Author Topic: Do not use WWASP  (Read 5931 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164659
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Do not use WWASP
« on: January 15, 2004, 12:36:00 AM »
I graduated SCL over a year ago.  I feel bad for anyone still in it.  It is inhumane.  Please, make sure that it is you LAST RESORT.  let kids be kids.  Recognize the differece between kids being kids, and kids having huge problems.  And remember -A friend in weed is a friend indeed =)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164659
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Do not use WWASP
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2004, 01:31:00 AM »
You posted you were at Jamieson Academy...which was it?  Smokin too much weed?  :silly:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164659
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Do not use WWASP
« Reply #2 on: January 15, 2004, 10:54:00 AM »
Quote
On 2004-01-14 22:31:00, Anonymous wrote:

"You posted you were at Jamieson Academy...which was it?  Smokin too much weed?  :silly:  "


Who *cares*?

I don't want my kid smoking pot, but I'd sure as hell rather a kid on pot than a kid raped, suffering from Stockholm Syndrome and then PTSD, education impaired for life from years of indifferent, insignificant instruction.

I'd never *allow* my kid to smoke pot, but if I caught her at it I'd sure as hell do whatever I could to stop it *at home*---and if those attempts to stop it were less than 100% effective, then whatever lack of effectiveness would sure as hell be less harmful than Child Abuse R Us Boarding "Schools."

Nobody's ever suffered permanent, major mental health damage from a joint or two.  Or even several years of chronic pot smoking.

Hoards of kids have suffered lifelong, serious mental health damage from institutionalized child abuse in these nightmare places.

I've never used marijuana, and I think using it is stupid, but being a good parent means that when your kid screws up, even badly, you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Sending your teen to one of these nightmare places because he/she won't stop screwing up is just as bad (and the same cop out to frustration) as shaking your baby because he or she won't stop crying.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164659
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Do not use WWASP
« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2004, 11:04:00 AM »
Statement "would not allow your child to smoke pot".

Here is some food for thought......We as parents only have as much control of our child as they will give us......  We can give consequences however that will not stop what the teen wants if that is what they want.  

First of all I think we need to look at what is normal for teens.  It is my believe that it is normal for teens to try pot and to also drink.  There is also a responsibility that comes with that which is where I want to drive home the expecations if that is their choice.  This does not mean I approve of it however I am being realistic that I can not control it.  What i do not look at as being normal for teens is to consistantly throw family/loved ones away for ones own wants and selfishness.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline FaceKhan

  • Posts: 395
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Do not use WWASP
« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2004, 12:18:00 PM »
Parents who drink, your kids will almost certainly drink too. Deal with it, you set the example.

Same thing for parents who smoke pot.

If you don't want your kids to drink pull them aside when they are like 12-14 and hand them a beer or a glass of cheap wine. Most likely they will spit it out. That will probably keep them from drinking till they are about 16-18. Its only when you make it a big deal that they are gonna want to do it just to excercise their free will.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
All of the darkness of the world cannot put out the light of one small candle.\"

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164659
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Do not use WWASP
« Reply #5 on: January 15, 2004, 12:48:00 PM »
I have not found that to be true.  I do not drink nor do I smoke pot however that didn't stop my child from doing it.  So when you take your child aside at age 12 for a little sip of alcohol to teach them the lesson to not do it also says you should take them aside to smoke the forbidden or do the other forbidden things they might do.  I do not believe that will teach them either.  Some children are just more of a challenge than others.  2 kids raised the same in one home will not turn out the same all the time.  1 can be totally out of control and the other can be the opposite.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164659
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Do not use WWASP
« Reply #6 on: January 15, 2004, 04:24:00 PM »
Quote
On 2004-01-15 09:48:00, Anonymous wrote:

"I have not found that to be true.  I do not drink nor do I smoke pot however that didn't stop my child from doing it.  So when you take your child aside at age 12 for a little sip of alcohol to teach them the lesson to not do it also says you should take them aside to smoke the forbidden or do the other forbidden things they might do.  I do not believe that will teach them either.  Some children are just more of a challenge than others.  2 kids raised the same in one home will not turn out the same all the time.  1 can be totally out of control and the other can be the opposite.  "


I understand you didn't mean it this way, you just hit one of my pet peeves so I'm going to go off on a tangent---please don't think I'm complaining about you, because I'm not, okay? :smile:

The phrase is "out of control."

I really, really hate it when I hear a teen who may well be a screwup pain in the butt described as "out of control."

Because the issue, of course, is out of *whose* control?

The parents'?  Society's?  The Church's?

Teenagers whole job as human beings is to start separating from authority and being under their *own* control instead of the control of their parents or society or their church.

Very naturally, along the way in this process, most of them go overboard at least occasionally.

I'm more concerned with the ones that never rebel, because those are "Good Chermans" in the making---people who will happily walk the latest "subhuman" scapegoats to the gas chambers because some authority figure *told* them to.

Teens' developmental *job* is oppositional behavior.  It's not a *disorder*---it's a positive and necessary developmental stage.

Teens learn through trial and error, and thought, and example, which things they need to oppose their parents and society about, and which things their parents and society are more or less right about.

How you keep kids from doing really stupid things is you give them very good reasons for not doing the stupid things that make sense in terms of their personal self-interest as they see it.

And if a law if really stupid, and *you* just follow it because the consequences of getting caught aren't worth it---tell the kid the truth.

Teens respect being told the unvarnished practical truth more than anything else.  However, it's sometimes very necessary to distinguish between "truth" inferred from religious faith and secular truth coming from empirical evidence.

Anyway, when I hear someone describing a teen as "totally out of control" my first question is always, "Is this person upset because the teen is out of the teen's *own* internal control, or because the teen is no longer as responsive to control by external authority?"

A teen out of his own internal control has a serious problem.

A teen becoming less and less amenable to *external* controls is growing up normally.  If he or she is going hog wild *under* his or her own control--is making the *decisions* to go hog wild---then inconsistent parenting, overcontrolling parenting, parenting without consistent, rational and reasonable limits and consequences is the cause.

Moving the child to a normal family home environment with consistent, reasonable, rational guardians is the solution.

My concern with these places is that they accept teens who are entirely under their own internal control but are in rebellion against external controls.  The latter is an inevitable symptom of growing up, and a budding grownup reacting normally to a bad home environment.  The "solution" is an institution hired by the parents to stop the growing up and separating-from-external-control process in its tracks---which is very like binding a little girl's feet to keep them from growing, or pulling a child out of school to keep him from getting an education and growing too independent.

The counter argument would be that we adults are under society's control and government's control---but it's not really *true*.  A healthy, mature adult human is under his/her own internal control and obey's society or government *only* when his or her better judgement says the rule is a good idea anyway.  A healthy, mature adult human's response to a rule that is *not* a good idea is to independently evaluate that rule and *either* obey out of a personal belief in the importance of rule of law *or* to disobey and either attempt not to get caught, or to stand and face the consequences boldly to make a point or legally challenge the rule.

A healthy adult human is *only* under his/her own internal control.

A teen who is *only* under his/her own internal control but *is* under his/her own internal control is just a normal, healthy teen turning into an adult.

Some parents need and deserve to be opposed or defied by their teens and everyone else.

Ginger's parents are an excellent case in point.

That's my quarrel with ODD as a diagnosis.  Diagnostic criteria *never* involve an evaluation of the parents to determine if opposing or defying those particular parents is a reasonable, rational act.  That question should *always* be asked, and very carefully evaluated, before a diagnosis of ODD or related disorder is made.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164659
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Do not use WWASP
« Reply #7 on: January 15, 2004, 05:12:00 PM »
Quote
On 2004-01-15 13:24:00, Anonymous wrote:

"
Quote

On 2004-01-15 09:48:00, Anonymous wrote:


"I have not found that to be true.  I do not drink nor do I smoke pot however that didn't stop my child from doing it.  So when you take your child aside at age 12 for a little sip of alcohol to teach them the lesson to not do it also says you should take them aside to smoke the forbidden or do the other forbidden things they might do.  I do not believe that will teach them either.  Some children are just more of a challenge than others.  2 kids raised the same in one home will not turn out the same all the time.  1 can be totally out of control and the other can be the opposite.  "




I understand you didn't mean it this way, you just hit one of my pet peeves so I'm going to go off on a tangent---please don't think I'm complaining about you, because I'm not, okay? :smile:



The phrase is "out of control."



I really, really hate it when I hear a teen who may well be a screwup pain in the butt described as "out of control."



Because the issue, of course, is out of *whose* control?



The parents'?  Society's?  The Church's?



Teenagers whole job as human beings is to start separating from authority and being under their *own* control instead of the control of their parents or society or their church.



Very naturally, along the way in this process, most of them go overboard at least occasionally.



I'm more concerned with the ones that never rebel, because those are "Good Chermans" in the making---people who will happily walk the latest "subhuman" scapegoats to the gas chambers because some authority figure *told* them to.



Teens' developmental *job* is oppositional behavior.  It's not a *disorder*---it's a positive and necessary developmental stage.



Teens learn through trial and error, and thought, and example, which things they need to oppose their parents and society about, and which things their parents and society are more or less right about.



How you keep kids from doing really stupid things is you give them very good reasons for not doing the stupid things that make sense in terms of their personal self-interest as they see it.



And if a law if really stupid, and *you* just follow it because the consequences of getting caught aren't worth it---tell the kid the truth.



Teens respect being told the unvarnished practical truth more than anything else.  However, it's sometimes very necessary to distinguish between "truth" inferred from religious faith and secular truth coming from empirical evidence.



Anyway, when I hear someone describing a teen as "totally out of control" my first question is always, "Is this person upset because the teen is out of the teen's *own* internal control, or because the teen is no longer as responsive to control by external authority?"



A teen out of his own internal control has a serious problem.



A teen becoming less and less amenable to *external* controls is growing up normally.  If he or she is going hog wild *under* his or her own control--is making the *decisions* to go hog wild---then inconsistent parenting, overcontrolling parenting, parenting without consistent, rational and reasonable limits and consequences is the cause.



Moving the child to a normal family home environment with consistent, reasonable, rational guardians is the solution.



My concern with these places is that they accept teens who are entirely under their own internal control but are in rebellion against external controls.  The latter is an inevitable symptom of growing up, and a budding grownup reacting normally to a bad home environment.  The "solution" is an institution hired by the parents to stop the growing up and separating-from-external-control process in its tracks---which is very like binding a little girl's feet to keep them from growing, or pulling a child out of school to keep him from getting an education and growing too independent.



The counter argument would be that we adults are under society's control and government's control---but it's not really *true*.  A healthy, mature adult human is under his/her own internal control and obey's society or government *only* when his or her better judgement says the rule is a good idea anyway.  A healthy, mature adult human's response to a rule that is *not* a good idea is to independently evaluate that rule and *either* obey out of a personal belief in the importance of rule of law *or* to disobey and either attempt not to get caught, or to stand and face the consequences boldly to make a point or legally challenge the rule.



A healthy adult human is *only* under his/her own internal control.



A teen who is *only* under his/her own internal control but *is* under his/her own internal control is just a normal, healthy teen turning into an adult.



Some parents need and deserve to be opposed or defied by their teens and everyone else.



Ginger's parents are an excellent case in point.



That's my quarrel with ODD as a diagnosis.  Diagnostic criteria *never* involve an evaluation of the parents to determine if opposing or defying those particular parents is a reasonable, rational act.  That question should *always* be asked, and very carefully evaluated, before a diagnosis of ODD or related disorder is made.



"


Bravo, Anon, you hit the nail absolutely on the head.  Thanks!

 :wave:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164659
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Do not use WWASP
« Reply #8 on: January 15, 2004, 06:14:00 PM »
I agree as well regarding ODD-- but to be fair, the diagnosis requires the child to be resistant to authority that isn't the parents-- ie, he has to be defiant of *all* authority figures or most, not just parents.

I bet many kids are given the diagnosis just based on what the parents describe, however-- but this is not how it's supposed to be done.

One thing that would put these guys out of business very rapidly would be to require psych eval of both parents and child by an *independent* expert and failure at several outpt treatments [barring an emergency, like real suicidal activities or injecting] before long-term residential care could even be considered.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164659
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Do not use WWASP
« Reply #9 on: January 15, 2004, 06:38:00 PM »
Quote
On 2004-01-15 15:14:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

I agree as well regarding ODD-- but to be fair, the diagnosis requires the child to be resistant to authority that isn't the parents-- ie, he has to be defiant of *all* authority figures or most, not just parents.



I bet many kids are given the diagnosis just based on what the parents describe, however-- but this is not how it's supposed to be done.



One thing that would put these guys out of business very rapidly would be to require psych eval of both parents and child by an *independent* expert and failure at several outpt treatments [barring an emergency, like real suicidal activities or injecting] before long-term residential care could even be considered."


Here are the diagnostic criteria:

Four or more of the following in six months.

    * 1. Often loses temper
    * 2. often argues with adults
    * 3. often actively defies or refuses to comply with adults' requests or rules
    * 4. often deliberately annoys people
    * 5. often blames others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior
    * 6. is often touchy or easily annoyed by others
    * 7. is often angry and resentful
    * 8. is often spiteful and vindictive

How many parents with a pain in the butt teen can't easily interpret their own conflicts with their teen as the *teen* "often" losing his temper?

"Often" arguing with "adults" doesn't stipulate that the adults include adults other than the teen's parents or guardians.

A family conflict would definitely result in the teens' being around the parents and seeming "often" angry and resentful.

The teen being upset with the parents would be enough to be "often" touchy or easily annoyed by "others."

Four completely subjective criteria, sufficient for diagnosis, that could easily be exchanged by long term family conflict triggered by unreasonably controlling or other bad behavior by the parents.

But the question is *never* asked.  The diagnostic criteria don't require that it be.

The diagnostic criteria don't require that all these reactions to "adults" or "others" specifically include general responses to adults and others who are not the child's parents---or church leaders---which can be a big factor if Mom and Dad have specific religious beliefs the teen doesn't share.

The diagnostic criteria for this "disorder" are so overbroad and unreasonable that it amounts to, if the parents are fighting with the kid over the kid's reasonable and developmentally appropriate growing independence, and the *parents* say the kid is oppositional and defiant, then the *kid* is "sick."

The diagnostic criteria for this disorder, which is certainly a real disorder, need to be radically reformed.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164659
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Do not use WWASP
« Reply #10 on: January 15, 2004, 06:39:00 PM »
er...sorry....keyboard dyslexia.  I meant "explained," not "exchanged."
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164659
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Do not use WWASP
« Reply #11 on: January 15, 2004, 07:42:00 PM »
Check out this discussion about a boy who is facing some serious consequences for doing something that sounds pretty "normal" to me, especially when you consider his circumstances. Any feedback?  
 
biased ://www.strugglingteens.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000690
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164659
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Do not use WWASP
« Reply #12 on: January 15, 2004, 07:43:00 PM »
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Deborah

  • Posts: 5383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Do not use WWASP
« Reply #13 on: January 15, 2004, 08:12:00 PM »
It is common to regard ratings and descriptions as information given by a competent authority who is a professional ally of the psychologist. Any report, however, is one individual's perception of another, subject to as much distortion as any perception of a fluctuating ambiguous stimulus. Indeed, such reports often serve as information
about the personality or motivational state of the rater.
Cronbach, L.J.
Essentials of Psychological Testing
Third Edition, 1970
P. 491

An "experts" (PhD Psychotherapist) comment on that quote:
Excellent quote and thinking about overcoming our conditioned tendency to defer to experts... here is a favorite Dalai Lama quote:

One of my fundamental beliefs is that all sentient beings have gentleness as their
fundamental nature. If we look at the pattern of our existence from an early age until our
death, we see the way in which we are so fundamentally nurtured by affection, each other's
affection, and how we feel when we are exposed to each others' affection. In addition,
when we ourselves have affectionate feelings we see how it naturally affects us from
within. Not only that, but also being affectionate and being more wholesome in our
behavior and thought seems to be much more suited to the physical structure of our body in
terms of its effect on our health and physical well- being, and so on. It must also be
noted that the contrary seems to be destructive to health.  --Dalai Lama, 1999
************************

We can't legislate affection or love. And we can't go give it to parents so they know what it looks and feels like, so they can pass it on. You either got it or you didn't, and it's hard to give what you didn't get. One can recover if they so desire, but that is a journey and requires some grieving of unmet childhood needs.
 
The whole argument for psych "disorders" is scientifically unfounded. I appreciate the point you are trying to make anon, but you're using a faulty argument.

If one is defiant, which we know to be "normal" (I would say "common", not normal), where does one draw the line. When does the "normal" behavior become a "disorder". I think that whole argument is bogus. I believe it's the same reaction to disrespect, just manifesting in varying degrees. And I don't think that it suddenly becomes a psych "disorder" when the defiance extends to authorities outside the family. Bunk! And what of the child that has the opposite reaction, totally defering to authourity for fear of reprisal? Does that child have a "disorder"? The "Scared Shitless Disorder"?

Defiance is "normal" (common) under duress. There are cultures that have no "teen rebellion". It is a phenomema of modern society.

I can't even say that I'd support an evaluation of the parents, unless that particular "expert" shared my beliefs. Otherwise, it would be a crap shoot as what the "expert" would determine. If s/he was of the belief that you expressed, s/he could well determine that RT was in the teens best interest. I think it is completely possible that many determine the parents are "unfit" and resistant to change, therefore make a decision in favor of removing the child from the parents.

One thing for certain, an evaluation is never objective, no such thing. Every decision is based on the experts perceptions and beliefs, which more times than not can produce an undesirable outcome. I'd prefer that anyone conducting an eval on me to have all the information I have, and share my beliefs. I do not want to be "evaluated" by someone who has only college psych-book knowledge.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
gt;>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hidden Lake Academy, after operating 12 years unlicensed will now be monitored by the state. Access information on the Federal Class Action lawsuit against HLA here: http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17700

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164659
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Do not use WWASP
« Reply #14 on: January 15, 2004, 08:38:00 PM »
Quote
On 2004-01-15 16:42:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Check out this discussion about a boy who is facing some serious consequences for doing something that sounds pretty "normal" to me, especially when you consider his circumstances. Any feedback?  

 
biased ://www.strugglingteens.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000690"


Well, petty theft of money is serious.  It's not normal.  It's also not grounds for residential treatment.

They make safes.  If your kid is untrustworthy around money, you don't leave any around unlocked.

Our safe has combination and key locking---and it ain't your gym locker lock--the combination is much more complicated than that.

I really couldn't know without talking to the kid and parents in depth.

This kind of thing, if my kid did it, would be grounds for grounding with some serious additional chores for a month---part of getting back out of trouble would be doing additional work to pay restitution for the theft.

I would only call the police and prosecute if the kid was unwilling to obey the rules of being grounded and doing the work to pay restitution for the theft.

It's not "pretty normal"---but it's also the kind of garden-variety serious teen screwup that can be deterred by ordinary parental tools of punishment.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »