Oppositional Defiant Disorder

POSTED BY: Bytemite
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 9, 2011 04:51
VIEWED: 6631
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

BYTEMITE

Friday, February 4, 2011 8:47 PM

I have a cousin who is a child savant. He was taking apart cars, motorcycles, VCRs and tvs fixing them, and putting them back together by the time he was five. He's also a math genius who is not challenged at all in school. He's in the third grade.

They had him on ADHD medication because he was bored out of his mind and wouldn't focus or do his school work. The medication made him aggressive, which was not his normal personality, so now they diagnosed him with Oppositional Defiant Disorder, put him on some new medication in addition to the ADHD medication.

My aunt is singing the praises of the medication because he's "such an angel now, always does what he's told."

...They're RUINING him. ._.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, February 4, 2011 9:11 PM

I could say something here.. probably full of disgust, explicatives, and a general railing against a society that thinks it just so much better to drug a kid than raise him.

But if I were to do that, I would get snarked by all the well meaning (but wrong) fools here.

So, I'll just say, Im sorry for your cuz.

You can't do anything for him as he is not yours, and you just get to watch.

Maybe one day, when he is old enough to be legally free, he will dump those pills down the toilet and reassume his role as a free individual.

Heres to hope.

Until then, Im sure you will hear all the JOYS of the chemistry they are chaining him with.

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

BYTEMITE

Friday, February 4, 2011 9:30 PM

It's already permanently altered his brain chemistry, they tried to take him off the ADHD only for his aggression to jump up again after the 60 days it took for the chemicals to clear out.

That is, assuming he's not also reacting to a difficult home life, which is possible.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, February 4, 2011 9:36 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Allergies/adhd-food-allergy-case-restrict
ing-diet/story?id=12832958

ADHD.. what a fuking crock of SHIT! (sorry)

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

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, February 4, 2011 9:46 PM

That is such a sad story. It breaks my heart.

There are a lot of support groups out there for gifted kids and "ADHD"-type issues. They have found many ways to deal with the BOOMM (bored-out-of-my-mind) disorder without drugs, including...drum roll...academic advancement.

There is nothing one can do if parents are willing to use chemical restraints on their own children.

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

WULFENSTAR

Friday, February 4, 2011 9:53 PM

Stop feeding your kids Starbucks and fifteen different kinds of candy and surprise.. ADHD seems to VANISH.

I'm of the opinion that ADHD does not exist.

Its just smart kids hyped up on too much sugar and caffeine paired with parents who don't understand the importance of well... NOT GIVING KIDS SUGAR AND CAFFEINE... and who don't understand the power of the leather belt.

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

STORYMARK

Friday, February 4, 2011 10:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Stop feeding your kids Starbucks and fifteen different kinds of candy and surprise.. ADHD seems to VANISH.

That's pretty ignorant, and incorrect.

ADHD is vastly over-diagnosed, yes. But in those properly diagnosed, there is a quantifiable difference in brain chemistry.

As a matter of fact, when a real ADHD kid drinks coffee, it calms them because their metabolism reacts to the caffeine differently.

It's hilarious to see you say others "don't understand" when you obviously don't know what you're talking about. But you've never been one to let facts interfere with your beliefs.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

BYTEMITE

Friday, February 4, 2011 10:59 PM

Thanks for listening, guys. I'd heard you all talking about Oppositional Defiance Disorder before and when I heard that just casually dropped in conversation it stopped me short.

This isn't a RWED again, but just, it sounds exactly like the worst case scenarios all of you had already predicted well in advance. And I can't do anything because he's not my kid.

I guess I just wanted to tell you all, that they're already rolling it out.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, February 4, 2011 11:09 PM

Well, you COULD do something. Its just how far are you willing to take it?

I mean, you could suggest not putting him on more drugs... and instead changing his diet.

Thats the most uncomplicated way to go.

Otherwise, you could go another route. Then you would have to fight your family, deal with people like Story and Nicki, and may end up with custody of the kid.

Its really about whats best for the child.

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

THEHAPPYTRADER

Friday, February 4, 2011 11:11 PM

Two of my best friends growing up were 'diagnosed' ADHD though I don't know how accurate that was. One of them I'd definitely believe it (and he was the one that had medication). Anyhow, funny thing was, these ADHD kids didn't seem to have those problems in music class. Perhaps it was the challenge or maybe music is just shiny like that.

Many of my friends now sometimes think I'm ADHD, but they ain't exactly experts either. The way I see it, I can have it (if I have it) and not suffer from it. I forget the specifics but I remember hearing statistics something to the tune of men being far more likely than women to have depression but women who have depression were far more likely to 'suffer' from it. When my work with children with autism begins (another over diagnosed condition) I 'spect I'll have a better perspective on all of this.

STORYMARK

Friday, February 4, 2011 11:20 PM

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

That's twice this week you've gone with the "people like" comment.

I wonder in this case, what you mean? People like me, who know what they're talking about (note that I never encouraged putting the kid on drugs, 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.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

STORYMARK

Friday, February 4, 2011 11:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Anyhow, funny thing was, these ADHD kids didn't seem to have those problems in music class. Perhaps it was the challenge or maybe music is just shiny like that.

That's fairly common. Rythm often helps ADHD kids focus more easily.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

WULFENSTAR

Friday, February 4, 2011 11:22 PM

Its nice to be so reviled that I'm followed.

But really.

You CAN do something. Its just how far are you willing to go?

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

STORYMARK

Friday, February 4, 2011 11:27 PM

Can you ever be man enough to honestly answer a question?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

BYTEMITE

Friday, February 4, 2011 11:31 PM

I tried scaring his mom by pointing out this crap can permanently alter brain chemistry, and probably already has.

I know what you mean Wulf, about what else I could do. It's not a step I'm prepared to take, I have no means to support a kid, I barely get by on my own. But maybe the third option is to find out who his pill-shilling quack of a school doctor is and expose the asshole if I find anything.

EDIT: Also apparently the main problem is with a teacher he has had this year. He has not had problems with other teachers.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Friday, February 4, 2011 11:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I have a cousin who is a child savant. He was taking apart cars, motorcycles, VCRs and tvs fixing them, and putting them back together by the time he was five. He's also a math genius who is not challenged at all in school. He's in the third grade.

They had him on ADHD medication because he was bored out of his mind and wouldn't focus or do his school work. The medication made him aggressive, which was not his normal personality, so now they diagnosed him with Oppositional Defiant Disorder, put him on some new medication in addition to the ADHD medication.

My aunt is singing the praises of the medication because he's "such an angel now, always does what he's told."

...They're RUINING him. ._.

Sounds awful, Byte. I hate that ODD diagnosis, in old terms it just means 'badly behaved'.

There are a many, many ways to support a child with behavioural issues, rather than pathologising amd medicating, and I think all those should be explored thoroughly before medication is used. Trouble is, a lot of that involves parents and teachers changing what they do, and take time and patience, and in this quick fix society, that all seems too hard.

Some school environments just don't suit a lot of kids. Sitting hour after hour in a classroom is akin to torture for a lot, particularly boys. I wonder why we expect it to be okay. Schools which have developmental curriculums and self paced learning can be really good for kids like this, as well as learning environments where there is plenty of outdoors learning through doing. Unfortunately, if you watch caged animals, they display similar sorts of behaviours.

EDIT

Wulf is right in one respect. Diet can have a big affect on kids behaviour. Taking away the preservatives and additives and colourings, and instead eating fresh has had a positive benefit for many kids. But there may be many causes. It may be he is bored. It may be the kind of parenting he gets. It may be some sort of attchment disorder. Needs some careful thinking about how to support this kid so that he can grow up okay, not just a passive automoton.

BYTEMITE

Saturday, February 5, 2011 12:11 AM

Those are some ideas, maybe I can talk to his parents about those as well. A different school may not be an option, his family doesn't have much money. But other things could be tried.

It's just the parents are happy with the drugs, and people I know aren't apt to listen to me. But I'll give it a shot.

His family is estranged from mine, we only started to get back together because of my grandmother needing some looking after. But all of us always thought he was a great kid. It's just a shame to see this happen. I want to help somehow.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, February 5, 2011 12:18 AM

It must be tough to stand by and feel so helpless, Byte, and in the end there is probably little you can do but give some gentle suggestions about trying other stuff. But they may not take them on if the medication has the desired result.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, February 5, 2011 12:42 AM

The first step is to get him out of there. School, that is. The new education system is clearly insane. I hear stories on this board about conditioning, discipline and drugs. I think it's insane. I didn't actually go to school, so I don't have a frame of reference, but I'm convinced that the US has turned into some absurdly backwards police state, at least as far as its treatment of children goes.

After that, I can help, I know a lot about brain chemistry, and how to dial it down, and deal with chemical dependencies and disruptions.

When Frem first posted ODD I thought it was a joke, so I looked it up, and I think my response to him was "Oh, I see, they've now diagnosed and cured a condition we used to call 'kid'."

For psych help, I think Frem should weigh in.

BYTEMITE

Saturday, February 5, 2011 1:27 AM

I've considered the school issue, he might be smart enough, maybe I should suggest to his parents they see if he can pass the GED. Telling him "if you pass this you don't have to go to school anymore" might be a good incentive.

He's a smart kid, I expect he wants to learn and will go back to learning once he has a few years to get the anger out of his system. it's just... Hell teachers. And potentially parents who don't know what to do with him.

BYTEMITE

Saturday, February 5, 2011 1:38 AM

Music. That's a good idea, also maybe some long term projects, like taking care of a class pet. I recall that worked for Frem.

But at this point, I'm almost with DT that it might be better to just get him OUT of there, as fast and as legally as possible.

MINCINGBEAST

Saturday, February 5, 2011 1:45 AM

Boyhood is a disease. The lad must be medicated. Also, in addition to ADHD, he probably has autism and stuff. Maybe if he had his little nads removed he'd behave better, too.

Just because you are proscribed something does not mean you have to take it. I was given prescription as a lad because I was naughty and aggressive and anxious and miserable. Weeks later, when they took a blood test to determine how much of it was in my system (and adjust the dosage), they discovered that I hadn't been taking it.

Boyhood is pathologized, because boys are awful. Fortunately, most boys grow up and become "dudes" and "bros." So cheer up. He may outgrow it. I was a monster in my youth, and now I am merely a beast.

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, February 5, 2011 5:58 AM

Firstoff, Wulfenwhiner, you *DO* realize that your unreasoning malice, sound-byte-ignorance, and general jackassery demeans every goddamn attempt by reasonable folk to do something, therefore by your constant mouthing off without knowing jack shit, and being a total dick about it, you make the folks pushing those pills look like they're right - in effect sabotaging my efforts, something which pisses me off all the worse cause you're too fucking stupid to realize this.

In short - get off my side!

That said...

The sad thing, Byte - is the additional horror of folks who KNOW it's wrong, but simply cringe, turn away and lie to themselves about it, I don't mean you, but I think you understand what I mean.
They look at the situation much like they would a bloody stretcher being wheeled away from a car crash, telling themselves maybe it's not that bad, maybe they'll be all right...

Fact: It AIN'T gonna be alright.

And here's the thing, because of the way the law treats kids as property, as subhuman, any attempt to intervene directly will get YOU in legal trouble, potentially - but you knew that, and indirect intervention like trying to reason with the parents is fairly pointless, cause for every reasoned assessment backing up the case for misdiagnosis and how harmful these things are, there's some asshat like wulfie making it all sound like a bunch of angry kooks, which they're gonna point right to and cast aside your arguments no matter how valid they are.

And don't even get me started on how Doctors are so venerated, incorrectly - outside of some really grevious stuff, I mean real nitty-gritty "dirt", you'll get blown off.

But you have one ally you are overlooking, I think.
Lemme say it right up front, sometimes the only road to take is pretty ugly.

He's not gonna SAY anything in front of them, where they might hear - but he's angry for a reason, he might not even fully comprehend that reason cause his brain is all fogged up with that crap, but he's real pissed off that some of the mental things he valued don't work right any more, and may not have even connected that with the medication cause his processing is currently fucked up, you see ?

So he's pissed off as hell and doesn't know why, or even how to express it.
Why don't you take him aside and *explain* why ?

Yeah yeah, social convention and property rights, and you're supposed to go through the parents, but fucking hell, he's a HUMAN BEING, a PERSON, and you'd think he would have a right to know, although once he does, that is when it's going to turn real ugly, especially if he does trust you enough to listen and accept what you are telling him - cause at that point he's gonna raise the black banner and cry havoc.

And you, M'lady, are gonna take all manner of shit for "going behind his parents back" and telling him the truth of something they wanted him completely ignorant of, and I honestly suspect I am not telling you anything you do not already know, haven't already planned - you were just hoping there was another route to it, maybe some third-option you might have missed... well maybe there is, but if so I sure don't know either.

Which brings us to the problem of "And Then What ?"
Cause if he starts refusing to take the damn pills, aggressively resisting pacification-treatment, that's gonna get nasty, with a side order of how-dare-he-resist-our-will, and it gets tricky cause once that interfamilial war starts, once they get the notion he might be getting "ideas" which THEY didn't put in his head, the very first thing they're gonna do is try to cut off all possible sources thereof - TV, Phone, Friends, etc...
This is also to cover up the notion that they might be ineffective parents, which at it's most extreme results in closet-kid-syndrome, but I don't think that is likely here.

Of course one can expect no support from the school either, but the key here is to both wage and win this "war", while remaining free of coercive incarceration, cause you *KNOW* that's the next straw they're gonna reach for, but it'

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, February 5, 2011 12:52 PM

Frem is spot on.

It also needs stealth. Not only must he say no, he needs to not say it loudly. If he stops taking the pills, he doesn't need to tell anyone. He is going to need a few things

1) you gotta know if he *wants* to stop taking the pills. If he's already addicted, it may be a lot harder.

2) you have to get him out, but fortunately despite the president's efforts to get rid of it, there still is summer vacation. That's enough time for a decent detox. But only if he's *prepared* to detox before that. It's pretty essential that he not discuss this plan with anyone, or the plan is shot.

3) Once you have him out of school, for the summer, you can try to detox and even deal with an underlying problem if there is one, be it psychological or chemical.

4) If you can get him off of it, when he has to return to school, he can simply take the pills and not take them. There's ways to avoid the topic altogether with the parents.

ETA: Frem is also right about the child as property. The parents fall into this trap because society teaches them that their kids are their property. We have to not fall into that trap ourselves.

When I was growing up, child, I won't say abuse, but "misuse" was rampant *(I'll explain in a min.) and at first I ignored it on this territorial basis we're taught, and then I watched disastrous consequences. Finally I figured out sometimes you have to interfere, and do so with stealth.

Misuse, I mean the worst-off kids were not always the ones who were beaten. Those who were beaten *knew* they were being wronged. A couple of other disastrous situations, children put through radical treatment plans which their parents thought were healthy, and on the other end, parents and step parents who introduced their children to drugs, even hard drugs, because they thought they were cool. I know that this goes against the libertarian grain, but I did know parents who gave their kids at 10 and 12, cocaine. And the results were about as fucked up as you can imagine. So, it's not just the schools, it's the property concept. And kids often don't know that they should be independent. If they do, their ahead of the curve. My runaways knew, because it takes really a big step to runaway, but a lot of the kids I knew growing up, didn't.

KWICKO

Saturday, February 5, 2011 1:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Stop feeding your kids Starbucks and fifteen different kinds of candy and surprise.. ADHD seems to VANISH.

That's pretty ignorant, and incorrect.

ADHD is vastly over-diagnosed, yes. But in those properly diagnosed, there is a quantifiable difference in brain chemistry.

As a matter of fact, when a real ADHD kid drinks coffee, it calms them because their metabolism reacts to the caffeine differently.

It's hilarious to see you say others "don't understand" when you obviously don't know what you're talking about. But you've never been one to let facts interfere with your beliefs.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

Bingo. Used to know a kid who was on Ritalin. For most people, that would be a high-powered speed, something akin to methamphetamine. But for him, it was almost like a sleeping pill. He was very hyper, very manic, had some amazingly odd notions (thought-control waves emanating from the electrical outlets in his house, for instance, and a microwave that could "speed things up" in the outside world when it was turned on).

He was later diagnosed schizophrenic, then went off his meds once too often and hanged himself. His parents were so embarrassed they didn't even have a funeral service. I think they just wanted to forget he ever existed, but when he was "on", he had flashes of amazing brilliance.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 5, 2011 4:45 PM

Would you take insulin away from a diabetic? Anti-convulsants away from a someone with seizures? Oxygen away from someone with fibrosis? Antibiotics away from pneumonia? Nature isn't perfect. There are a lot of things that go wrong: birth defects, infection, dementia, schizophrenia, autism. Even ADHD.

It's not like ADHD is a new diagnosis. Have you ever read "The Ransom of Red Chief"? It was written in 1910 and contains a perfect description of a boy with ADHD

Quote:
He [the boy, who names himself Red Chief] made a during-dinner speech something like this:
"I like this fine. I never camped out before; but I had a pet 'possum once, and I was nine last birthday. I hate to go to school. Rats ate up sixteen of Jimmy Talbot's aunt's speckled hen's eggs. Are there any real Indians in these woods? I want some more gravy. Does the trees moving make the wind blow? We had five puppies. What makes your nose so red, Hank? My father has lots of money. Are the stars hot? I whipped Ed Walker twice, Saturday. I don't like girls. You dassent catch toads unless with a string. Do oxen make any noise? Why are oranges round? Have you got beds to sleep on in this cave? Amos Murray has got Six toes. A parrot can talk, but a monkey or a fish can't. How many does it take to make twelve?"

Every few minutes he would remember that he was a pesky redskin, and pick up his stick rifle and tiptoe to the mouth of the cave to rubber for the scouts of the hated paleface. Now and then he would let out a war-whoop that made Old Hank the Trapper shiver... He kept us awake for three hours, jumping up and reaching for his rifle and screeching: "Hist! pard," in mine and Bill's ears, as the fancied crackle of a twig or the rustle of a leaf revealed to his young imagination the stealthy approach of the outlaw band... Red Chief was sitting on Bill's chest, with one hand twined in Bill's hair. In the other he had the sharp case-knife we used for slicing, bacon; and he was industriously and realistically trying to take Bill's scalp, according to the sentence that had been pronounced upon him the evening before.

www.online-literature.com/donne/1041/

Ever read Dennis the Menace? ADHD.

So, let's get past the point that nature is perfect, that all medications are bad, and that any parent who ever medicates their child is a monster, mkay? From a human-interest standpoint.... the one where we like to be healthy and happy and have some control over our future... nature fucks us up. Often. Anyone who claims otherwise just isn't looking.

So let's get to the part about "mind control".

Here's another mind-bending thought: Minds SHOULD be controlled. And normally, they are. There are internal mechanisms that allow us to keep a thought in our head for more than 30 seconds. That allow us to tell reality from fantasy. That direct our attention to the important things, and screen out repetitive stimulus. That keep the brain from firing all together all at once. That put us to sleep at night and wake us up in the morning. That tell our limbs to move smoothly to a target and then stop. That allow us to internally mimic someone else's expressions and motions and feel what they are feeling. Or tells us that it's OK to get out of bed and do something.

But just as there are a couple of thousand individual brain functions, there are just as many DYSfunctions. So, in order of the above list, the dysfunctions are: ADHD, schizophrenia, autism, epilepsy, sleep disorder, dystonia and Parkinson's disease, sociopathy, and depression.

Now, generally, most people fall somewhere in the range of "average". Some people are a little bit distractable, others a little sensitive to stimulus. But SOME people's internal mechanisms are just off-the-charts whacked, to the point where it makes THEM unhappy or dangerous to themselves or others.

So yanno what? "Mind control" is a good thing.

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

Getting back to your nephew, Byte.

I don't know him at all, so I can't possibly weigh in on whether medication is warra

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, February 5, 2011 4:57 PM

Quote:
It's not like ADHD is a new diagnosis. Have you ever read "The Ransom of Red Chief"? It was written in 1910 and contains a perfect description of a boy with ADHD

This sentence defeats itself. I'm sure the book refers to the boy as "ADHD." If it doesn't, than it's not the same diagnosis.

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 5, 2011 4:59 PM

Okay, let me rephrase that. It's not like ADHD is a new PHENOMENON, or a new OBSERVATION. Because it has been happening, and people have been observing it, for a long time. And making it the POINT of a story or cartoon.

Better?

KWICKO

Saturday, February 5, 2011 5:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Okay, let me rephrase that. It's not like ADHD is a new PHENOMENON, or a new OBSERVATION. Because it has been happening, and people have been observing it, for a long time. And making it the POINT of a story or cartoon.

Better?

Yup, it's not a new thing, just a new(ish) *diagnosis*. And there are prescription drugs for it now.

I'm with Story - ADHD is a real thing, and there are real helps for it, but it is WAY overdiagnosed and overprescribed. I think if I had a child that was diagnosed with ADHD, my reaction wouldn't be "I want a second opinion" - it would be "I want a dozen opinions".

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, February 5, 2011 5:38 PM

phenomenon, yes, I would be tempted to say "this is normal kid behavior" by saying it's a new observation, you're leaning toward saying "this was always recognized as a disease," which perhaps you want to say, I would disagree with it, but up to you what you wanted to say, just trying to figure out what that was.

Quote:
SignyM:

So let's get to the part about "mind control".

Here's another mind-bending thought: Minds SHOULD be controlled. And normally, they are. There are internal mechanisms that allow us to keep a thought in our head for more than 30 seconds. That allow us to tell reality from fantasy. That direct our attention to the important things, and screen out repetitive stimulus. That keep the brain from firing all together all at once. That put us to sleep at night and wake us up in the morning. That tell our limbs to move smoothly to a target and then stop. That allow us to internally mimic someone else's expressions and motions and feel what they are feeling. Or tells us that it's OK to get out of bed and do something.

But just as there are a couple of thousand individual brain functions, there are just as many DYSfunctions. So, in order of the above list, the dysfunctions are: ADHD, schizophrenia, autism, epilepsy, sleep disorder, dystonia and Parkinson's disease, sociopathy, and depression.

Now, generally, most people fall somewhere in the range of "average". Some people are a little bit distractable, others a little sensitive to stimulus. But SOME people's internal mechanisms are just off-the-charts whacked, to the point where it makes THEM unhappy or dangerous to themselves or others.

So yanno what? "Mind control" is a good thing.

This is really scary. No wonder you're on the social engineering side. Not willing to accept the human race as it is, in its unmodified "flawed" form?

I'm with Frem. Not enough to say "Rousseau was right" because Rousseau really goes so far as to absolve the parent, including himself in his own personal life, of *all* responsibility. (I was actually on a debate team arguing *for* the "Rousseau was right" team. Since then, I've rethought it, rejected it, found it again, and reduced it to "Rousseau had a point" but was not entirely right.) Still, I'll take this over "correcting humanity."

ETA

Mike,

If I got that diagnosis, I'd reject it out of hand. If he loses patience with what I give him, find out what he *is* interested in, by watching him.

BYTEMITE

Saturday, February 5, 2011 5:54 PM

Well, that's the thing, up until late yesterday, I wasn't sure I was going to be able to talk to the kid, because like I said our families are a little estranged, and only coming back together because of the grandparent, and we live some distance apart.

So I thought I was only going to be able to talk to the parents about it.

His parents might bring him to see his grandmother, though. She's staying with us, and the two of them have a really good rapport. But you know how it is with kids and parents visiting. They let the kid talk for a while, then fobb them off on someone to "babysit" - me. That's probably my chance.

BYTEMITE

Saturday, February 5, 2011 6:02 PM

Quote:
I don't know him at all, so I can't possibly weigh in on whether medication is warranted. But I have a couple of questions: Is HE happier now than before? Is he able to pay attention to things other than motors? Is he still able to take things apart and put them back together? Does he sleep better? In other words, without putting YOUR personal reaction into the situation, is HE feeling better than before? Because you failed to address that part.

I don't know. I haven't been able to talk to him yet, but I plan to. And I planned to ask him these things.

If he's happy on the medication, I have to admit there's nothing I can do.

By all accounts before this one teacher he was a perfectly normal and healthy and well-adjusted boy. Because of that, that's where my main concern is that he's been misdiagnosed. I'm not just hearing that he's been diagnosed and reacting OH MY GOD HE'S ON MEDICINE! He doesn't have a HISTORY of acting out, so the whole scenario where he supposedly needs to be medicated doesn't smell right to me.

They're treating a problem that may not be on his end of the situation, and considering my concerns about messing up the brain chemistry, that's where I'm coming from.

I'll assess, if he's still struggling, I'll tell him what I think might be going on and let him hear an alternative viewpoint, and let him make his decisions.

Assuming I get to talk to him.

I guess the main reason why I'm so concerned about him is because for one he's family, and two he reminds me a lot of myself, just without the attitude problems I had at his age. I want to help him not go through what I went through.

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, February 5, 2011 7:15 PM

Might wanna remove the breakables first, Doll.

Cause if it's as I suspect - he's gonna be really, REALLY *pissed*, especially if he was lied to about what those pills really were, something else I hadn't thought to mention cause I was wiped out tired in that first post.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

BYTEMITE

Saturday, February 5, 2011 7:34 PM

Hmm. I was thinking we could play cooperative Smash Brothers or something on my old Nintendo 64. Apparently he's been getting angry at people just for looking at him, so I wanted to use something as a reasonable excuse to talk over, that wouldn't involve any threatening eye contact.

If he breaks a controller, I'd be okay with that. It's just a thing. But good you brought that up, if it happens I won't be surprised and more able to accept it right away.

BYTEMITE

Saturday, February 5, 2011 7:38 PM

There's been some research to suggest Omega 3 oils and Vitamine E can help with the symptomatic problems from whatever brain chemistry they altered causing his aggression. I might ask him if he likes fish.

EPMCHRISTENSEN

Saturday, February 5, 2011 8:03 PM

You definitely touch on a highly poignant note, Frem, one that I can empathize with heavily. But, my circumstance was slightly different.

My kindergarten teacher told my parents that they should get me screening for ADHD when I was very young. My mom disagreed, because I was able to sit at the computer for long stretches of time without interruption - unaware of the effects that flickering light have on ADHD brains - so it went undiagnosed for quite some time. As I got older, and my grades seemed to reflect less and less how smart I was, eventually I confessed to my parents that I didn't feel in control, and that I wanted to talk to someone. I think that being the youngest of four affected the latency of their movement towards professional advice, simply because they'd dealt with three girls before me, all of rather wild temperament; simply put, any disruptive behavior was put off as being a part of growing up - aforementioned "kid" diagnosis.

I started taking Concerta, and noticed how different I felt: more focused, more driven, but also markedly less happy. Well, not so much "unhappy", but really muted and too calm. At some point I stopped taking my pills altogether, and simply conditioned myself to buckle down when I had to.

What strikes me about your first post, Frem, is the discussion of anger, or a reason to be upset. For me, at least in my first-hand experience, I'd say that kids with ADHD tend to be different on an emotional level as well as a logical/cognitive one. When I was young, I tended to be pretty petulant and misbehave often, and I think I was grappling with real issues that I couldn't describe - much as you mentioned in your post. Maybe having three other daughters distracted my parents so heavily that I felt neglected, or whatever - some mommy/daddy issue psychobabble. Either way, I was an upset kid that couldn't and didn't fit in until much later on in my K-12, and that "anger" you spoke of happened before my diagnosis.

Most of it stemmed from very powerful frustration. I felt stupid because my grades were so poor, and all my teachers would say "If he'd just do his homework he'd have straight A's," which was entirely depressing because I couldn't verbalize what challenges were stopping me from doing just that. On top of that frustration was the feeling that my parents - who, like most kids, I believed to be infallible - should have known and taken care of me, helped me to feel right inside. Unfortunately, by the time my parents started to notice, I hit that point in puberty when you hate people controlling your life and trying to step in and push their authority down your throat, so when my parents started to WANT to help me my teenage rebellion would have none of it. Like you said, Frem, I spent a lot of time fighting against my parents rallied authority, because I was their child and some blood obligation said I had to listen to them, and my condition laughed in the face of their oppressiveness. The hardest part is standing up and saying, "No, I have something really wrong with me here, and I don't know what it is or how to tell you. So stop talking and listen to me." It's scary, for sure.

Wow, well, I didn't mean to go all confessional on the thread. I do think, Byte, that maybe your cousin might be having some of these feelings, like he can't express his frustration because it's this nameless fear inside. Maybe he wants help in another form, or needs to talk about it, and the environment in which he lives is not conducive to such personal expression. In short, I wanted to try and convey some first-hand insight on the matter. I really think that if you begin asserting yourself as a positive presence in his life - someone to talk to - that it will make his highly personal struggle to find his voice all the easier. They're gonna need you, I think, a great deal. I can remember wanting someone on my side that I could talk to, and fortunately I did find a non-relative who told

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, February 5, 2011 8:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Would you take insulin away from a diabetic? Anti-convulsants away from a someone with seizures? Oxygen away from someone with fibrosis? Antibiotics away from pneumonia? Nature isn't perfect. There are a lot of things that go wrong: birth defects, infection, dementia, schizophrenia, autism. Even ADHD.

It's not like ADHD is a new diagnosis. Have you ever read "The Ransom of Red Chief"? It was written in 1910 and contains a perfect description of a boy with ADHD
Quote:
He [the boy, who names himself Red Chief] made a during-dinner speech something like this:
"I like this fine. I never camped out before; but I had a pet 'possum once, and I was nine last birthday. I hate to go to school. Rats ate up sixteen of Jimmy Talbot's aunt's speckled hen's eggs. Are there any real Indians in these woods? I want some more gravy. Does the trees moving make the wind blow? We had five puppies. What makes your nose so red, Hank? My father has lots of money. Are the stars hot? I whipped Ed Walker twice, Saturday. I don't like girls. You dassent catch toads unless with a string. Do oxen make any noise? Why are oranges round? Have you got beds to sleep on in this cave? Amos Murray has got Six toes. A parrot can talk, but a monkey or a fish can't. How many does it take to make twelve?"

Every few minutes he would remember that he was a pesky redskin, and pick up his stick rifle and tiptoe to the mouth of the cave to rubber for the scouts of the hated paleface. Now and then he would let out a war-whoop that made Old Hank the Trapper shiver... He kept us awake for three hours, jumping up and reaching for his rifle and screeching: "Hist! pard," in mine and Bill's ears, as the fancied crackle of a twig or the rustle of a leaf revealed to his young imagination the stealthy approach of the outlaw band... Red Chief was sitting on Bill's chest, with one hand twined in Bill's hair. In the other he had the sharp case-knife we used for slicing, bacon; and he was industriously and realistically trying to take Bill's scalp, according to the sentence that had been pronounced upon him the evening before.

www.online-literature.com/donne/1041/

Ever read Dennis the Menace? ADHD.

So, let's get past the point that nature is perfect, that all medications are bad, and that any parent who ever medicates their child is a monster, mkay? From a human-interest standpoint.... the one where we like to be healthy and happy and have some control over our future... nature fucks us up. Often. Anyone who claims otherwise just isn't looking.

So let's get to the part about "mind control".

Here's another mind-bending thought: Minds SHOULD be controlled. And normally, they are. There are internal mechanisms that allow us to keep a thought in our head for more than 30 seconds. That allow us to tell reality from fantasy. That direct our attention to the important things, and screen out repetitive stimulus. That keep the brain from firing all together all at once. That put us to sleep at night and wake us up in the morning. That tell our limbs to move smoothly to a target and then stop. That allow us to internally mimic someone else's expressions and motions and feel what they are feeling. Or tells us that it's OK to get out of bed and do something.

But just as there are a couple of thousand individual brain functions, there are just as many DYSfunctions. So, in order of the above list, the dysfunctions are: ADHD, schizophrenia, autism, epilepsy, sleep disorder, dystonia and Parkinson's disease, sociopathy, and depression.

Now, generally, most people fall somewhere in the range of "average". Some people are a little bit distractable, others a little sensitive to stimulus. But SOME people's internal mechanisms are just off-the-charts whacked, to the point where it makes THEM unhappy or dangerous to themselves or others.

So yanno what? "Mind control" is a good thing.

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

Getting back to your nephew, Byte.

I don't know him at all, so I can't possibly

BYTEMITE

Saturday, February 5, 2011 9:09 PM

Quote:
Good post, signy. Thanks for bringing all this up.

I'd have to say Byte, that you should not under any circumstances encourage this boy to not take his medication. Although you do not approve, you also may not have all the facts

I accepted a number of proposed ideas that I could use in case he chooses to stay on the medication, that would help him refocus on school work and repair the damage done to his love for learning.

I am concerned, I do not yet know enough to approve or disapprove. There is a difference.

I am mostly attempting to learn here what people think - I am concerned by this appearance that he may have become dependent on an ADHD medication, Ritalin, and trying to figure out a way to potentially treat the dependency. That way he wouldn't have to be put on a new medication that treats something that is caused by the medication, not something he actually has.

I would NOT suggest he stop his medication cold turkey and go through withdrawals, if he wanted to stop them then such a method would be self defeating.

Quote:
the decision is not yours, nor his to make

Of course it's not mine to make. I just want to see how he feels and whether he understands what's going on. I'm fully capable of being neutral in conversation about something that concerns me privately.

But what's this about saying it's not HIS decision to make? Of course it's his decision to make. It's his brain, his body and his emotions at stake here. if he wants to take the medicine, fine. If he doesn't, then, what, he should be forced? There's been no indication of violence when he's aggressive, he's just irritable and yells a lot. We're not talking about a criminal psychopath here.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, February 5, 2011 9:46 PM

I was responding to Dreamtrove's suggestion

'It also needs stealth. Not only must he say no, he needs to not say it loudly. If he stops taking the pills, he doesn't need to tell anyone. He is going to need a few things...'

It's not his decision to make alone, although he could have a voice in it. A small child cannot have the same capacity to understand what is best for him.

If a 5 year old decided that

- he wasn't going to ever eat anything other than icecream ever again
- he was not going to bed every night until 1pm

then his parents would intervene. Clearly those things would not be in a child's best interest. Children do not have the information nor the capacity to make fully informed choices about stuff. Parents 'parent' - that is their role and they do it to the best of their ability. To make informed choices on behalf of a child until they are old enough to make them on their own.

Now I'm not sure how old your relative is, if he is very young still then it is pretty much his parents decision. If he is reaching his teens, then his wishes should be given a fair degree of weight, and I guess it's pretty hard to make a teenager do anything.

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 5, 2011 10:08 PM

Quote:
This is really scary. No wonder you're on the social engineering side. Not willing to accept the human race as it is, in its unmodified "flawed" form?

Yanno, I've known adults who were on ADHD meds and liked it.

What kinds of "flaws" would you accept? Cystic fibrosis? Phenylketonuria? Violent schizophrenia? At what point would you say... WHOA! This needs treatment! I've known a couple fo schizos, BTW... one who would get raped on the street, show up pregnant and deliver... all the time denying she was having a baby... then disappear again. She wound up dying on the street at a young age, BTW, leaving behind four kids for grandma to take care of.

There are no bright lines between "healthy" and "sick". But just because there are no bright lines doesn't mean there aren't ends of the spectrum. Denial doesn't work.

1KIKI

Saturday, February 5, 2011 10:36 PM

Some people find Ritalin to be a relief from scattered thoughts and jumpy perception.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, February 5, 2011 10:53 PM

Sig,

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.

To correct everyone to "normal" would rid the world of Van Gogh, Tchaikovsky, Nietzsche, I could go on forever with this list, and you could too.

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.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, February 5, 2011 11:30 PM

Van Gogh killed himself, and by all accounts had a distressing, loveless life. Of course now that he is dead, we all love his art, but he died with his talent unappreciated.

He might have preferred a bit of light to counter all that dark.

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, February 5, 2011 11:34 PM

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.

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 5, 2011 11:35 PM

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?

BYTEMITE

Sunday, February 6, 2011 12:13 AM

>_>

There's actually some indication that a lot of the more crazy seeming stuff Vincent Van Gogh did was actually for the money.

I'm not sure about the dying part unless his brother, who was also the manager of his artistic property, had a say in it.

But wasn't this really DT's point? It's not about quantity or duration of life, it's not even necessarily about quantity of happiness, it's about the depth and lofty heights of the human condition.

There is no triumph without struggle. Endeavoring in that struggle, even if the struggle ends in tragedy, is as noble a thing as I've ever heard of.

But yes, if someone wants to choose to go the path of the lotus eaters, then that's their decision. I think it would be a damn shame if EVERYONE went that way though, just "for happiness!"

BYTEMITE

Sunday, February 6, 2011 12:20 AM

Quote:

It's not his decision to make alone, although he could have a voice in it. A small child cannot have the same capacity to understand what is best for him.

If a 5 year old decided that

- he wasn't going to ever eat anything other than icecream ever again
- he was not going to bed every night until 1pm

then his parents would intervene. Clearly those things would not be in a child's best interest. Children do not have the information nor the capacity to make fully informed choices about stuff. Parents 'parent' - that is their role and they do it to the best of their ability. To make informed choices on behalf of a child until they are old enough to make them on their own.

Now I'm not sure how old your relative is, if he is very young still then it is pretty much his parents decision. If he is reaching his teens, then his wishes should be given a fair degree of weight, and I guess it's pretty hard to make a teenager do anything.

Rather than get into a debate with you about the difference of lack thereof in ability to make decisions as compared by age, I'll just say that my understanding is that he is old enough that he understands enough, and also is able to make decisions on his own.

As a side note, I'm not sure most five year olds can fully make decisions yet either, but where possible and safe to do so I try to err on the side of letting them make up their own minds about things.

It goes back potentially to Frem's sliding scale idea.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, February 6, 2011 2:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
>_>

There's actually some indication that a lot of the more crazy seeming stuff Vincent Van Gogh did was actually for the money.

I'm not sure about the dying part unless his brother, who was also the manager of his artistic property, had a say in it.

But wasn't this really DT's point? It's not about quantity or duration of life, it's not even necessarily about quantity of happiness, it's about the depth and lofty heights of the human condition.

There is no triumph without struggle. Endeavoring in that struggle, even if the struggle ends in tragedy, is as noble a thing as I've ever heard of.

But yes, if someone wants to choose to go the path of the lotus eaters, then that's their decision. I think it would be a damn shame if EVERYONE went that way though, just "for happiness!"

Van Gogh never made any money. He died a pauper and I think he sold one or none of his work.

I certainly have never said that I believe that we should live for happiness and that everyone should be medicated in order to be happy. Conversely, I don't think people should endure chronic and debilitating mental health if there is some way of treating them just because some people have a belief that living in misery and chaos is 'natural'. So is dying in childbirth and rampant infant mortality, but we have the capacity to improve people's lives and we choose to do it in many ways.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, February 6, 2011 2:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:

It's not his decision to make alone, although he could have a voice in it. A small child cannot have the same capacity to understand what is best for him.

If a 5 year old decided that

- he wasn't going to ever eat anything other than icecream ever again
- he was not going to bed every night until 1pm

then his parents would intervene. Clearly those things would not be in a child's best interest. Children do not have the information nor the capacity to make fully informed choices about stuff. Parents 'parent' - that is their role and they do it to the best of their ability. To make informed choices on behalf of a child until they are old enough to make them on their own.

Now I'm not sure how old your relative is, if he is very young still then it is pretty much his parents decision. If he is reaching his teens, then his wishes should be given a fair degree of weight, and I guess it's pretty hard to make a teenager do anything.

Rather than get into a debate with you about the difference of lack thereof in ability to make decisions as compared by age, I'll just say that my understanding is that he is old enough that he understands enough, and also is able to make decisions on his own.

As a side note, I'm not sure most five year olds can fully make decisions yet either, but where possible and safe to do so I try to err on the side of letting them make up their own minds about things.

It goes back potentially to Frem's sliding scale idea.

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.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, February 6, 2011 3:07 AM

Quote:
Van Gogh never made any money. He died a pauper and I think he sold one or none of his work.

Half true. He sold a number of paintings through the art firm he worked with and his brother, but died young and not very rich. He did, however, because very famous posthumously, as you know.

He produced over 2,000 works, and compared to the number he sold, he didn't sell many, no.

Quote:
He suffered from anxiety and increasingly frequent bouts of mental illness throughout his life and died, largely unknown, at the age of 37 from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Quote:
Van Gogh spent his early adulthood working for a firm of art dealers and traveled between The Hague, London and Paris, after which he taught in England.

Quote:
The extent to which his mental illness affected his painting has been a subject of speculation since his death. Despite a widespread tendency to romanticise his ill health, modern critics see an artist deeply frustrated by the inactivity and incoherence brought about by his bouts of sickness. According to art critic Robert Hughes, Van Gogh's late works show an artist at the height of his ability, completely in control and "longing for concision and grace"

BYTEMITE

Sunday, February 6, 2011 3:16 AM

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.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, February 6, 2011 3:18 AM

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.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, February 6, 2011 3:22 AM

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 c

BYTEMITE

Sunday, February 6, 2011 3:28 AM

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.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, February 6, 2011 3:32 AM

...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.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, February 6, 2011 3:46 AM

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.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, February 6, 2011 3:52 AM

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.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, February 6, 2011 3:52 AM

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.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, February 6, 2011 3:58 AM

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].

BYTEMITE

Sunday, February 6, 2011 3:58 AM

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.

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 6, 2011 4:41 AM

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

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 6, 2011 5:36 AM

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.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, February 6, 2011 6:10 AM

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.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, February 6, 2011 6:23 AM

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.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, February 6, 2011 6:27 AM

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.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, February 6, 2011 6:31 AM

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.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, February 6, 2011 6:35 AM

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.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, February 6, 2011 6:46 AM

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.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, February 6, 2011 6:46 AM

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.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, February 6, 2011 6:51 AM

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

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 6, 2011 7:09 AM

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.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, February 6, 2011 7:17 AM

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. S

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, February 6, 2011 8:49 AM

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.

KANEMAN

Sunday, February 6, 2011 10:34 AM

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.

CITIZEN

Sunday, February 6, 2011 1:46 PM

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.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, February 6, 2011 2:02 PM

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.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, February 6, 2011 2:05 PM

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 ;)

CITIZEN

Sunday, February 6, 2011 3:02 PM

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 pr

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 6, 2011 4:01 PM

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...?

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 6, 2011 4:12 PM

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.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, February 6, 2011 4:38 PM

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."

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, February 6, 2011 5:31 PM

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,

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, February 6, 2011 6:46 PM

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.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, February 7, 2011 12:14 AM

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

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, February 7, 2011 12:40 AM

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.

BYTEMITE

Monday, February 7, 2011 1:35 AM

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.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, February 7, 2011 3:55 AM

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.

RIONAEIRE

Monday, February 7, 2011 5:36 AM

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

DREAMTROVE

Monday, February 7, 2011 7:12 AM

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

SIGNYM

Monday, February 7, 2011 4:45 PM

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.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, February 7, 2011 6:21 PM

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.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, February 7, 2011 6:24 PM

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.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, February 7, 2011 7:49 PM

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.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, February 7, 2011 8:00 PM

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

NIKI2

Monday, February 7, 2011 8:06 PM

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

BYTEMITE

Monday, February 7, 2011 8:59 PM

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.

HARDWARE

Tuesday, February 8, 2011 12:46 PM

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

RIONAEIRE

Tuesday, February 8, 2011 5:19 PM

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

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, February 8, 2011 5:31 PM

You ever deal with anything like this in your work?

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

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, February 8, 2011 5:49 PM

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"

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE