Oppositional Defiant Disorder
POSTED BY: Bytemite
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 9, 2011 04:51
VIEWED: 6599
PAGE 9 of 11
Well, a reactionary viewpoint to 1960s hippie culture is difficult for me to call a neutral starting point. However, I do give her credit that she didn't say there were only two types of parenting and advocated the extreme opposite of hippie parenting, and instead recognized that there was also a such thing as too much discipline.
The particular problem I see is that once again in the web page I looked at a claim is made that "Research into the child behavior outcomes associated with each type of parenting has traditionally shown a strong benefit to authoritative parenting." But I see no cites or links leading to these studies. This makes me think that it is opinion, and also that there is a subset of the population for some reason interested in pushing this opinion.
I would have no problem if the three proposed parenting types listed had pros and cons for all of them, instead of holding up one better than another. It comes across to me as a subjective preference for authoritative parenting, but to be fair I'm not sure who or what group is responsible for the claim.
I also wonder how much parenting style can vary within a family, inevitably some parents are going to be more permissive with some children than with others. It seems like a generalization to say "all parents fall into these three styles, two have bad results, one has good results that works for all children."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hooo boy, thread explosion.
Imma take in order here from my last post - things have been wacky around here so I've been haring off hither and yon, especially since one of our guys found hisself a human freeziepop with a couple large caliber holes in him and isn't mentally dealin with that too well, not to mention about half the jerks involved in that little palace coup/company defection have come back practically on their knees beggin for their old jobs back and I ain't quite decided what to do about that yet...
(Frankly, trust being a huge factor in this biz, they stand little chance of convincing me.)
Anyhow, to biz;
EPMCHRISTENSEN, if talkin about it helps you cope, by all means you go on and do that, even if we are lobbing fireballs at each other most of the time, RWED is kind of familial what with the venting and the bickering, so by all means vent if ya need to.
And yes, I understand the general drift of those kinda feelings well enough to articulate them quite reasonantly, but of course every case is an individual thing and that is why folks really, really NEED to learn to listen to what the hell kids are saying, which most people never do because of the idiotic social concept that kids don't know anything - well, they know what their own issues are, and askin them, then LISTENING TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY is IMHO the first and most important step in helping them deal.
As for finding that "just one person" to listen, to commisserate, and this is important to you as well Byte, that phenomenae is known as a "Helping Witness", and is quite critically important, as described by Alice Miller.
The Essential Role of an Enlightened Witness in Society
http://www.alice-miller.com/index_en.php?page=2
Simply by being there, listening, understanding, you can do a world of good even if you are powerless to act.
Now, onto the notion of it "not being his decision to make" - well in order to answer that, you have to ask yourself the very important question, is this a person, or is this a piece of property ?
Because if it's the former, it's absolutely imperative that they have a say, maybe not the LAST say, but a true, honest say in the matter, rather than let's-pretend-to-hear-them-out...
And I find it damn rare that they're actually given such, thus generally regarding them to the category of livestock or pets, something I will ever find offensive, and will also point out that once included minorities and women, with much the same excuses.
One must also note that I have seen this pattern more times than I can count, a child who doesn't truly have ADD/ADHD shoved onto meds for convenience, a secondary med to disperse the aggression, and then Clonidine to address the sleep disorders the first two cause - all of which are in fact, off-label and NEVER properly tested for longterm effects on the age group they are applied to, something which disturbs me greatly.
When dealing with a problem like this, there is a certain mentality about it, going for the quick fix, slapping a patch on it, treating the symptoms - which is, IMHO, a damn bad idea, it's like taking nyquil for tuberculosis.
Firstoff, what needs to be identified is that is this a mere BEHAVIORAL disorder, or an actual brain misfire, a proper diagnosis is absolutely key to treatment of any kind, and medication should play a role of primarily symptom-abatement while the root cause is being addressed and as part of a full spectrum treatment plan intended to get back to "normal" or at least normal enough to function in what we call society (and for the moment I'll save my breath on what I think of normal/society for brevity) and eventually if possible without chemical assistance or a minimum of such.
We need to look beyond just shovelling pills and symptom treatment, to helping folk get better, instead of slapping a patch on it, cause over time medication loses it's effectiveness or even becomes counterproductive, and then what, more meds and more meds ?
Sure, that might help Big Pharma make a profit, but what about the patient,
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig,
The brain is a physical thing, the mind is the information on it. Seems cut and dried to me. Anyway, sorry to hear.
Byte's problem here doesn't necessarily require repair though, it seem mental/chemical.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Well, a reactionary viewpoint to 1960s hippie culture is difficult for me to call a neutral starting point. However, I do give her credit that she didn't say there were only two types of parenting and advocated the extreme opposite of hippie parenting, and instead recognized that there was also a such thing as too much discipline.
The particular problem I see is that once again in the web page I looked at a claim is made that "Research into the child behavior outcomes associated with each type of parenting has traditionally shown a strong benefit to authoritative parenting." But I see no cites or links leading to these studies. This makes me think that it is opinion, and also that there is a subset of the population for some reason interested in pushing this opinion.
I would have no problem if the three proposed parenting types listed had pros and cons for all of them, instead of holding up one better than another. It comes across to me as a subjective preference for authoritative parenting, but to be fair I'm not sure who or what group is responsible for the claim.
I also wonder how much parenting style can vary within a family, inevitably some parents are going to be more permissive with some children than with others. It seems like a generalization to say "all parents fall into these three styles, two have bad results, one has good results that works for all children."
I saw plenty of cites in the wiki entry, so I'm not sure what your issue is. If you want the actual research however, you are probably going to have to buy it. That's how this capitalist system seems to function.
Some parenting styles don't have many pros. If you beat your child with a broom handle every night before bed, it's not going to be a parenting style that produces positive outcomes in a child. Not all things are equal and some ways of doing things produce better results than others.
Your thinking about this matter appears to be excessively rigid. The styles are broad. Researchers would have observed that parents who do certain things most of the time had the best outcomes. No one expects parents to tick a long list of boxes on what to do. It's pretty basic stuff, kids do well if parents provide structure and limits, are consistent with them, are warm and loving and provide emotional support. It's kind of Parenting 101 as far as I can see. Most of us don't do it all the time, and we all do it differently and all that is fine. Parents who impose harsh punishment, are emotionally cold and disapproving of emotions, and conversely those who set no limits are likely to have kids that don't do so well. And I say 'likely' because these are only indicators and not predictions. Kids individual temperaments will also be a significant factor. Many people survive horrific childhoods and come out in reasonable shape. It's kind of like letting kids play in the traffic, they won't necessarily get hit by a car but there chances of doing so are significantly increased.
I like all the John Gottman stuff. He comes at parenting from the framework of fostering emotional resilience in children, but the outcomes of his research are pretty consistent with the other research. he talks about parents emotional styles - and the one he found worked best was 'emotion coaching' which consisted of, guess what, setting limits and boundaries and supporting kids emotionally. Actually he puts it the other way around but you get my point. He says that most parents use a variety of different styles - he calls them 'emotion dismissing' 'emotion disapproving' 'laissez faire' and as I said earlier 'emotion coaching'. Again he comes at it from a different angle from Baumrind but they correlate. But children who have a parent parent who uses the emotion coaching style enough of the time, have the best outcomes.
These sort of theories go hand in hand with new research into the brain's plasticity, which we've drifted into again in this thread. Interaction and experience changes the
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And yes, I understand the general drift of those kinda feelings well enough to articulate them quite reasonantly, but of course every case is an individual thing and that is why folks really, really NEED to learn to listen to what the hell kids are saying, which most people never do because of the idiotic social concept that kids don't know anything - well, they know what their own issues are, and askin them, then LISTENING TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY is IMHO the first and most important step in helping them deal.
I agree totally. We need to hear what kids say and let them voice their concerns, just like we need to keep them informed about important things in their life, something my parent's generation never did.
Quote:
Simply by being there, listening, understanding, you can do a world of good even if you are powerless to act.
This is the stuff that changes the brain.
Quote:
Now, onto the notion of it "not being his decision to make" - well in order to answer that, you have to ask yourself the very important question, is this a person, or is this a piece of property ?
Because if it's the former, it's absolutely imperative that they have a say, maybe not the LAST say, but a true, honest say in the matter, rather than let's-pretend-to-hear-them-out...
And I find it damn rare that they're actually given such, thus generally regarding them to the category of livestock or pets, something I will ever find offensive, and will also point out that once included minorities and women, with much the same excuses.
Again, we're are saying the same things but in a different way. Of course a child should have voice - I've said this over and over again - but I believe parents/caregivers have the final say. This stuff is really too complicated for most laymen adults to comprehend, let alone a 7 year old child.
Which leads me to a point around expert advice. I've notice a lot of posters on these boards pretty much shun expert advice = preferring to do their own 'research'. well I can tell you, I can do all the reading on the internet I like and it aint going to make a neurosurgeon of me. People who study and practice in their field for years are going to have much more expertise than I will, and frankly, although I'm going to read about things that affect me, I'm not going to study every decision in my life indepth enough to be an expert on everything. To even think that is possible is incredibly conceited. If i want my car fixed I go to a mechanic. If I'm sick, I go to a doctor, need my teeth fixed, a dentist etc etc.
If I get expert advice that I don't like, I might see someone else, but it seems to me to be a very fraught path to constantly doubt all experts, all conventional wisdom, because of distaste for the status quo. Otherwise I'm going to have rely on my being able to research every single decision I make in my life to an expert level, and given the amount of dross and misinformation on the Internet, I'm going to struggle with even finding properly researched and valid material to read. I'd rather have a life, frankly, a put a smidge of trust that the world isn't out to get me for some [insert favourite conspiracy theory] reaspon.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I'd rather have a life, frankly, a put a smidge of trust that the world isn't out to get me for some [insert favourite conspiracy theory] reason.
I have OCD, anxiety, and paranoia, I can't NOT do this. It's a fair point about the consequences though, I know them well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
More like you have trust issues, and a compulsively burning *need* to know the truth of things, from my perspective, Byte - makes me wonder if you ain't related to Hunter S Thompson...
As far as expert advice goes, one of the side effects of a passion for information which borders on the legendary greed of dragons, is a pretty solid awareness that even experts are neither infallible, nor immune to human misperception, bias and whatnot - that said it comes down to trust, and you'll note that when something reaches the limits of my own competence I do tend to reccommend where to go for more expert advice, although I do think one should at least have done enough looking into the matter to ask the expert useful questions and to comprehend the answers.
One reason I tend to reccommend Doc Perry isn't just that he and his team are damn good at this, it's also that he's got a way of getting it across to the layman in simple no-nonsense terms so that someone without a background in neuro-bio-chem sciences can actually comprehend what the hell he's talkin about, and that is as critically important as the knowledge itself, if you mean to help folks apply it, right ?
Mostly it's a matter of realizing people are human, even if they do have the benefit of far more experience and education in a given field.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm sorry about this situation with your cousin, it doesn't sound like it has been handled correctly and I think I know how you feel about not being able to do anything about it.
ADD is indeed over diagnosed, I think a decent chunk of kids that they say have it are just at the more rambunctious end of the normal spectrum. I do believe that there are some children, and adults, that do have it, but it has become such a fad diagnosis these days, I think the reported number is way higher than the actual number. Second, or even third opinions, especially with little ones, are important when you think something isn't being figured correctly.
I also think schools need to be more flexible with children who learn differently. If kids are having a hard time at school, there are so many factors that could be involved, and I think those things should be looked at and addressed.
I don't have time to read this whole thread, sorry.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
apparently she's related to me, just take out the paranoia and replace with schizophrenia ;)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:DT, I see where we differ. I include "chemical" with "hardware". I think of the brain is a big electrochemical cell, it generates its own electricity, its own clocks etc through electrochemistry. To me, the neurotransmitters and receptors are as much a part of the "hardware" as anatomic features like the hippocampus or the parietal lobe. Maybe its my background as a chemist that makes me see it that way, but to me chemicals are "things" too.
Sig, The brain is a physical thing, the mind is the information on it. Seems cut and dried to me.... Byte's problem here doesn't necessarily require repair though, it seem mental/chemical.
And curiously, it seems to me (and this is just my personal opinion, there is no research at all behind this) that it is far easier to rewire the brain ANATOMICALLY than it is to change the brain neurochemically. There have been experiments where bits of brain tissue have been swapped... some of the occiptal lobe for the temporal lobe, for example, and the swapped part stepped in and performed. Apparently, the different functions in the cortex (visual, language, motor etc) are not set by any specific difference in the nerves themselves, simply by the nearest input and output. The real difficulty seems to be that once the number and type of transmitters and receptors have been set (by experience or exposure) it is very difficult to change. For example, a child exposed to a lot of stress will prolly always have a higher number of receptors devoted to stress... I suppose this even translates to in-utero exposure to the mother's stress via cortisol. A person whose receptors have been burned out by XTC will still show deficiency years later.
I think... and again, this is just me... that it is the number and function (or dysfunction) of receptors and transmitters which cause so many of the difficulties, for example, the failure of dopamine receptors in the substantia nigra which produce Parkinson's.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME