I think each parent somehow finds the right paths for their children.
Interesting way to put it, Whooter. Aren't those kids allowed some say in finding their own paths in life?
Kinda reminds me of your comment about having a duty to mold and shape your children. Jes saying'...
Their own paths in life, yes, I believe as parents we need assist them and help them find themselves and ultimately their own path in life. It is also our duty to mold and shape them (set a good example, potty train them, teach them good manners and set moral standards, discipline them etc.) as you mentioned.
Oh, just so we're clear: *I* was NOT the original poster who spoke of our "duty to mold and shape our children." You were.
I mentioned that this was your comment. The way you've worded your response above implies that *I* might have been the originator of such a... er... concept, and I just wanna make sure that any such delusions go no further.
--------------
Lest there be any ambiguity 'bout this, here is the original post, emphasis added:
Originally posted on 07 Jun 2010 07:49:
I'm going to treat this as a different conversation than the one we were previously discussing in which you thought you had logical responses to, Whooter.
As the start of a new topic , here, you are saying we can all agree that a program ( it's directors, owners) shouldn't make the child worse off than they already are. Well to expound upon that concept, is it ethical to force someone through a process that will unquestionably make them different (good or bad depending on the perspective) than they were before?
Until the person becomes an adult and can decide for themselves then it is our duty as parents to mold them and shape them and provide them with the tools to have a happy, long and successful life. There child should not be asked .. it should be a process that the parents decide is best for them.
...
I have a problem understanding how we are to apply therapy ethically in the case of the TTI. When I hear this action as a justification for a child who is ‘at risk’ it seems to me that most would understand an ‘intervention’ as something that prevents a specific behavior or situation that poses an immediate threat. Once the specific behavior or threat stops, then treatment should be an option and the patient should be free to go outside of the therapeutic environment. I see terms like ‘at risk’ ‘intervention’ and ‘treatment’ being used without clarity in the TTI, and I believe intervention is a severe response that should be reserved only for the most dire circumstances. When is a teen ‘not at risk’? Seems to me that programs are denying looking at the truth to support retention, made more obvious by the suggestion that lack of completing a program signifies incomplete treatment and the failure of the teen.
What I see is an abuse in this area by the TTI. Intervention is coupled with, not just treatment of the symptom, but justifies the molding and shaping of the entire personality and attitude displayed by the ‘projected participant’ or ‘projectipant’ that is being forced through the process.
To maintain this concept that children should naturally accept a position of powerlessness and to not just allow, but want their own feelings and desires to be dictated to them until they reach 18 at which point they are supposed to be in control of what they want in life…. Well I think this best exemplifies my feelings for that type of thinking, and the potential for far reaching negative effects of these unregulated, vaguely understood processes we are putting kids through.
“
Assuming that a relationship between two people was homeostatic in the sense that it was a governed, self-corrective system, the idea began to develop in the project that the "governors" of this system were the people involved in the relationship. Just as the governor in a cybernetic system controls the range of the elements in that system, so it began to be suggested that people in a relationship control the range of each other's behavior. This idea provided a function for the double bind which included both participants rather than merely the individual; the double bind could be seen as a tactic in the interchange between two people as they each attempted to gain control of the range of the system.1 By imposing a double bind, a person can effectively prevent another from governing what sort of relationship they will have.
This control idea was first presented in a memorandum by Haley in 1956 in an attempt to explain the peculiar behavior of the mothers of schizophrenics. This memorandum suggested that ordinarily two people work out areas of their life together where each, to the satisfaction of both, is in control of what sort of relationship they will have. "This could be called successful setting of the limits of the relationship. However, they may come into conflict and settle the matter by termination of the relationship. Or they may become involved in a constant struggle over who is to determine what type of relationship they will have, as in the schizophrenogenic situation." â€
“Psychotherapy
There is probably no more confused area in psychiatry than the field of changing people. There is confusion over what needs to be changed, confusion over the nature of the problem and the history of the problem, and confusion over investigation of etiology and tactics for inducing change. Central to this confusion has been the simple assumption that what the patient needs is to understand himself better and become more aware of the ideas he would rather not become aware of. All distortions of perception, emotional distress, and behavioral symptoms are presumed to disappear with such awareness; despite considerable evidence to the contrary and despite the occurrence of change without awareness and awareness without change.
The contribution of the project in this area was the enlargement of the description to include both patient and therapist and the introduction of levels into the analysis of the interchange. With this shift, other factors in the interchange appeared more relevant than self-awareness as a cause of change. In particular, the variety of paradoxes faced by a patient in the therapy setting as long as he continued with his symptoms appeared to be causal to change. Additionally, when the patient is forced to change his behavior as a result of therapy, he requires his intimates to change their behavior in relation to him. As a result, he sets up a new network of relationships which require him to persist in his new mode of living. From this point of view, individual therapy uses the individual patient as a lever to change a family system, and family therapy is an attempt to induce change in a system by dealing with all intimates at once.
Whether the patient faces a therapist alone or conjointly with his family, he faces a situation which provides him ways to behave differently and by the imposition of paradox forces him to do so, with a consequent shift in his subjective experiences. â€
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423
.
