Thread: Mental Health according to Indifferently Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025641
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I'm not really one to regularly start Hell calls, and have been waiting patiently for someone else to take the obvious step. But, there's only so far patience can go, so here we are with me doing that rare thing of calling someone to Hell.
Indifferently, you've had it coming for a while. I'm sure there are others out there who have been tempted to call you to Hell over bollocks you've posted. For me, I'm just going to bring you here for your loathsome views on mental health. In particular, those you've posted on the where are the children supposed to go thread in Ecclesiantics.
According to Indifferently ...
ADHD is "a lack of parental discipline and control", "There is no such thing as "ADHD" and no objective evidence that it exists at all." and "It is simply objectively true that ADHD is an invention, and the drugs given to such poor children have the most wicked consequences."
When challenged with evidence that ADHD not only exists, but is a serious mental health issue affecting large numbers of children we are told
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
There is no such thing as "ADHD" and no objective evidence that it exists at all.
Tell that to the NHS not to mention countless medical professionals.
These are the same leftists whose view of 'harm reduction' has resulted in the worst drugs epidemic in western Europe. Most people who trust the NHS tend not to have had the misfortune of actually using it.
We live in an extremely undisciplined society. I have little wonder that children whose "parents" let them play video games and run roughshod will behave like savages, even in church. They are victims of our evil culture.
If anyone has seen objective evidence that there exists "ADHD" I'd love to see it. As it stands, it is just a faith belief, like "dyslexia".
So, it's not just ADHD but dyslexia that are non-existant health issues?
What's next? Can we assume that in the world according to Indifferently that Aspergers is simply people being shy? That depression is simple sadness, and we should pull ourselves together and get over it? That autism is an invention of Hollywood to promote Rainman?
I know there are plenty of people on the Ship with first hand experience of mental health issues, either in themselves or people they care deeply about. People who can testify that not only are these conditions real, but that they are things they struggle with on a daily basis. People who can testify that knowing that they have an identified mental health issue helps them cope, and helps others deal with them better (eg: knowing someone is on the autistic spectrum helps teachers adapt their methods so that all the children in their class have the best possible chance of learning - although whether teachers take the opportunity to do so is a different question). And, knowing that drugs work, providing genuine help to those who are suffering.
Ignorance about mental health issues may be excusable, but with plenty of quality information available at the click of a mouse barely. Willful ignorance, and out right statement of patent falsehood about issues that affect very large numbers of people is inexcusable.
Indifferently, do you honestly believe the crap you type? Do you go around your daily life belittling mental health issues? How do you treat the people you know with mental health issues (and, unless you're a hermit you will know people with mental health issues)? Surely you can not be as callous and unchristian as you make out on these boards?
On this issue I'm not slightly annoyed. You managed the difficult task of actually making me mad.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I think Indifferently deserves a prize though, for achieving something I never thought I'd see - a thread of this nature with this OPer.
I have a dog in this fight inasmuch as I notice that Indifferently completely ignored the evidence I posted of measurable, significant, structural differences in the brains of ADHD sufferers compared with the norm. I'd like him to address that. And explain why he told us he'd love to see it, but never had seen it, when it took me seconds on pubmed to do so - i.e. why he's dishonest, as well as callous, ill-informed and obnoxious.
Posted by Erik (# 11406) on
:
Indifferently, please can you post something to back up your assertions that disorders like ADHD and dyslexia do not exist. I would also appreciate knowing what medical background you have which informs these opinions.
Ta
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
First time I've ever heard someone suggest dyslexia doesn't exist.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
First time I've ever heard someone suggest dyslexia doesn't exist.
Ironically, at one time some lefty types questioned it - pointing out that middle class kids got a dyslexia diagnosis whilst working class kids got told they couldn't read. But (a) that isn't so much the case any more, and (b) I very much doubt that's where Indifferently was coming from.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Why limit the wicked consequences of undisciplined child rearing to mental health issues? I'm sure a strict regimen of breathing exercises could prevent lung cancer and a few more chores and a couple of paper routes should put an end to heart disease. Tetanus shots for every little sign of blood poisoning, pah! You know what else spoils children? All those baby vaccinations. A few good doses of diphtheria and typhoid used to toughen us up. Take a tip from my dad the next time you break a bone and "walk it off." Sissies.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
First time I've ever heard someone suggest dyslexia doesn't exist.
Ironically, at one time some lefty types questioned it - pointing out that middle class kids got a dyslexia diagnosis whilst working class kids got told they couldn't read. But (a) that isn't so much the case any more, and (b) I very much doubt that's where Indifferently was coming from.
Actually, that debate is still going, and so is a debate about ADHD. We don't really know what dyslexia is and we don't really know what ADHD is. But Indifferently seems to be taking what is actually a very complex and nuanced academic argument and berating people about in a simplistic, boorish and insensitive way.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
orfeo: quote:
First time I've ever heard someone suggest dyslexia doesn't exist.
Living in Australia, you are well away from this guy.
I've encountered one or two people who thought this, and at least one of them (the one who was interested in discussing the question) is probably an undiagnosed dyslexic himself.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Actually, I think Indifferently might suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder, because every second post he makes screams for attention (although oddly he can keep his obsessional attention firmly fixed on the BCP to the point of being an utter bore about it). That, or he is an ape like creature with grey skin, who in his own mind at least, grows larger with every response.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
Glad to see this Hell call!
I reported that post of Indifferently's in Ecclesiantics to the Hosts yesterday.
Making provocative and unpleasant statements which are also blatantly off-topic? Not responding when challenged to provide proof supporting provocative and unpleasant statements? If it posts like a troll, it's a troll. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Good Hell call.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
As a person who needs antidepressants to function, I am so very grateful for my leftist NHS.
Also, I find it very strange that Indifferently attends what I know to be an FiF church in light of his anti-Catholic prejudice? Just weird. Coventry's full of conservative evangelical Anglican churches.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
As I work with adults who have a variety of disorders, I too would be interested to know what backup Indifferently has for the claims s/he makes.
Every single one of my ADHD clients do seem to have had what might be "disordered" parenting." However, it's also worth noting that ADHD tends to cluster in families, and from what I've seen of them in in-home interviews and teams meetings, my clients' parents probably ALSO have ADHD. Since they are not the identified clients, though, an official diagnosis is unlikely ever to take place.
Alas.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, I find it very strange that Indifferently attends what I know to be an FiF church in light of his anti-Catholic prejudice? Just weird. Coventry's full of conservative evangelical Anglican churches.
Is it? Evangelical, maybe, but there aren't many conevo churches there.
As for Indifferently, I had inferred from his/her posts that Brizzle would be more relevant than Coventry.
But I may have misunderstood.
Thurible
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
As a person who needs antidepressants to function, I am so very grateful for my leftist NHS.
Exactly.
And that is one of the reasons why I think Indifferently is a troll. Posting that nobody could think well of the NHS if they'd ever used it, what utter rot.
quote:
Also, I find it very strange that Indifferently attends what I know to be an FiF church in light of his anti-Catholic prejudice? Just weird. Coventry's full of conservative evangelical Anglican churches.
Boy, that's some awesome PR for FiF, Indifferently. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Of course every Christian constituency, including mine, has its twats. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Jade ... I, too, am puzzled by Anglo-Catholics who show such dislike for the ROMAN Catholic Church. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
If I were feeling mean, I'd say that those Anglo-Catholics who take pot-shots at Roman Catholics are wanting to have their cake and eat it. They can get the full benefit of belief in the Real Presence and the apostolic priesthood etc. without the inconvenience of having to actually toe the official RC party line.
If I were feeling mean. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
(I really don't think that of Anglo-Catholics in general! She said, in un-Hellish mode.)
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
And, in the interests of fairness, being opposed to the ordination of women doesn't mean you're necessarily an Anglo-Catholic or an evangelical. There are central churchpeople who cannot accept the innovation either.
Thurible
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
I don't think he is Anglo-Catholic.
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
He needs to read the bloody DSM-V.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I have ADHD and dyslexia, I am a middle aged woman, a mother of two and a Advanced Skills Teacher. I was diagnosed about five years ago. My diagnosis has helped me understand a great deal about myself and the coping strategies I have employed over the years.
It is real. It is a difference more than a disorder imo.
Teaching is a great occupation for ADDers as you are never bored. You also have a sixth sense for dealing with ADDers and other 'differently wired' kids - and if they are behaving well, everybody is!
I have tried Ritalin and similar drugs and they help enormously with focus (they are stimulants which stimulate the part of the brain which deals with executive functions) But I didn't like it - I didn't feel like I was 'me'.
I don't argue with those who say it doesn't exist - they are not worth the effort.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
I don't think he is Anglo-Catholic.
Ah. Now i know who he is.
Re Aspergers - as a teacher i became 'the expert' on this - we all had specialisms re-pastoral care and learning styles. Not only does it exist but most of us males have little bits of it.
Re- ADHD, a family whom I know well is trying to cope with it and it has been very, very difficult for them and I object to their struggles being dismissed as bad parenting.
I hate posting in Hell but am moved to so because of them.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Every single one of my ADHD clients do seem to have had what might be "disordered" parenting."
Back when I studied psychology at my university, we learned about a study that had been done, as follows:
Mom and a child were kept in a waiting room for a rather prolonged period of time. Child was bouncing off the walls, engaging in a variety of inappropriate behaviors. Mother had a great deal of difficulty managing child. Mother appeared frustrated, disheveled, ineffective. Some of the moms yelled, or spanked, or other things to keep their kid under control. All of this was videotaped.
Later, after several weeks of treatment, mom and child were again kept in waiting room and videotaped. Mom's parenting strategies were appropriate and effective. Child's behavior was developmentally appropriate.
The two sets of videos were shown to psychiatry students (and maybe professionals, too), to get their impressions. What they didn't realize was that they weren't evaluating a study. THey were the subjects of the study.
Every single one of them thought that the mother was mentally ill, and had been in treatment.
In fact, the child had severe ADHD.
The child's behavior affects the mother's behavior. The mother's behavior affects the professional's interpretation of the mother.
But if you're a mom, you know: Whatever the child's problem is, it's all your fault.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Every single one of my ADHD clients do seem to have had what might be "disordered" parenting."
Back when I studied psychology at my university, we learned about a study that had been done, as follows:
Mom and a child were kept in a waiting room for a rather prolonged period of time. Child was bouncing off the walls, engaging in a variety of inappropriate behaviors. Mother had a great deal of difficulty managing child. Mother appeared frustrated, disheveled, ineffective. Some of the moms yelled, or spanked, or other things to keep their kid under control. All of this was videotaped.
Later, after several weeks of treatment, mom and child were again kept in waiting room and videotaped. Mom's parenting strategies were appropriate and effective. Child's behavior was developmentally appropriate.
The two sets of videos were shown to psychiatry students (and maybe professionals, too), to get their impressions. What they didn't realize was that they weren't evaluating a study. THey were the subjects of the study.
Every single one of them thought that the mother was mentally ill, and had been in treatment.
In fact, the child had severe ADHD.
The child's behavior affects the mother's behavior. The mother's behavior affects the professional's interpretation of the mother.
But if you're a mom, you know: Whatever the child's problem is, it's all your fault.
This.
It's that old bumper sticker: Insanity is hereditary; you get it from your kids.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
Yes, I believe there has been some very revealing case study research recently involving adopted children, in which the adopted parents ended up repeating patterns first observed in the birth families.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
If Indifferently had made the case for ADHD being over diagnosed, I would concur. To say it does not exist is idiocy. Did not know we had any Scientologists on board.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
lilBuddha: If Indifferently had made the case for ADHD being over diagnosed, I would concur. To say it does not exist is idiocy.
Exactly.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If Indifferently had made the case for ADHD being over diagnosed, I would concur. To say it does not exist is idiocy. Did not know we had any Scientologists on board.
I once had a guy completely go off on me for saying almost exactly what you said-- shouting, name-calling, storming out of the room. (I was a narrow, close-minded bigot who denied the next evolution of the human mind. All he convinced me of was that people who default to shriek like that probably know they are wrong.) Given some of the anecdotes he shared with me about the timeline of his residential history, I suspected he had run across Scientologists at some point.
What prompted this outburst was me saying this-- yeah, I think there is an overdiagnosis of Add/ ADHD. because it's easier to make the kid conform than address a school system that consistently balks basic developmental appropriateness. (For instance, the authors of Last Child in the Woods point to data that suggests symptoms of ADD are greatly reduces when you take kids who suffer form it into a rural, woodland setting for extended periods of time. This does not say ADD does not exist, but it sure as hell implies that a traditional classroom aggravates the hell out of the symptoms.)
But (as Boogie said, when you are around enough children-/ people of varying learning differences, you develop a radar. And yes, there are kids out there who exhibit behavior that tell you they will be much happier and more productive with pharmaceutical help. It should be a last resort, IMO, but the difference in quality of life is undeniable.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
The problem is Ritalin levels out both actually ADD sufferers and poorly behaved children. And, in both cases, the parents need not put in as much effort.
Drugs should not be the way out, unless they are needed. In which case they should not be excluded.
Everything in its place.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Everything in its place.
Exactly.
And the radar goes both ways. I once dealt with a couple of parents who were going through a raging, ugly divorce and who were campaigning(to the skepticism of their pediatrician) to get their 7-year-old son put on Ritalin. I repeatedly offered the opinion that nothing I had seen in him showed me that he had any general lack of focus or control, but quite a bit of what he was doing showed me he was really pissed off.
But them my neph has ADD, and you can see the bafflement and panic in his eyes when he is confronted with certain stuff. It's mild enough for him to get by with behavior modification techniques, but the little warning bell definitely goes off.
And then you meet those kids who seem completely unable to do things they really want to do because their chemistry just won't let them.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
(For instance, the authors of Last Child in the Woods point to data that suggests symptoms of ADD are greatly reduces when you take kids who suffer form it into a rural, woodland setting for extended periods of time. This does not say ADD does not exist, but it sure as hell implies that a traditional classroom aggravates the hell out of the symptoms.)
Excuse me, I have to correct something I said. A traditional classroom does not aggravate learning difficulties. Because (at least in the US), a traditional classroom runs from about 9 AM to about 2-3 PM (instead of from 7-4 and aftercare till six, which is how it is in a lot of places), a traditional classroom begins desk-and-book learning at age 6-7 (instead of pushing it into pre-kindergarten-- about age 4-5), and a traditional classroom has at least an hour of uninterrupted, free-choice recess, even in those short hours.(Instead of expecting kids to park it for hours and learn to cope with 15-minute bursts of freedom.)
There's the paradox-- there are definitely biochemically based learning disorders, but we also do a hell of a lot to work against kids' biochemistry.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
But them my neph has ADD, and you can see the bafflement and panic in his eyes when he is confronted with certain stuff. It's mild enough for him to get by with behavior modification techniques, but the little warning bell definitely goes off.
The same with my nephew, though very mild on the ADD. But with the added bit of being spoiled. Balancing controlling the latter and not pushing into the former is a challenge.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
My mom was spoiling the shit out of Neph and the pediatrician's diagnosis and discussion of the structure and boundaries a kid with ADD needs wound up being a fantastic tool for her in holding the line with behavior issues.
My putting my oar in did, too-- "Nobody is doing him any favors by telling him he can't live up to expectations."
["huge tool" is just not the phrase I wanted.]
[ 25. April 2013, 21:16: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
Indifferently - get back on your meds - now!
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Josephine's story about the ADHD mothers reminded me of something I read about the origins of the idea that mothers cause schizophrenia. Some famous psychiatrist had a grand total of three patients with schizophrenia. He observed that all three patients came in with mothers who seemed "cold and detached," so he wrote a paper about his findings and the legend lives to this day.
I always figured he probably could have done an actual scientific study using hundreds of patients and come up with a similar pattern of "cold," mothers because nothing calms a wildly psychotic person full of paranoid panic, so well as a calm, cool reaction from the person they trust.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
Yeah. I've been in the field for umpty-leven years. Since I started (in no particular order):
Mothers cause autism.
Mothers cause ADD and ADHD.
Mothers cause anencephaly.
Mothers cause developmental delay.
Mothers cause schizophrenia.
Mothers cause borderline personality disorder.
Mothers cause homosexuality.
Mothers do these things in a variety of ways: they are too distant with their kids, too close to their kids, too involved with their kids, not sufficiently involved with their kids, not sufficently feminine, too feminine, too identified with their kids, too passive, too aggressive, too passive-agrressive, too affectionate, not affectionate enough, eat the wrong foods during pregnancy, smoke during pregnancy, get insufficient vitamins during pregnancy, wear clothes that are too tight during pregnancy, wear clothes that provide insufficient support during pregnancy, are too physically active during pregnancy, not physically active enough during pregnancy, subject themselves to too much stress during pregnancy, and expose themselves to environmental hazards during pregnancy.
Anyone would think the human race was teetering on the brink of extinction.
And people wonder, given the work I do and the stuff I hear, why I choose to remain childless.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
And people wonder, given the work I do and the stuff I hear, why I choose to remain childless.
Well, given the above problems you might give to a child, thank goodness you do!
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
I think Indifferently is indifferent to this thread.
Personally, I think anytime Alan calls you to Hell you ought to do a lengthy personal inventory and critical self analysis. That is just me.
Indifferently, I have done extensive research in the peer reviewed literature. The problem is that there are no effective treatments for being a putz. Sorry about that.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
So, the following is very, very personal, but Indifferently kinda hit a nerve, so here goes:
I had great parents. Hell, I have great parents. They're keeping me alive right now, because, even though I work (and work hard), I work for free, since the job market's absolutely fucking shit for young, educated people like me.
But that's another Hell call I'm not calm enough to make without destroying things, and I rather like Petrarch the Computer remaining whole and intact.
But. I have ADD, distractive subtype. Also pretty damn nasty depression. Sometimes, it's really nasty. I wasn't diagnosed with either until I was in grad school and...was thinking about things that shouldn't be thought about. I might also have social anxiety disorder, but that could just be a combination of depression and general shyness.
Now, here's the thing. My parents watched over me closely—I was the only child, their Dear Darling Son. They also worked for the school district, so anything I did wrong, or did at all, they knew about. Some psychoanalytic theorists think the concept of God comes from a child's idealization of the all-knowing, all-powerful father; my parents really did know everything. Heck, I'd be a bit surprised to find out they weren't reading this.
If so: hi! I know you know all this already, but it'll be a bit of a shock seeing me write it. It's okay; I don't blame you for everything that's screwed up about me, even though the ex did. She was a little crazy, but I think we both realized that only after we broke up. Anyhow...
So, to say the least, I was disciplined. I was watched over. My parents weren't inattentive, not in the least. If Indifferently's theory that ADD is just a lack of parental discipline had any merit, I shouldn't have had it.
Yet my mind avoids focusing. Not just has trouble—it finds ways to distract me, to slide away from whatever it is I should be doing. This is a problem if you're a philosophy grad student and what you're reading is insanely hard, but your brain can only take about five minutes of it before crying out for something else, anything else. I spent a lot of time staring into space during math tests, simply because ten minutes in, my brain just shut down—couldn't take it any more. That much petty detail, all those concrete/sequential operations, it found ways to save me from further mental stress without me even realizing it. So I ended up eyes focused on the wall, pencil on the desk, thirty minutes later, tests handed in, no clue anything was wrong.
And, of course, facing parental discipline when the grades came back.
So really, Indifferently, what should you make of this? A precocious child from a good, loving, and stimulating household with brilliant parents who did the very best any parents really could (which still left me with some kinda nasty issues, but that's everyone) still has a fucked up head that needs a good therapist and strong meds (neither of which I can really afford, much less find a way to obtain, but, again, another rant) in order to be...well, if not normal, at least less dysfunctional.
Please explain.
I'd love to know what went wrong. Trust me. If it'd help make this sometimes Hell go away, I'd welcome it.
ETA: the surreal cognitive dissonance of seeing this next to my insane lilac unicorn avatar is not at all lost on me.
[ 26. April 2013, 02:38: Message edited by: Ariston ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Jesus. (((A))) quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Yet my mind avoids focusing. Not just has trouble—it finds ways to distract me, to slide away from whatever it is I should be doing. This is a problem if you're a philosophy grad student and what you're reading is insanely hard, but your brain can only take about five minutes of it before crying out for something else, anything else. I spent a lot of time staring into space during math tests, simply because ten minutes in, my brain just shut down—couldn't take it any more. That much petty detail, all those concrete/sequential operations, it found ways to save me from further mental stress without me even realizing it. So I ended up eyes focused on the wall, pencil on the desk, thirty minutes later, tests handed in, no clue anything was wrong.
And, of course, facing parental discipline when the grades came back.
So really, Indifferently, what should you make of this? A precocious child from a good, loving, and stimulating household with brilliant parents who did the very best any parents really could (which still left me with some kinda nasty issues, but that's everyone) still has a fucked up head that needs a good therapist and strong meds (neither of which I can really afford, much less find a way to obtain, but, again, another rant) in order to be...well, if not normal, at least less dysfunctional.
This and what Boogie wrote really resonates.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
(And your PM box is full)
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
(And your PM box is full)
Oh Not Again...
Okay, fixed. For now. Until you fill it up again.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
One should also ensure that other causes are ruled out before jumping on the bad parenting wagon (or, for that matter, diagnosing ADHD when it's not warranted).
Some years ago I worked with a woman whose 4-year-old son had a lot of difficulties with his behaviour. Among other things he wouldn't pay attention to what he was being asked to do, and wouldn't sit still for story time in preschool.
It turned out that his ears were full of fluidy gunk and he could hardly hear. Problems immediately solved by insertion of grommets to drain his ears.
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
But. I have ADD, distractive subtype. Also pretty damn nasty depression. Sometimes, it's really nasty. I wasn't diagnosed with either until I was in grad school and...was thinking about things that shouldn't be thought about. I might also have social anxiety disorder, but that could just be a combination of depression and general shyness.
...
This is a problem if you're a philosophy grad student
Yay. Someone I can understand.
I did (unsuccessful) years as a post-grad in philosophy, while being an undiagnosed Aspie with the usual issues of poor executive function and social anxiety (well, if you cannot read other people very well, you may well feel anxious around them...). I was depressed and anxious in high school and university, but wasn't diagnosed until years later.
A diagnosis is a huge relief - the penny drops ("So THAT'S why..."). DSM-V may replace Asperger's with either ASD or SCD (social communication disorder), but the point is that some people really are very different to the majority, and a big part of that difference is built-in.
We acknowledge physical differences - we don't say that Danny De Vito obviously just didn't try hard enough to grow, and so falls well inside the shortest 1% of adult males. So why do we have trouble admitting that brains vary and some brains fall outside the 95% that are close to average(*)? I don't think my brain is anywhere near average, and my body certainly isn't.
Just because all brains are hidden inside skulls (invisible) doesn't mean they are all the same, any more than the bodies that have brains are all the same.
(*) i.e. within 2 standard deviations, for the statistically minded.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
We acknowledge physical differences - we don't say that Danny De Vito obviously just didn't try hard enough to grow, and so falls well inside the shortest 1% of adult males. So why do we have trouble admitting that brains vary and some brains fall outside the 95% that are close to average(*)? I don't think my brain is anywhere near average, and my body certainly isn't.
Just because all brains are hidden inside skulls (invisible) doesn't mean they are all the same, any more than the bodies that have brains are all the same.
Brilliantly put.
At about the same time as I was diagnosed with depression, a work colleague broke his leg. He was actually quite embarrassed for me when I faced "when are you going to get better" questions that he never faced. The brain is treated as less 'real' just because we can't directly see what's happening in it.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Ariston
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Indifferently
Insensitive asshole. Clearly Indifferent to real suffering. Prefers complacent dismissive bullshit thinking to anything approaching constructive engagement.
But stick around. So far as patterns of thinking go, you may not have a mental health problem but you've got some thought-pattern issues you'd be better off addressing than staying where you're at. This place might be quite good acerbic therapy.
If you can take it.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The problem is Ritalin levels out both actually ADD sufferers and poorly behaved children. And, in both cases, the parents need not put in as much effort.
Drugs should not be the way out, unless they are needed. In which case they should not be excluded.
Everything in its place.
I agree with your final sentence.
However, the use of stimulant medication is not the same for poorly behaved children, at least in some situations. There was a consortium of nearly 30 high schoolers who bought Ritalin from grade school kids for $2-3 a tablet, and then both used it and sold it for $6-8 a tablet. The taking down of the ring of students was via their purchase of insulin syringes as far as I can make out. I'm certain there are parallel stories of entrepreneurship elsewhere.
The thing about drug approaches to anything, is that large companies stand to make money, lots of money. Working socially and academically to manage it means tax-funded schools have to find low pay-accepting workers to do that, and even paying the low-paid workers is apparently beyond the capacities of the tax payers to bear. A legacy of the bankrupt Thatcherist ideas of "user pay" and private is better than public? Probably.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
To pick nits, no drug works the same on everyone, even within a certain disorder or condition.
Singling out Ritalin was perhaps not the best example. The reality remains that medicating behaviour problems does occur. Ascribing behaviour to the disorder de jour instead of poor parenting* is more common than should be.
*Or admitting that "precious darling" is just a little shit. Or both.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To pick nits, no drug works the same on everyone, even within a certain disorder or condition.
Singling out Ritalin was perhaps not the best example. The reality remains that medicating behaviour problems does occur. Ascribing behaviour to the disorder de jour instead of poor parenting* is more common than should be.
*Or admitting that "precious darling" is just a little shit. Or both.
Attributing a child's behavior to poor parenting is a cop-out. It's generally applied by people without kids, or people who have stepford kids.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Attributing a child's behavior to poor parenting is a cop-out. It's generally applied by people without kids, or people who have stepford kids.
Not always. In fact, at the extreme end of the spectrum it's more often the case than not. If your parents are substance abusers with a chaotic lifestyle, if your dad is a psychopath who knocks your mum about regularly, if you're the family scapegoat, if your parents are themselves little more than needy children, if your mum is a prostitute who doesn't mind it when clients make you watch, if your parents lock you in a cupboard when you play up, or beat the shit out of you occasionally for no particularly reason, or kill your puppy because you've been naughty, then the chances are your behaviour is going to end up pretty screwed.
In fact, if you're dealing with a kid who regularly goes apeshit for no apparent reason, it would be criminally irresponsible not to raise with social services the idea that there might - just possibly - be some weird shit going on in their home.
[ 26. April 2013, 22:03: Message edited by: QLib ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Attributing a child's behavior to poor parenting is a cop-out. It's generally applied by people without kids, or people who have stepford kids.
Not always. In fact, at the extreme end of the spectrum it's more often the case than not. If your parents are substance abusers with a chaotic lifestyle, if your dad is a psychopath who knocks your mum about regularly, if you're the family scapegoat, if your parents are themselves little more than needy children, if your mum is a prostitute who doesn't mind it when clients make you watch, if your parents lock you in a cupboard when you play up, or beat the shit out of you occasionally for no particularly reason, or kill your puppy because you've been naughty, then the chances are your behaviour is going to end up pretty screwed.
In fact, if you're dealing with a kid who regularly goes apeshit for no apparent reason, it would be criminally irresponsible not to raise with social services the idea that there might - just possibly - be some weird shit going on in their home.
True, but as you say, that's at the extremity of going apeshit, not at the entirely normal level of bored kid expected to behave like a bored adult for an hour plus. Our attention wanders, what do you expect a child to do?
It's also a good reason for befriending people who might be violent, substance abusers or prostitutes. We might not want them in our church but it could give their noisy, disruptive children some respite.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Some kids are a mess at school simply because they don't get any breakfast at home.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
In fact, if you're dealing with a kid who regularly goes apeshit for no apparent reason, it would be criminally irresponsible not to raise with social services the idea that there might - just possibly - be some weird shit going on in their home.
As I said upthread:
quote:
if you're a mom, you know: Whatever the child's problem is, it's all your fault.
I'm not disagreeing with the idea that a chaotic and violent home is likely to cause a child to have significant behavioral problems at school. I'm disagreeing with the assumption that, because one thing can cause a problem, you can assume that any time you see that problem, it comes from the same cause.
Poison ivy is likely to cause a terrible rash. But you can't extrapolate from that and conclude that every child with a rash has poison ivy. There are loads of other things that can cause a rash, and you need to find out what the problem is, and not just slather on calamine lotion.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
In fact, if you're dealing with a kid who regularly goes apeshit for no apparent reason, it would be criminally irresponsible not to raise with social services the idea that there might - just possibly - be some weird shit going on in their home.
HA HA HA HA HA
Reasons my child has gone absolutely full-body screaming apeshit include:
- a small piece of food fell from plate to floor
- sudden loud noise
- change of route due to construction detour
- trying on shoes at a shoe store
- and much, much more! You'd better call CFS on me!
Josephine was absolutely right: "If you're a mom, you know: Whatever the child's problem is, it's all your fault."
Qlib, I mentioned your comment to the other Leaf, who suggests for your benefit: "When it comes to judging the children of strangers, shut the fuck up, because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about."
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Attributing a child's behavior to poor parenting is a cop-out. It's generally applied by people without kids, or people who have stepford kids.
Not always. In fact, at the extreme end of the spectrum it's more often the case than not.
1. Define "extreme end of the spectrum" in such a way that this is not a tautology;
2. Prove it by peer-reviewed articles.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
In fact, if you're dealing with a kid who regularly goes apeshit for no apparent reason, it would be criminally irresponsible not to raise with social services the idea that there might - just possibly - be some weird shit going on in their home.
As I said upthread:
quote:
if you're a mom, you know: Whatever the child's problem is, it's all your fault.
I'm not disagreeing with the idea that a chaotic and violent home is likely to cause a child to have significant behavioral problems at school. I'm disagreeing with the assumption that, because one thing can cause a problem, you can assume that any time you see that problem, it comes from the same cause.
Poison ivy is likely to cause a terrible rash. But you can't extrapolate from that and conclude that every child with a rash has poison ivy. There are loads of other things that can cause a rash, and you need to find out what the problem is, and not just slather on calamine lotion.
It seems entirely sensible to correctly identify the cause of any problem, and then apply the appropriate treatment. Is there anyone who can seriously disagree with that? Oh, yes ... I forgot; if you rule out the existence of mental health problems then in a large number of cases you are going to have to find another 'cause' - which would then result in an inappropriate treatment.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To pick nits, no drug works the same on everyone, even within a certain disorder or condition.
Singling out Ritalin was perhaps not the best example. The reality remains that medicating behaviour problems does occur. Ascribing behaviour to the disorder de jour instead of poor parenting* is more common than should be.
*Or admitting that "precious darling" is just a little shit. Or both.
Attributing a child's behavior to poor parenting is a cop-out. It's generally applied by people without kids, or people who have stepford kids.
sigh
How is what I said, especially in context of my other comments on this thread, a cop-out?
Behaviour is a combination of nature and nurture in the vast majority of people. It will sometimes skew more towards one or the other.
It is true that some will fail to recognise a disorder and blame the behaviour on parenting.
It is true that siblings will exhibit different behaviours despite the parents efforts to treat them equally.
It is true that a disorder will be blamed for some children's behaviours despite there being no evidence of said disorder.
It is true that both behaviour issues and disorders will be ignored by parents.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
"When it comes to judging the children of strangers, shut the fuck up, because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about."
This.
If you see a kid screaming and crying in the street it could be a simple temper tantrum (see my son aged three being carried the length of Scarborough prom screaming so loudly that every eye turned to look at him) or it could be an ASD child who has become overloaded and can't process the information just at that moment. Or it could be any number of other reasons.
The onlookers may smile in empathy (they have had toddlers themselves etc) or they may think 'tut tut, no child of mine would ever do that' either way we can't control their thoughts. Ignore them.
[ 27. April 2013, 07:56: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Any parent of young children will identify with the fact that you can be tutted at one minute, and complimented on your child's lovely behaviour the next. Children are that unpredictable!
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
In fact, if you're dealing with a kid who regularly goes apeshit for no apparent reason, it would be criminally irresponsible not to raise with social services the idea that there might - just possibly - be some weird shit going on in their home.
HA HA HA HA HA
Reasons my child has gone absolutely full-body screaming apeshit include:
- a small piece of food fell from plate to floor
- sudden loud noise
- change of route due to construction detour
- trying on shoes at a shoe store
- and much, much more! You'd better call CFS on me!
I don't know what age your child is, but I don't think we're talking about the same things. I wasn't talking about toddlers - anybody knows that toddlers can go apeshit about anything - or children with ASD (ditto). I'm talking about school age, especially secondary-school age, children with no other observable disorders (such as ASD or a learning difficulty).
In the context of ADHD, this is often a label pinned on children when in fact it is the family that is disordered. That's not to say that there aren't genuine cases of ADHD but I would like to think that nobody would 'diagnose' ADHD in a child without taking a long hard look at the family. And, yes, I recognise that a case of genuine ADHD (whatever it is) can put huge stresses and strains on a family to the extent that it may be difficult to disentangle. As I said upthread, there has been some interesting research on adopted children somehow recreating in their adoptive family patterns that had been observed in (and probably blamed on) their birth family.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It seems entirely sensible to correctly identify the cause of any problem, and then apply the appropriate treatment.
Evidence-based problem solving. I like it!
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
As I said upthread, there has been some interesting research on adopted children somehow recreating in their adoptive family patterns that had been observed in (and probably blamed on) their birth family.
This negates your whole thesis, as it is evidence that the problem is the child, not the family.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
As I said upthread, there has been some interesting research on adopted children somehow recreating in their adoptive family patterns that had been observed in (and probably blamed on) their birth family.
This negates your whole thesis, as it is evidence that the problem is the child, not the family.
No, you misinterpreted my thesis. I suggested that chaotic/dysfunctional family dynamics and/or child abuse are by far and away the most common cause of extreme behaviour problems. Yes, I should have specified that I was talking about older children, and that I was assuming no other explanatory co-morbid problem such as ASD. I was not suggesting that ADHD does not exist; I was, in fact, citing that piece of research as evidence that it does.
What I did say is that there is a very respectable academic argument that neither ADHD or Dyslexia actually exist, by which they mean that there is no biological/neural base for such things; I didn't say I agreed with it.
My concern is with over-diagnosis of ADHD - that children get labelled with ADHD and medicated when they actually being scapegoated for problems within the family.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Yeah, you're putting words in her mouth, man. Plenty of people actually saying what she's not saying without picking on someone for trying to be balanced.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I don't see balance. I see attacking parents without due cause.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Where?
I see her saying don't leave abuse out of the equation.
[ 28. April 2013, 03:08: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
No, you misinterpreted my thesis. I suggested that chaotic/dysfunctional family dynamics and/or child abuse are by far and away the most common cause of extreme behaviour problems. Yes, I should have specified that I was talking about older children, and that I was assuming no other explanatory co-morbid problem such as ASD. I was not suggesting that ADHD does not exist; I was, in fact, citing that piece of research as evidence that it does.
Well, this basically says, "when there's nothing else but family problems to blame it on, it must be family problems" which is doubtless true but meaningless since it's a tautology.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
But that does work in the idea of "due cause," which is how it read to me.
Sure, I would like to see a few numbers, too, but I assure you there are kids out there who are hoping someone will consider abuse as a factor in their behavior problems. Maybe one in a thousand cases of behavior problems, but still.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I suggested that chaotic/dysfunctional family dynamics and/or child abuse are by far and away the most common cause of extreme behaviour problems. Yes, I should have specified that I was talking about older children, and that I was assuming no other explanatory co-morbid problem such as ASD.
Is this just your opinion? Or can you cite research in support of it?
I don't think you can assume that an older child or youth with difficult behavior has no explanatory co-morbid problem such as ASD. Studies consistently find that two thirds to three quarters of juvenile offenders -- arguably the youths with the most extreme behavior -- have one or more psychiatric diagnoses.
quote:
My concern is with over-diagnosis of ADHD - that children get labelled with ADHD and medicated when they actually being scapegoated for problems within the family.
I agree that ADHD is currently diagnoses, but what I've seen is not children being scapegoated for problems in the family. Rather, I've seen primary care doctors diagnose a child in a 15-minute office visit, without testing for problems in vision and hearing, sleep disorders, allergies, anxiety, or other conditions that can cause behavior or attention problems. Medical insurers don't want to pay for the kind of comprehensive evaluation that is needed. A quick visit and a prescription is easy, fast, and cheap.
It's certainly true that a child who is not mentally ill but who is living in a difficult situation (whether it's alcoholism and abuse, or poverty and lack of secure shelter and food) may also have behavior and attention problems, and those kids don't need prescriptions. They and their family need appropriate social services.
But saying that most kids with extreme behavior problems are abused isn't true, and it's not going to help these kids get the help they need.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
If 15 minutes is what a child receives, there is no diagnoses that will be correct by anything other than chance.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Of course, failures in health services in relation to mental health is a separate rant. No doctor wanting to avoid disciplinary action would diagnose and prescribe a course of treatment for cancer on the basis of a 15 min meeting with the patient. You wouldn't be happy going to a general practitioner with symptoms that could be due to cancer and after 15 mins come out with a prescription for powerful chemo-therapy drugs.
Diagnosis and treatment of mental health issues should involve a similar amount of time, number of specialists etc as any other form of health issue. That certainly includes not prescribing powerful drugs too quickly.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I suggested that chaotic/dysfunctional family dynamics and/or child abuse are by far and away the most common cause of extreme behaviour problems.
Is this just your opinion? Or can you cite research in support of it?
It's my experience and I think you'll find that in the educational literature on Social, Emotional and Behaviour Difficulties(SEBD), the medical model is so out of fashion that some authors pretty much refuse to even consider it. And yet child psychiatrists up and down the land are diagnosing it and prescribing on the basis of that diagnosis.
In the UK, child abuse (i.e. not just sexual abuse) is more common than ADHD, and this allows for the fact that some children diagnosed with ADHD will have been abused. Incidence of child abuse: NSPCC stats Incidence of ADHD: NICE figures Of course, not all children who have been abused have behaviour problems - or, at least, not the 'acting out' kind that get all the attention.
quote:
I don't think you can assume that an older child or youth with difficult behavior has no explanatory co-morbid problem such as ASD.
No, perhaps my use of the phrase 'assuming' was unhelpful. I am well aware that behaviour problems (including, but not confined to ADHD) can occur with/be caused by learning difficulties, ASD and other 'medical' (biologically-based) problems such as epilepsy. In fact, I would guess that most extreme behaviours actually go with ASD and Moderate or Severe Learning Difficulties, perhaps even Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties.
These are UK categorisations - and I think this may be at the root of our difficulties here. When I said 'Assuming that...' I meant 'where there is no other such co-morbid problem'; in other words, behaviour problems that we in the UK would classify as SEBD - Behaviour Difficulties that have no diagnosed medical cause are a reaction to something in the environment, and in the cases of extreme behaviours (cruel/violent/criminal) that would usually be the home environment. As a putative cause of behaviour problems, ADHD on its own - that is, not associated with either medical problems or a history of abuse/neglect - is pretty rare and its status as a medical problem (or at least as an innate condition) in its own right is hotly disputed. However, as I said above, there is some evidence that might give the sceptics pause for thought.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I don't think you can assume that an older child or youth with difficult behavior has no explanatory co-morbid problem such as ASD.
No, perhaps my use of the phrase 'assuming' was unhelpful. I am well aware that behaviour problems (including, but not confined to ADHD) can occur with/be caused by learning difficulties, ASD and other 'medical' (biologically-based) problems such as epilepsy. In fact, I would guess that most extreme behaviours actually go with ASD and Moderate or Severe Learning Difficulties, perhaps even Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties.
Thank you.
If you have a child that has severe gastrointestinal problems, your insurance pays for the diagnostic workups and whatever kind of ongoing care they need, you get plenty of sympathy and support from other people, and you are generally regarded as a wonderful parent for doing all the exhausting work that your child requires. No one suggests that the child is vomiting on purpose or that you are responsible for the diarrhea and bloating or that the child wouldn't have the problem if you would just put them in the naughty corner.
But insurance coverage for behavioral issues is scant, waiting lists for services are long, sympathy for a child who has violent tantrums is almost nonexistent. The assumption that a child's behavioral problems are caused by lousy parenting is so strong and so ingrained that even professionals who should know better will often blame the parent first.
Talk to parents of kids whose children's difficulties presented, not as vomiting but as atypical behavior, and they'll tell you about the pediatrician or teacher or child psych who told them that their child who turned out to have an ASD was just rude and undisciplined, that their child who was later diagnosed with dysphagia was manipulative and spoiled, that their child who actually had obstructive sleep apnea was lazy and disorganized.
Blaming the parents is easy. Finding the problem that's driving the difficult behavior, and providing solutions that will actually solve the problem, is difficult. And it won't happen, and the child will continue to suffer, as long as people assume that difficult behavior is caused by bad parents.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Talk to parents of kids whose children's difficulties presented, not as vomiting but as atypical behavior, and they'll tell you about the pediatrician or teacher or child psych who told them that their child who turned out to have an ASD was just rude and undisciplined, that their child who was later diagnosed with dysphagia was manipulative and spoiled, that their child who actually had obstructive sleep apnea was lazy and disorganized.
I'm starting to really appreciate my mentors int he field, because it as ingrained in me that I better have weeks of documentation and careful observation under my belt before I ever broached the subject of possible learning disabilities The laws in California at least prohibit you from saying anything that resembles a diagnosis, so all you can do is recite whatever behavior you are seeing. The idea of dismissing things as "laziness" or "spoiledness" is completely alien to me. Sorry you've run into those teachers.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
I guess I feel the need to speak up because I was that kid in the opposite situation-- I was labeled as having emotional problem, and the biggest emotional problem I really had was going home to a terrifying drunk person every afternoon, and a co-parent who basically punished me for "lying" about the matter.
I don't know how to describe the "radar" that pops up when family problems are suspected,except to say it consists largely of things the child says not quite matching up with what the parent says (for instance, in the case of my friend up thread, he would mention arguments his divorcing parents would have, and when we'd timidly refer to his comments the mother would snap,"My husband and I never argue in front of him!" (complete crap-- they would argue in front of him in front of us, for God's sake.)* and a sense that the child is not so much generally not focusing as actively trying to get his/ her mind off of something.
And also, it occurs to me in writing this, that at least in the places I have worked-- which is preschool and aftercare, remember-- teachers are actually more comfortable approaching parents with possible developmental concerns than they are with family issues. Maybe that's only because in a non-academic setting parents feel freer to let their family issues hang out a little more, and actively use us as a resource. YMMV.
*I totally understand how divorce can skew one's perception, but this kid really did need someone to speak up for him. The adults were just too deep into it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Finding the true cause should always be the path.
I would quibble with your assertion about the assumptions of professionals in that these tend, IMO, to change along economic and racial lines. In other words, the richer and whiter you are, the higher the diagnoses for disorder vs. behaviour at a disproportionate rate.
ETA: response to Josephine
[ 28. April 2013, 14:43: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Finding the true cause should always be the path.
I would quibble with your assertion about the assumptions of professionals in that these tend, IMO, to change along economic and racial lines. In other words, the richer and whiter you are, the higher the diagnoses for disorder vs. behaviour at a disproportionate rate.
I'm not sure that the initial assumptions differ. It's possible. But the big difference is that someone who has resources can sit down at their computer and do online research on their child's difficulties, find a different doctor, take time off work to take their child to a different doctor, hire an advocate or a lawyer, pay out of pocket for evaluations and treatments, take out a second mortgage on the house if necessary. They are more likely to have insurance, to have better insurance, and to know that it's possible to appeal the denial of insurance coverage. So they're in a far better position to find the real cause of their child's difficulties, and to secure effective treatment.
If you're poor, most of the resources you need to help your child are quite simply unavailable.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
If you're poor, most of the resources you need to help your child are quite simply unavailable.
Amen. The most important resource being time. headstart, for instance, is pretty good about providing an array of social services and family support, but for the parents, there are still only so many hours in the day.
Sadly, it's been my observation that in schools that are both financially stressed and serving financially stressed people*, the lion's share of "blame" in any behavior situation falls on the kid. With the adults too overwhelmed and unsupported to construct a proactive behavior management plan, they fall back on punitive, short-term control solutions that escalate the problems in the long run.
Same old story all over the US-- it is those who are most vulnerable who have the least resources.
*And add to that the recent necessity for teachers in federally run programs to devote hours of their day to filling out paperwork that will qualify them under No Child Left Behind. When does the average preschool teacher nowadays actually get to hang out with the kids?
[ 28. April 2013, 15:36: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I guess I feel the need to speak up because I was that kid in the opposite situation-- I was labeled as having emotional problem, and the biggest emotional problem I really had was going home to a terrifying drunk person every afternoon, and a co-parent who basically punished me for "lying" about the matter.
I know that happens. And it's probably far more common than most of us realize.
quote:
I don't know how to describe the "radar" that pops up when family problems are suspected,except to say it consists largely of things the child says not quite matching up with what the parent says ...
See, to me, that makes sense. You're not starting with the assumption that the child has lousy parents. You're starting with observations, with data. And then you're using the data to form a hypothesis, and seeing whether additional data fits the hypothesis or not.
And sometimes the child's behavior is nothing more than a reaction to an awful home. I know that happens. One of my kids had a friend whose mother was bipolar and didn't believe in psychiatric medication. The boy never knew whether there would be food in the kitchen, or strange men, or whether they would be evicted and have to find another place to live. His problems at school began to clear up when he went to live with another family.
But I don't think it's reasonable to go straight from a child with problem behavior to the assumption of a messed up home. That assumes way too much, misses way too much, and has the potential for creating more problems than it solves.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
This is related, and worth reading.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
But I don't think it's reasonable to go straight from a child with problem behavior to the assumption of a messed up home. That assumes way too much, misses way too much, and has the potential for creating more problems than it solves.
Fair enough.
I guess I've just never experienced teachers doing that. Guess I've worked in some relatively well-trained staff settings.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
This is related, and worth reading.
From the article:
quote:
Maybe we should take a lesson from the rich and invest much more heavily as a society in our children’s educational opportunities from the day they are born. Investments in early-childhood education pay very high societal dividends. That means investing in developing high-quality child care and preschool that is available to poor and middle-class children. It also means recruiting and training a cadre of skilledpreschool teachers and child care providers. These are not new ideas, but we have to stop talking about how expensive and difficult they are to implement and just get on with it.
Highlighted the important bits, to me. What is happening now in federally run preschools is materialistically well-appointed centers that very often have hugely inappropriate curricula. Basically they are pushing elementary school academic teaching methods into preschool. SO the rich kids are going to the Reggio Emila and Montessori schools that are "emergent" and "developmental" and the poor kids are being deprived of total somatic brain development in favor of parking it in front of a teacher or being shuttled from teacher-directed table activity to table activity when they should be in a prepared environment that allows their initiative to tell them what to explore.
And they develop behavior problems because the centers aren't allowed, policy-wise, to put behavior management at the top of the list of priorities.
Grrrr.
[ 28. April 2013, 16:00: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
teachers are actually more comfortable approaching parents with possible developmental concerns than they are with family issues.
Ha. You just reminded me of something from my own childhood. My school was concerned about my development because I was just about the only child in my class who couldn't balance on a wobble board (or balance board, you may call it).
Apparently my parents laughed. Seeing as this was about the same time as I was beginning to attend extracurricular activities for especially gifted children.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
teachers are actually more comfortable approaching parents with possible developmental concerns than they are with family issues.
Ha. You just reminded me of something from my own childhood. My school was concerned about my development because I was just about the only child in my class who couldn't balance on a wobble board (or balance board, you may call it).
Apparently my parents laughed. Seeing as this was about the same time as I was beginning to attend extracurricular activities for especially gifted children.
Exactly! Like everyone masters the wobble board at the same time. Different kids have different focuses of initiative.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Wobble board? An activity mercifully absent from primary PE in 1950s Ireland (I was the child who never mastered 'Simon Says').
Anent which, having been moved around a lot between schools, my problem was that I was never there for The Explanation at the beginning. Hence my lifelong habit of winging it.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
What the hell is a wobble board?
(Mercifully absent from any school I ever went to either.)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Its a board with a curve on the bottom that lets you rock back and forth, for balance practice.
One version.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
It shows how much more children are monitored for developmental milestones. Vignette from about age 8: class numbers 40+, teacher woman born probably in reign of Queen Victoria or Edward VII, building modern - courtesy of he Luftwaffe, since it's in an area showing a lot of damage from The Blitz. We 'good readers' are sent to the desks on the other side of the classroom to help the 'slow readers'.
Maybe Indifferently was at school the same time as I was (or possibly a 100 years earlier) and absorbed the idea that learning is something that just requires the child try a bit harder.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ha. You just reminded me of something from my own childhood. My school was concerned about my development because I was just about the only child in my class who couldn't balance on a wobble board (or balance board, you may call it).
Apparently my parents laughed. Seeing as this was about the same time as I was beginning to attend extracurricular activities for especially gifted children.
A friend of mine who tutors kids with academic problems told me a story about her oldest son, who is now in his mid-thirties.
When he was in kindergarten and first grade, the teachers saw it as a developmental problem that he could not skip. He worried about this a lot until his mother told him that after he got into second grade, no one would care whether he could skip or not.
He graduated from college and law school.
Moo
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
When he was in kindergarten and first grade, the teachers saw it as a developmental problem that he could not skip. He worried about this a lot until his mother told him that after he got into second grade, no one would care whether he could skip or not.
Certainly, as the child got older, no one would care whether he could skip or not. And no one would care whether he could cross the midline (i.e., reach his right hand across his body to something on his left side). And it will never really matter whether he can alternate his feet when going up and down steps or whether he always has to step down with the left foot, bring the right foot to the same step, and step down with the left foot again.
But if a child misses significant developmental milestones, it's a red flag. There might not be anything at all wrong, but it's worth keeping an eye on, and if the child misses multiple milestones, it's worth looking into.
quote:
He graduated from college and law school.
Motor delays may not affect cognitive development. That doesn't mean they don't matter.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I don't know what age your child is, but I don't think we're talking about the same things. I wasn't talking about toddlers - anybody knows that toddlers can go apeshit about anything
No, not a toddler. How patronizing of you. You might have had the nous to realize that posting about those behaviours indicated that they were unusual for the child's expected growth and development. Thank you, I am well aware that these are normal toddler behaviours, but my child is not a toddler.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
It shows how much more children are monitored for developmental milestones. Vignette from about age 8: class numbers 40+, teacher woman born probably in reign of Queen Victoria or Edward VII, building modern - courtesy of he Luftwaffe, since it's in an area showing a lot of damage from The Blitz. We 'good readers' are sent to the desks on the other side of the classroom to help the 'slow readers'.
I am such a big believer in "mixed" classrooms- benefits everyone involved.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
What is happening now in federally run preschools is materialistically well-appointed centers that very often have hugely inappropriate curricula. Basically they are pushing elementary school academic teaching methods into preschool. SO the rich kids are going to the Reggio Emila and Montessori schools that are "emergent" and "developmental" and the poor kids are being deprived of total somatic brain development in favor of parking it in front of a teacher or being shuttled from teacher-directed table activity to table activity when they should be in a prepared environment that allows their initiative to tell them what to explore.
And now the federal government wants to provide universal preschool that "meets standards". Want to bet that those "standards" are going to be worksheets, coloring, and "today, children, we're going to learn about the letter 'P'"?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
France, Italy and Japan do preschool right-- why the hell can't we follow the example that is already there for us?
[ 29. April 2013, 07:23: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
You can't learn from those pinkos!
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Its a board with a curve on the bottom that lets you rock back and forth, for balance practice.
One version.
Gordon Bennett. We just turned the benches over in the assembly hall and walked along the underneath rail, as balance practice. Painful when you fell off. But that was probably the point. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Mind you, it took me all of primary school to master the forward roll.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Its a board with a curve on the bottom that lets you rock back and forth, for balance practice.
One version.
Shit. Don't think I could stay upright on one of those things now.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
No, not a toddler. How patronizing of you. You might have had the nous to realize that posting about those behaviours indicated that they were unusual for the child's expected growth and development. Thank you, I am well aware that these are normal toddler behaviours, but my child is not a toddler.
But I didn't know what context you were coming from. I had thought, when I originally posted, that this debate was about someone denying the validity of ADHD as a concept and hence denying the validity of using ADHD as an prime cause/explanation of "bad" behaviour in otherwise (if you'll pardon the expression) "normal" children. I therefore thought it was understood that, my comments would not apply to any child already diagnosed ahs having a disorder/condition/syndrome .
I felt that a) I had not made myself sufficiently clear and/or b) that you had mis-read my intention. There had been some discussion on the thread about people tut-tutting in supermarkets - which is something that people do about bad behaviour in toddlers, so yes, I'm afriad you did think it was possible I was including toddlers in my comments.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You can't learn from those pinkos!
[She's my mom, I can bitch about her if I want- mode] I think a great deal of America's more perplexing policy decisions can be traced to the the idea that we don't have anything to fucking learn from anybody.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Mind you, it took me all of primary school to master the forward roll.
(cough) I, um- never did.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Its a board with a curve on the bottom that lets you rock back and forth, for balance practice.
One version.
Shit. Don't think I could stay upright on one of those things now.
(Raises hand to testify)
I have been practicing to a dance mix I made recently and while I was burning the curtains in my den with my smoking hot dance moves, every five minutes or so I would just-- fall over. Has to do with a congentital missarangement of my feet (I had/ have pretty severe "duck feet" that will sneak back on me if I don't actively, mindfully combat it. So when I walk down the street, I'm thinking "Toes ahead, toes ahead, toes ahead."
All that just to reinforce what Josephine said-- although we don't want to freak out if every kid doesn't master the balance board at the same time-- or even if they don't master it at all-- it is something to watch in terms of tracking possible proprioceptive problems.
I am one big proprioceptive problem.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Ah. That'll be it then. When my fencing coach says things like "can't you tell your foot is crossing over to the left as you lunge, which is why you miss?" my answer has to be "not unless I look down at it, no."
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
See, I used to fence, too. Maybe desire for better balance is what drove me to it. Either way, same thing-- I'd be in the middle of pretending I was Inigo Montoya, and I'd fall the hell over.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I am one big proprioceptive problem.
Based on that, I'd be willing to bet you have trouble falling asleep and staying asleep, too. Because that goes with proprioceptive problems.
And while I wouldn't bet on it, I would guess that you had trouble, as a child, learning how to "read" body language, and maybe even facial expressions.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I am one big proprioceptive problem.
Based on that, I'd be willing to bet you have trouble falling asleep and staying asleep, too. Because that goes with proprioceptive problems.
And while I wouldn't bet on it, I would guess that you had trouble, as a child, learning how to "read" body language, and maybe even facial expressions.
On point 1: YES. I will start to drift off, and I will yank myself out of it, Or I will develop a pinpoint itch that feels like a bee sting.
On point 2: No. I have actually been hyper-attentive to facial/ nonverbal cues. Byproduct of being raised by really mercurial parents.
My mom is completely crap at visual emotional cues, though. Maybe it just skipped a generation?
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I am one big proprioceptive problem.
Based on that, I'd be willing to bet you have trouble falling asleep and staying asleep, too. Because that goes with proprioceptive problems.
On point 1: YES. I will start to drift off, and I will yank myself out of it, Or I will develop a pinpoint itch that feels like a bee sting.
Try getting a really, really heavy blanket or quilt. Heavy as in weighs a lot, not necessarily warm. Wool is substantially heavier than polyester or cotton or down, so that's usually a good place to start. And, from an OT supply place, you can get specially made weighted blankets that do the same thing.
quote:
quote:
And while I wouldn't bet on it, I would guess that you had trouble, as a child, learning how to "read" body language, and maybe even facial expressions.
On point 2: No. I have actually been hyper-attentive to facial/ nonverbal cues. Byproduct of being raised by really mercurial parents.
My mom is completely crap at visual emotional cues, though. Maybe it just skipped a generation?
Could be. Or it could be that it was more difficult for you to learn, but that you had lots of extra motivation for learning it. And maybe your mom's proprioceptive sense is more impaired than yours, so she couldn't master it, or she didn't have the motivation she needed to master it, or she has additional impairments that affected her ability to read body language and facial expressions.
[ 29. April 2013, 17:59: Message edited by: Josephine ]
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
This is not a group therapy thread. Shut the fuck up.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Yes'm, shutting up, the fuckish.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Kum Ba Ya, My Lord... Kum Ba Ya...
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
A few things:
--Kelly, you're right about the US tripping over "we're better than everyone else in all things". I'm reminded of something CS Lewis said (in the context of religious denominations, IIRC) that a young child may think that the silverware at their house is the real silverware, and no one else's silverware is real.
--I had an awful time with gymnastics, and PE in general. I did get some basic rolls more or less down in 5th or 6th grade; my teacher was VERY patient and encouraging. The uneven bars were really out of the question. I could muddle around on a regulation-sized balance beam. I was awful at climbing things. (Not too bad at trees, though.) We had to climb ropes in PE in grade school. I made it near the top once. The rest was pretty awful. Not sure what was different that one day. I was less embarrassing at foursquare, and a few other things.
--I've had an annoying time with some *very* minor neuro glitches: e.g., lighting matches, whistling, using scissors, and snapping my fingers. I didn't really get the hang of matches and whistling until college. Scissors are still awkward, both in holding them and in trying to cut a straight line. However, I've got some offset scissors (where the handles are bent up), and they work much better for me. Matches are easier if I use wooden ones, and really focus. I think I'd managed snapping my fingers by high school.
I Googled those glitches once, and found other people who had them. Don't know what, if anything, it means.
--My sense of vertical distance is off--part of me exaggerates it so much that a few feet can seem like miles. Made cartwheels impossible, and some kinds of playground equipment extremely difficult. As with some glitches I've developed as an adult, it seems that part of my brain perceive things rightly and part is wayyyy off.
--As far as whether diagnoses and disabilities are "real", check out:
~~ The Invisible Disabilities site.
~~ CFIDS.org. I have Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome (CFIDS/CFS/ME). It tends to be mostly invisible, unless someone is really paying attention. For a long time, sufferers were written off as having "Yuppie flu", being lazy, malingering, etc. by both professionals and laypeople. Many still feel that way. Even doctors and loved ones who believe you have *something* don't really get the extent of it. They may abandon you. You really find out who your friends are, and your good doctors. Random clerks can be rude and mocking when you're looking for a book on CFIDS. Even specialized clinics may be totally thoughtless about accommodating you.
--As far as assumptions about the potential of disabled kids: I read "Cushla and Her Books", written by her grandmother. (Dorothy someone.) C. was a little girl in New Zealand. She was born with multiple disabilities--so many that the professionals just assumed she had a low IQ as well. Her parents were sort of hippies, and not inclined to just believe what they were told. IIRC, she figured out how to read; and, at some point, she was in some sort of free-spirited small group school. (In a barn, I think.) Anyway, she turned out to be very bright. And the professionals were dead wrong.
FWIW.
[link fixed. -comet, Hellhost]
[ 30. April 2013, 11:37: Message edited by: comet ]
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
IQ is a bit dodgy at the best of times, and particulalry dodgy when it comes to kids with sensory and/or multiple disabilities - not just because the format of the test is questionable, but because the whole concept of intelligence that underpins it is flawed. I've seen a few written off (more or less literally) as idiots (helpful technical term ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) who have flourished with the right care and stimulation. The most memorable is a deaf/blind boy who was treated as "a cabbage" (his words) until his early teens and then - adopted by someone with common sense and compassion - went on to do A levels and an honours degree.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
Golden Key, your invisible disabilities link doesn't work.
Moo
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
'swhy it's invisible.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
fixed.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
[reports Comet to admins for being helpful in Hell]
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
I like you keep you sad little fuckers guessing.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
--As far as whether diagnoses and disabilities are "real", check out:
All diagnoses are real. Not all are accurate. Professionals range from amazing to abysmal, so then too will their diagnoses. The situations in which these evaluations occur vary tremendously, so this will affect the diagnosis.
Disabilities are real, even those not apparent to the casual observer. But a diagnosis is similar to a court verdict; it is an official position, not a perfect proof.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
As a person who needs antidepressants to function, I am so very grateful for my leftist NHS.
Also, I find it very strange that Indifferently attends what I know to be an FiF church in light of his anti-Catholic prejudice? Just weird. Coventry's full of conservative evangelical Anglican churches.
I attend because they have A and B, and will soon lobby the PCC to petition for alternative episcopal oversight. Why do you say I am "anti Catholic"? I am Catholic. I just happen to think we should stop aping Rome and use our own liturgical and ceremonial inheritance.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
As a person who needs antidepressants to function, I am so very grateful for my leftist NHS.
Also, I find it very strange that Indifferently attends what I know to be an FiF church in light of his anti-Catholic prejudice? Just weird. Coventry's full of conservative evangelical Anglican churches.
I attend because they have A and B, and will soon lobby the PCC to petition for alternative episcopal oversight. Why do you say I am "anti Catholic"? I am Catholic. I just happen to think we should stop aping Rome and use our own liturgical and ceremonial inheritance.
You realise that Anglo-Catholicism is very different to actual RCC practice and so is not aping Rome at all? It is continuing the liturgical and ceremonial progression which was already happening in England. Disagree with it, fine, but don't act like it's not 'real Anglicanism'. You don't think that AffCath churches are 'real' churches but they er, kind of are.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Thx for fixing my link. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0