobe. Maybe its my background as a chemist that makes me see it that way, but to me chemicals are "things" too.

And curiously, it seems to me (and this is just my personal opinion, there is no research at all behind this) that it is far easier to rewire the brain ANATOMICALLY than it is to change the brain neurochemically. There have been experiments where bits of brain tissue have been swapped... some of the occiptal lobe for the temporal lobe, for example, and the swapped part stepped in and performed. Apparently, the different functions in the cortex (visual, language, motor etc) are not set by any specific difference in the nerves themselves, simply by the nearest input and output. The real difficulty seems to be that once the number and type of transmitters and receptors have been set (by experience or exposure) it is very difficult to change. For example, a child exposed to a lot of stress will prolly always have a higher number of receptors devoted to stress... I suppose this even translates to in-utero exposure to the mother's stress via cortisol. A person whose receptors have been burned out by XTC will still show deficiency years later.

I think... and again, this is just me... that it is the number and function (or dysfunction) of receptors and transmitters which cause so many of the difficulties, for example, the failure of dopamine receptors in the substantia nigra which produce Parkinson's.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 7, 2011 8:21 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

Sig, The brain is a physical thing, the mind is the information on it. Seems cut and dried to me.... Byte's problem here doesn't necessarily require repair though, it seem mental/chemical.
DT, I see where we differ. I include "chemical" with "hardware".

That's fine and dandy. But the DSM, including ADHD and ODD, is comprised of descriptions of the "mind," not the "chemistry/hardware."

They then find correlations between these "mind" labels and various chemical aberrations, and leap to assuming they are one and the same. Then without much further thought, many psychiatrists use chemical solutions as the first resort to correcting "mind" problems.

I won't say NEVER use psychotropic meds. But I do think LESS biologically / chemically intrusive solutions should be tried FIRST. Not all hardware problems need to be fixed with more risky physical interventions. Some can be managed with safer software fixes.

The main point parents need to understand is chemical restraints of undesired behavior come with serious risks to health that other softer interventions don't have. So try the softer interventions first before taking those risks.



-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 7, 2011 8:24 AM

DREAMTROVE


Sig

Sometimes you discount my background as a chemist.

Receptor counts can be radically changed in most cases. If Parkinsons was a simple matter of receptor count, it could be forced into hypersensitivity with something as simple as opium. My understanding is that there are multiple causes, from failure to form dopamine receptors due to a genetic flaw, to outright damage to the hippocampus reducing dopamine production.

But the NTs are not part of the physical structure, and its easier to force a change in receptor counts than to even force a cognitive restructure in synaptic connections, but both can be done without physically altering the brain.

By contrast, you can't talk your way out of a stroke or hemorrhage. Sure, lobes share and exchange cells, but even this is very difficult to force in an adult brain, but it's not going to alter the raw major layouts of principle multi-axon bridged, vascular networks or sensor apparatus.

If someone is depressed, you're going to know that 99+% of the time, the reason is chemical. The most common teenage depression for example is a result of tryptamine competition between NT systems. The more sexually repressed the teen, the higher the sexual tryptamine levels attempting to induce mating behavior will be, and as a result, the lower serotonin levels are going to be, because there's a limited supply of raw material, receptors, brain cells, etc. All NT systems interact with others, and some compete more directly.

The best cure for this is sex. That naturally lowers the competition. Failing that, boost the raw materials with supplementation. A really bad idea would be intentionally inhibiting their libido to stop the competition, because which that may solve one problem, it can cause others, and in practice, long term application of tryptamine inhibitors reduces serotonin, as do SSRIs by depleting the vesicle ST reserves.

That last one is worth restating: vesicle depletion is probably one of the most dangerous neurochemical effects you can have.

All of that said, I'd agree the chemicals are part of the brain, because they're physical, but they're relatively easy to change, they're more like your USB flash drive then your CPU. Its not a great analogy, but my general rule is the brain needs physical treatments, the mind needs psychological ones. Not a well defined line, but a good judge.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 7, 2011 9:49 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
All of that said, I'd agree the chemicals are part of the brain, because they're physical, but they're relatively easy to change, they're more like your USB flash drive then your CPU.

CD-ROMs and DVD-ROMs are "physical" entities too. Once they are installed, they become part of the hard drive, in a manner of speaking. But they are still considered software. The operating system is too, for that matter.

To me, chemicals are probably more like CD-ROMs. They are physical entities, but are more about functional information than structural capacity.





-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 7, 2011 10:00 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Sig


By contrast, you can't talk your way out of a stroke or hemorrhage. Sure, lobes share and exchange cells, but even this is very difficult to force in an adult brain, but it's not going to alter the raw major layouts of principle multi-axon bridged, vascular networks or sensor apparatus.




Research into brain plasticity seems to indicate otherwise. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/apr/07/brain-neuroscience-strok
e-depression

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 7, 2011 10:06 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Been gone a couple of days, so when I clicked on this thread, then realized it was 92posts long, can't conceive of reading the whole thing, at least right now. No got time. So I'll respond to Byte's original post only for now.

I agree, the diagnosis doesn't fit and it's wrong to be medicating him. It horrific to me that children are being diagnosed and MISdiagnosed so early in life.

And again, I'll paraphrase my hero, Hagop Akiskal, who said of biolars (tho' it applies to ALL those suffering from mental disorders) that they want relief from the symptoms of the disorder, they don't want to be medicated into zombies just to satisfy the convenience of society. It sickens me.

I wish there were some way you could help him; it's going to affect the rest of his life as it is doing to so many others, and it just makes me just want to


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 7, 2011 10:59 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

then realized it was 92posts long


Yeah, I think most of that was in a single day, too. But at least I'm picking up some information from all this.

Quote:

I wish there were some way you could help him


Thanks. Even the well wishing is good to hear.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 8, 2011 2:46 AM

HARDWARE


Why amd I hearing a Pink Floyd song now?

...We don't need no thought control...

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 8, 2011 7:19 AM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


Okay so last night I read the whole thread. It was very upsetting to me and I had to go and have a cry and couldn't sleep well etc. But now that its tomorrow I'm going to respond.

I feel that Megan's daughter makes good parenting points, for most kids that is the best strategy in my opinion, clear rules but with love and understanding. Some good points from her.

SignyM, I'm glad you guys are to a place where your daughter is feeling more safe and content and is able to communicate and interact, those four things are the most important in my opinion.

Maybe indeed Van Gogh's mental health differences added to his creative abilities, I have no quarrel with that and I'm glad he was able to use that to create art. But it sounds like there was a flip side to it for him: What if he destroyed those paintings not because he honestly didn't feel they were good. Waht if he destroyed his best work because mean nasty voices were telling him to do it and the only way to get them to shut up was to comply? What if he destroyed them because he was under a heavy and horrid dillusion that if he didn't something horrible would happen? What if the dillusion or intrusive thoughts were so strong that the only way to get temporary relief and make the pain subside a little was to do it? What if it was a nasty compulsion? We can't know because he's long dead, but what if? Would you doom someone to suffer such intense pain just because you're against something (medicine) in principle? Just some things to think about in this discussion.

I get the impression that the kid is still little, under 10, so, like it or not, his parents are in charge. I think that informing the parents about things would be good so they can look at the situation and hopefully make an educated decision about the situation. I fear that subverting the parents at this point would possibly make it worse for the kid, something you don't want because I know your objective is to help the kid. Does that mean parents are always right? Absolutely not. One of the things that concerns me in this situation is that only one teacher has seen a problem, that means its sort of subjective, can he be switched to a different class?

I agree with the poster, can't remember who it was, who wrote about how the important thing is how the kid feels, sometimes when we are observing from the outside we only get a small piece of the puzzle. Similarly sometimes the person in the middle of something can't see the forest through the trees. There's merrit in both vantage points.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 8, 2011 7:31 AM

BYTEMITE


You ever deal with anything like this in your work?

Sorry you didn't sleep well. Yeah, this isn't a happy thread.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 8, 2011 7:49 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Byte,

Again, its how far are you willing to take it?

Would your actions help or hurt?

IS, whats happening to the child SO WRONG, that you are willing to do something about it?

If so, what are you willing to lose?

If not, what are you willing to watch happen?

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 21, 2024 17:56 - 4749 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 21, 2024 17:52 - 7472 posts
Biden admin quietly loosening immigration policies before Trump takes office — including letting migrants skip ICE check-ins in NYC
Thu, November 21, 2024 16:47 - 1 posts
Hip-Hop Artist Lauryn Hill Blames Slavery for Tax Evasion
Thu, November 21, 2024 16:36 - 12 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, November 21, 2024 16:28 - 941 posts
LOL @ Women's U.S. Soccer Team
Thu, November 21, 2024 16:20 - 119 posts
Sir Jimmy Savile Knight of the BBC Empire raped children in Satanic rituals in hospitals with LOT'S of dead bodies
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:19 - 7 posts
Matt Gaetz, typical Republican
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:13 - 143 posts
Will Your State Regain It's Representation Next Decade?
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:45 - 112 posts
Fauci gives the vaccinated permission to enjoy Thanksgiving
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:38 - 4 posts
English Common Law legalizes pedophilia in USA
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:42 - 8 posts
The parallel internet is coming
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:28 - 178 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL