Oppositional Defiant Disorder
POSTED BY: Bytemite
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 9, 2011 04:51
VIEWED: 6599
PAGE 8 of 11
Quote:Except in this case the hardware affects the software, and the software rewires the hardware. Your sister's brain tumor should tell you that.
Easy. Brain is hardward (sic), mind is software.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've never advocated harsh punishments and in fact I am against them for any child. I advocate for having clear and firm boundaries, being warm and loving in ones parenting, and being able to accept emotions, even difficult ones. I've said that all along. I don't agree with kids having equal say with adults, nor having the burden of adult responsibilities. I've also consistently said that. I've also said that kids take on responsibilities and more say in what happens to them as they grow. Also said that.
There has been considerable research into parenting styles and I am glad that you were interested enough to look them up. John Gottman and Daniel Goleman have also done much research on both parenting styles and emotional intelligence, which I am very interested in.
For a lot of kids, how parents 'parent' will affect their behaviour and then there are those that will still present with difficulties no matter what the parents do. Kids with autism for example. They may not be 'cured' but it will be beneficial.
I might also add that I am against medicating children for behavioural issues in most circumstances, although ritalin does seem to have some success, I am concerned at the overall affect on a child's brain when it is still developing. I am definitely against anti depressants as recent research has shown that they can produce opposite reactions in the immature brain ie suicidiality. However, as signy has demonstrated not everything is clear cut and some situations are desperate. I do know that it is the easiest thing in the world to criticize other people's parenting and their choices with out having the full story and not having experienced how damned hard it can be to have a child with behavioural issues.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
deal with people like Story and Nicki, and may end up with custody of the kid.
I just pointed out your incorreect assumption), as opposed to someone like you, who is ignorant of simple facts?
Once again, Wulfie, you reveal how intelectually stunted you are.B]
Maybe the spelling fairy can come on by and point out your incorreect spelling....fucking genius.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Easy. Brain is hardward, mind is software. If there's a physical problem, that's brain damage.
I love how each era's latest technological marvel is the goto for the brain's operation. The brain used to be described as an incredibly complex clockwork, then it was an incredibly complex telephone switch, now it's computer hardware and software.
The issue is that the mind is somewhat an emergent property of the underlying "hardware", and the underlying hardware "rewires" itself in response to the pre-dominate mind-state.
I don't think a general Hardware/Software analogy bears any scrutiny, at least until computers are programmed by rewiring their hardware. In the brain, unlike computers, there isn't much distinction between hardware and software because the brains "hardware" rewrites itself so that it is also the brain's "software".
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen,
It's been around for about 30 years, but I think it's its an excellent analogy. Synaptic changes are more like switched than wires, because the brain can change them at will. The hardware is stuff which cannot be changed by the software, it needs to be physically altered. I spend a lot of time studying the brain and have for the last decade. There are definitely two distinct levels, and I think the hardware/software is a pretty perfect match. We, our personalities, are programs, running on giant computers. I get that it's more complex than that, but to answer a simple question like where does the brain end and the mind begin, I think it's a solid answer: The brain is hardware. It never changes unless there's a physical damage. If there is a physical damage, it cannot be repaired by changing the software. If there is a glitch in the software, it is overwhelmingly not caused by a problem in the hardware* and fixing it requires software solutions, which for the brain is psychology (any technique) or psychopharmacology (even if it's alt. med.)
*even in extreme cases like mine. That said, therapy isn't going to cure a brain tumor. That's what I mean by a clear delineation.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Ah I see, its the old 'when in doubt make some sweeping generalisations' time.
Is this directed at me?
If so then... yeah, pretty much ;)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
So, your point is...?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank you Citizen for explaining the duality of the mind/brain.
DT, on many things you are rather mystical and understand that phenomena are often interconnected, and similarly that many characteristics are on a spectrum, with no bright line between them. On this, however, you're uncharacteristically dogmatic. There is, as far as I know, no EASY analogy for the brain. We simply don't have computers in which the software can partially rewire the hardware.
On the bright side of this mind/ brain mutuality, however, is the fact that self-aware and disciplined mental/emotional exercise can partially rewire the brain. So a person with compulsions, for example, can become less compulsive with time, just as John Nash (the subject of A Beautiful Mind) learned not to listen to the voices in his head. The underlying issue is not "cured", but the effects are lessened.
HOWEVER, the most successful therapies often combine both meds and awareness. And, you can't completely talk away seizures, for example, or autism, or Alzheimer's, or schizophrenia or even compulsions. There is an underlying biological process driving all of this.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME