Re: Ken, Alcohol abuser = abused child?

[Guest guest]

ahicks@... wrote:

> Hi Ken,

>

> I was reading Alice 's web site last night. She says there that

> while each and every tyrant or mass murderer has had an abusive

> childhood, (can she really prove this?) many people who are abused do

> not go on to be tyrants or abusers. You seem to make the equasion

> that each and every alcohol abuser has been an abused child, though

> not every abused child turns out to be an alcohol abuser.

>

> Here is a quote from her website:

>

> " 12. People whose integrity has not been damaged in childhood, who

> were protected, respected, and treated with honesty by their parents,

> will be - both in their youth and adulthood - intelligent, responsive,

> empathic, and highly sensitive. They will take pleasure in life and

> will not feel any need to kill or even hurt others or themselves. "

>

> Here is the complete link, for any interested:

> http://www.naturalchild.com/alice_miller/tenderness.html

>

> What concerns me with both hers and your positions is saying that in

> each instance of an abusing adult (and here I am specifically

> interested in in alcohol and/or drug abuse...AM views drug abusers as

> " hurting themselves " earlier in the same document) there is abuse in

> the history of that person. By this reasoning, the alcohol abusing

> adult MUST HAVE HAD abuse in his or her childhood, or they would be

> " intelligent, responsive, etc.,...would not feel the need to hurt

> others or themselves. " Her most frequent example is beatings.

>

> I don't believe this can be established and that it is a vast

> oversimplification of the influences that promote alcohol abuse in the

> adult.

,

Oversimplification? Of course. Can't talk about anything complex without

oversimplifying to some degree, not even things much simpler like the

dynamics of weather. However, there are some things that become

readily apparent if one is willing to see them.

A woman friend of mine from a number of years ago, after reading the

first edition of my book insisted vehemently that there was no abuse in her

upbringing and what would be considered abusive nowadays was

irrelevant. This struck me as rather odd. It wasn't odd that someone

who had been abused as a child would discount its importance -- one

who must " kiss the hand that beats him " in order to survive _has to_

learn to shut out the internal experience. What was odd was that her

father, now an elderly man, had _no_ problem in recognizing his past

behavior, in a time with different " rules and regulations " as abusive.

I had already met the man whose mother cut his finger off when he was 2 1/2

years old. He explained to me, " You don't understand how messy I

kept my room. "

Then, of course, there are the examples of Bill and Dr. Bob, which

I will post separately. There is no shortage of examples. There is no

longer so much of a shortage of empirical research (e.g. from neurology)

that shows tremendous influence of environment no the development of a

human being. Nor is it always a problem of " bad parents. "

>

>

> I do believe that it is a factor in some people's use/abuse, but not

> everyone's. Consider...(here you will always end up with soft

> numbers, I am just asking you to think about it)... The numbers of

> people who have abused alcohol at one time or another. Then consider

> the numbers of cases of severely abused children. I think that no

> matter how you slice and dice this scenario there will be many more

> alcohol/drug abusers than abused children.

It depends very much on what one defines as abuse. Of course, there

is the obvious to everyone, cases of abuse like a friend of mine who

used to be in social services and whose job was to testify in court on

behalf of infants with their body orifices stretched out of shape and

broken bones. But what about Dr. Bob's and Bill 's childhoods?

No broken bones, no record of sexual abuse.

What about a child who grows up with a very depressed mother?

Someone posted on this list how much dogs were harmed and made

" neurotic " or " crazy " (my words) by living with the " mentally ill. " So

are we to believe that a dog's experience of life has influence on the dog

but not a human infant is not effected?

Psychiatrists excuse their high suicide rate by saying how difficult it

is to work with the " mentally ill. " If this can push psychiatrists to

suicide, what does this do to children who have those same " mentally

ill " in charge of every detail of their lives?

According to statistics, there is no shortage of mental illness.

So where is the " shortage " of abusive environments? I have even

mentioned the very frequent nobody's fault, like parents dying.

>

>

> The way you seem to be trying to get around this is to assert that

> people don't remember their childhood abuse and/or assert that

> unspecified " practices " in our culture are so ubiquitious and abusive

> that they produce these drug/alcohol abusers. (Yet to be named by

> you, Ken).

>

No, not " yet unnamed " by me. Just not named recently by me. <G>

>

> Another thing that I believe *strongly* that it is as DAMAGING to

> accuse, aver or imply that child abuse has occurred in a situation

> where it hasn't as it is to IGNORE it in a situation where it HAS

> occurred.

>

Yes. Agreed.

>

> As part of my criticism of your theory of addiction, I wrote...

>

> > It is also disturbing because I feel certain that one population, or

> audience, that most needs to hear the message that AA should be

> shitcanned are precisely the people who are being told they are

> responsible, knowingly or unknowingly for the alcoholism in the first

> place--mothers of young kids.

>

> And you responded...

> >Are you suggesting that I shouldn't be expressing my honest opinions

> and view because it might make recovering mothers drink?

>

> My answer here is positively NOT. My concern first is with the

> accuracy of the information and the assumption that mothers don't

> know, read, care, understand, or think about what they are doing.

>

These mothers had mothers (and fathers, a probably a whole host of

other influences) themselves. It seems that you believe that mothers

come out of nowhere, prepackaged and nothing has influenced them.

Not true. You keep putting this into _your_ role as mother. If you

want to talk at a personal level, what about your mother and your

relationship to her?

>

> Next, I do think it is valid to think about some possible responses to

> it: the recovering mother says to herself " oh, here I am to blame

> again, this time for alcoholism...actually, I don't believe this, the

> guy must not know what he's talking about... " People really do have a

> hard time " hearing the message " when they're called on the carpet as

> the cause of the problem.

Who is being called on the carpet. If an " alcoholic " mother is here,

am I not saying that there were influences on _her_ which led to her

addiction?

>

>

> OR, " Oh, no...! What am I doing wrong? " (to which she will receive no

> reply).

>

Well, sometimes that is a loaded question and _very_ off the point, a

distraction into a guilt and innocence game, something which I see as

irrelevant to the topic at hand.

>

> Or, worst of all, " I thought I had a pretty good childhood, but maybe

> my mom did something to me...but I see it isn't the " disease " , and it

> isn't me, it must have been something my mom did... "

Perhaps so, perhaps not. I would most certainly argue that environmental

influences in childhood played a large role. Did Mom do awful things

which include dying herself?

>

>

> Ken again,

> >I wonder where one might hear similar arguments. Have you considered

> the possibility that some of them might think, " Oh, so it

> isn't me -- it is the system I grew up in. " ?

>

> Sounds alot like, " Oh, so it isn't me -- it is the disease I have. "

I'm sure it does to you. But how so?

>

>

> ========

>

> Ken, despite what you may think, childrearing practices do change a

> great deal over a relatively short period of time. Not one of the

> mainstream books about raising children advocates " spanking " or other

> corporeal punishment in any form. The most they will do is advise the

> parent how to repair the damage (sincere apology that does not mention

> the behavior that the adult objected to, ie, NOT " I'm sorry I spanked

> you, but you shouldn't have pushed your sister down " but " I'm sorry.

> I shouldn't have spanked you. " ) IF they have succumbed to this. They

> will advise parents on how to minimize yelling, how to diffuse power

> struggles, what to expect during different phases of development and

> how to solve problems that arise. They are very child-centered and

> very careful to give parents explanations for behavior that may be

> otherwise mystifying. Not one of them addresses matters of religion

> or equates the child to a devil in any form.

I would wager that in the majority of child-rearing books " Original Sin "

still plays a role under different names. Freud, an atheist, merely

translated Original Sin into psuedo-scientific language. Have there been

improvements? Doubtless.

However, it is also the case that an increasing number of mothers (paper

said 51% the other day) are in the work force. It used to be that what

was expected, staying home with small children, has become a luxury too

expensive for many families to afford. It is either work or we all starve.

That is not an improvement.

>

>

> All of them advocate breast-feeding, though some acknowlege that it

> may not be possible in some circumstances. Most of them advocate the

> mother staying home full time for as long as possible.

>

But does that mean they are able to? We aren't much for supporting mothers

in this country.

>

> Breast feeding was not advocated when I was an infant and my mother

> vividly remembers the sneers and " advice " she got about not doing it.

> When I was reading about breastfeeding I came across a poster from

> the 70s that had a picture of a woman's breasts and underneath in big

> black letters " UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION. " This issue certainly has

> completely changed in our culture.

>

And that is a very favorable change. However, " things " don't change over

night, although new (and favorable) trends do get started, sometimes over

night.

>

> I'm 38.

>

> ============

>

> Ken, I'm reading some of your Alice ; the web page and I have

> some of her books on reserve at the library. Take up the challenge

> and read some of my sources (posted earlier) rather than making

> personal attacks.

>

I've sworn not to add anything else to my reading list until after I'm out

of school this session. However, I'll make a point of going by the book

store and _at least_ taking a close look at the books on child-rearing.

>

> You've published an important book about what AA is really all about,

> with some really insightful analysis of the workings of the cult. I'm

> sure you've have tons of criticism heaped on you by steppers for your

> efforts. I'm not in their camp. I think one reason why that part of

> it is powerful for me is that I've been there too and seen that for

> myself. It rings true. The part about the childhood issues doesn't

> ring true to me because I'm in it, seeing it, doing it--not as a

> child, but as a parent. Yes, in our culture. Why can't you accept

> that as valid?

>

I'm not sure what you are suggesting I am accepting as valid.

Ken Ragge

>

> See you,

>

>

[Guest guest]

ahicks@... wrote:

> Hi Ken,

>

> I was reading Alice 's web site last night. She says there that

> while each and every tyrant or mass murderer has had an abusive

> childhood, (can she really prove this?) many people who are abused do

> not go on to be tyrants or abusers. You seem to make the equasion

> that each and every alcohol abuser has been an abused child, though

> not every abused child turns out to be an alcohol abuser.

>

> Here is a quote from her website:

>

> " 12. People whose integrity has not been damaged in childhood, who

> were protected, respected, and treated with honesty by their parents,

> will be - both in their youth and adulthood - intelligent, responsive,

> empathic, and highly sensitive. They will take pleasure in life and

> will not feel any need to kill or even hurt others or themselves. "

>

> Here is the complete link, for any interested:

> http://www.naturalchild.com/alice_miller/tenderness.html

>

> What concerns me with both hers and your positions is saying that in

> each instance of an abusing adult (and here I am specifically

> interested in in alcohol and/or drug abuse...AM views drug abusers as

> " hurting themselves " earlier in the same document) there is abuse in

> the history of that person. By this reasoning, the alcohol abusing

> adult MUST HAVE HAD abuse in his or her childhood, or they would be

> " intelligent, responsive, etc.,...would not feel the need to hurt

> others or themselves. " Her most frequent example is beatings.

>

> I don't believe this can be established and that it is a vast

> oversimplification of the influences that promote alcohol abuse in the

> adult.

,

Oversimplification? Of course. Can't talk about anything complex without

oversimplifying to some degree, not even things much simpler like the

dynamics of weather. However, there are some things that become

readily apparent if one is willing to see them.

A woman friend of mine from a number of years ago, after reading the

first edition of my book insisted vehemently that there was no abuse in her

upbringing and what would be considered abusive nowadays was

irrelevant. This struck me as rather odd. It wasn't odd that someone

who had been abused as a child would discount its importance -- one

who must " kiss the hand that beats him " in order to survive _has to_

learn to shut out the internal experience. What was odd was that her

father, now an elderly man, had _no_ problem in recognizing his past

behavior, in a time with different " rules and regulations " as abusive.

I had already met the man whose mother cut his finger off when he was 2 1/2

years old. He explained to me, " You don't understand how messy I

kept my room. "

Then, of course, there are the examples of Bill and Dr. Bob, which

I will post separately. There is no shortage of examples. There is no

longer so much of a shortage of empirical research (e.g. from neurology)

that shows tremendous influence of environment no the development of a

human being. Nor is it always a problem of " bad parents. "

>

>

> I do believe that it is a factor in some people's use/abuse, but not

> everyone's. Consider...(here you will always end up with soft

> numbers, I am just asking you to think about it)... The numbers of

> people who have abused alcohol at one time or another. Then consider

> the numbers of cases of severely abused children. I think that no

> matter how you slice and dice this scenario there will be many more

> alcohol/drug abusers than abused children.

It depends very much on what one defines as abuse. Of course, there

is the obvious to everyone, cases of abuse like a friend of mine who

used to be in social services and whose job was to testify in court on

behalf of infants with their body orifices stretched out of shape and

broken bones. But what about Dr. Bob's and Bill 's childhoods?

No broken bones, no record of sexual abuse.

What about a child who grows up with a very depressed mother?

Someone posted on this list how much dogs were harmed and made

" neurotic " or " crazy " (my words) by living with the " mentally ill. " So

are we to believe that a dog's experience of life has influence on the dog

but not a human infant is not effected?

Psychiatrists excuse their high suicide rate by saying how difficult it

is to work with the " mentally ill. " If this can push psychiatrists to

suicide, what does this do to children who have those same " mentally

ill " in charge of every detail of their lives?

According to statistics, there is no shortage of mental illness.

So where is the " shortage " of abusive environments? I have even

mentioned the very frequent nobody's fault, like parents dying.

>

>

> The way you seem to be trying to get around this is to assert that

> people don't remember their childhood abuse and/or assert that

> unspecified " practices " in our culture are so ubiquitious and abusive

> that they produce these drug/alcohol abusers. (Yet to be named by

> you, Ken).

>

No, not " yet unnamed " by me. Just not named recently by me. <G>

>

> Another thing that I believe *strongly* that it is as DAMAGING to

> accuse, aver or imply that child abuse has occurred in a situation

> where it hasn't as it is to IGNORE it in a situation where it HAS

> occurred.

>

Yes. Agreed.

>

> As part of my criticism of your theory of addiction, I wrote...

>

> > It is also disturbing because I feel certain that one population, or

> audience, that most needs to hear the message that AA should be

> shitcanned are precisely the people who are being told they are

> responsible, knowingly or unknowingly for the alcoholism in the first

> place--mothers of young kids.

>

> And you responded...

> >Are you suggesting that I shouldn't be expressing my honest opinions

> and view because it might make recovering mothers drink?

>

> My answer here is positively NOT. My concern first is with the

> accuracy of the information and the assumption that mothers don't

> know, read, care, understand, or think about what they are doing.

>

These mothers had mothers (and fathers, a probably a whole host of

other influences) themselves. It seems that you believe that mothers

come out of nowhere, prepackaged and nothing has influenced them.

Not true. You keep putting this into _your_ role as mother. If you

want to talk at a personal level, what about your mother and your

relationship to her?

>

> Next, I do think it is valid to think about some possible responses to

> it: the recovering mother says to herself " oh, here I am to blame

> again, this time for alcoholism...actually, I don't believe this, the

> guy must not know what he's talking about... " People really do have a

> hard time " hearing the message " when they're called on the carpet as

> the cause of the problem.

Who is being called on the carpet. If an " alcoholic " mother is here,

am I not saying that there were influences on _her_ which led to her

addiction?

>

>

> OR, " Oh, no...! What am I doing wrong? " (to which she will receive no

> reply).

>

Well, sometimes that is a loaded question and _very_ off the point, a

distraction into a guilt and innocence game, something which I see as

irrelevant to the topic at hand.

>

> Or, worst of all, " I thought I had a pretty good childhood, but maybe

> my mom did something to me...but I see it isn't the " disease " , and it

> isn't me, it must have been something my mom did... "

Perhaps so, perhaps not. I would most certainly argue that environmental

influences in childhood played a large role. Did Mom do awful things

which include dying herself?

>

>

> Ken again,

> >I wonder where one might hear similar arguments. Have you considered

> the possibility that some of them might think, " Oh, so it

> isn't me -- it is the system I grew up in. " ?

>

> Sounds alot like, " Oh, so it isn't me -- it is the disease I have. "

I'm sure it does to you. But how so?

>

>

> ========

>

> Ken, despite what you may think, childrearing practices do change a

> great deal over a relatively short period of time. Not one of the

> mainstream books about raising children advocates " spanking " or other

> corporeal punishment in any form. The most they will do is advise the

> parent how to repair the damage (sincere apology that does not mention

> the behavior that the adult objected to, ie, NOT " I'm sorry I spanked

> you, but you shouldn't have pushed your sister down " but " I'm sorry.

> I shouldn't have spanked you. " ) IF they have succumbed to this. They

> will advise parents on how to minimize yelling, how to diffuse power

> struggles, what to expect during different phases of development and

> how to solve problems that arise. They are very child-centered and

> very careful to give parents explanations for behavior that may be

> otherwise mystifying. Not one of them addresses matters of religion

> or equates the child to a devil in any form.

I would wager that in the majority of child-rearing books " Original Sin "

still plays a role under different names. Freud, an atheist, merely

translated Original Sin into psuedo-scientific language. Have there been

improvements? Doubtless.

However, it is also the case that an increasing number of mothers (paper

said 51% the other day) are in the work force. It used to be that what

was expected, staying home with small children, has become a luxury too

expensive for many families to afford. It is either work or we all starve.

That is not an improvement.

>

>

> All of them advocate breast-feeding, though some acknowlege that it

> may not be possible in some circumstances. Most of them advocate the

> mother staying home full time for as long as possible.

>

But does that mean they are able to? We aren't much for supporting mothers

in this country.

>

> Breast feeding was not advocated when I was an infant and my mother

> vividly remembers the sneers and " advice " she got about not doing it.

> When I was reading about breastfeeding I came across a poster from

> the 70s that had a picture of a woman's breasts and underneath in big

> black letters " UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION. " This issue certainly has

> completely changed in our culture.

>

And that is a very favorable change. However, " things " don't change over

night, although new (and favorable) trends do get started, sometimes over

night.

>

> I'm 38.

>

> ============

>

> Ken, I'm reading some of your Alice ; the web page and I have

> some of her books on reserve at the library. Take up the challenge

> and read some of my sources (posted earlier) rather than making

> personal attacks.

>

I've sworn not to add anything else to my reading list until after I'm out

of school this session. However, I'll make a point of going by the book

store and _at least_ taking a close look at the books on child-rearing.

>

> You've published an important book about what AA is really all about,

> with some really insightful analysis of the workings of the cult. I'm

> sure you've have tons of criticism heaped on you by steppers for your

> efforts. I'm not in their camp. I think one reason why that part of

> it is powerful for me is that I've been there too and seen that for

> myself. It rings true. The part about the childhood issues doesn't

> ring true to me because I'm in it, seeing it, doing it--not as a

> child, but as a parent. Yes, in our culture. Why can't you accept

> that as valid?

>

I'm not sure what you are suggesting I am accepting as valid.

Ken Ragge

>

> See you,

>

>

[Guest guest]

ahicks@... wrote:

> Hi Ken,

>

> I was reading Alice 's web site last night. She says there that

> while each and every tyrant or mass murderer has had an abusive

> childhood, (can she really prove this?) many people who are abused do

> not go on to be tyrants or abusers. You seem to make the equasion

> that each and every alcohol abuser has been an abused child, though

> not every abused child turns out to be an alcohol abuser.

>

> Here is a quote from her website:

>

> " 12. People whose integrity has not been damaged in childhood, who

> were protected, respected, and treated with honesty by their parents,

> will be - both in their youth and adulthood - intelligent, responsive,

> empathic, and highly sensitive. They will take pleasure in life and

> will not feel any need to kill or even hurt others or themselves. "

>

> Here is the complete link, for any interested:

> http://www.naturalchild.com/alice_miller/tenderness.html

>

> What concerns me with both hers and your positions is saying that in

> each instance of an abusing adult (and here I am specifically

> interested in in alcohol and/or drug abuse...AM views drug abusers as

> " hurting themselves " earlier in the same document) there is abuse in

> the history of that person. By this reasoning, the alcohol abusing

> adult MUST HAVE HAD abuse in his or her childhood, or they would be

> " intelligent, responsive, etc.,...would not feel the need to hurt

> others or themselves. " Her most frequent example is beatings.

>

> I don't believe this can be established and that it is a vast

> oversimplification of the influences that promote alcohol abuse in the

> adult.

,

Oversimplification? Of course. Can't talk about anything complex without

oversimplifying to some degree, not even things much simpler like the

dynamics of weather. However, there are some things that become

readily apparent if one is willing to see them.

A woman friend of mine from a number of years ago, after reading the

first edition of my book insisted vehemently that there was no abuse in her

upbringing and what would be considered abusive nowadays was

irrelevant. This struck me as rather odd. It wasn't odd that someone

who had been abused as a child would discount its importance -- one

who must " kiss the hand that beats him " in order to survive _has to_

learn to shut out the internal experience. What was odd was that her

father, now an elderly man, had _no_ problem in recognizing his past

behavior, in a time with different " rules and regulations " as abusive.

I had already met the man whose mother cut his finger off when he was 2 1/2

years old. He explained to me, " You don't understand how messy I

kept my room. "

Then, of course, there are the examples of Bill and Dr. Bob, which

I will post separately. There is no shortage of examples. There is no

longer so much of a shortage of empirical research (e.g. from neurology)

that shows tremendous influence of environment no the development of a

human being. Nor is it always a problem of " bad parents. "

>

>

> I do believe that it is a factor in some people's use/abuse, but not

> everyone's. Consider...(here you will always end up with soft

> numbers, I am just asking you to think about it)... The numbers of

> people who have abused alcohol at one time or another. Then consider

> the numbers of cases of severely abused children. I think that no

> matter how you slice and dice this scenario there will be many more

> alcohol/drug abusers than abused children.

It depends very much on what one defines as abuse. Of course, there

is the obvious to everyone, cases of abuse like a friend of mine who

used to be in social services and whose job was to testify in court on

behalf of infants with their body orifices stretched out of shape and

broken bones. But what about Dr. Bob's and Bill 's childhoods?

No broken bones, no record of sexual abuse.

What about a child who grows up with a very depressed mother?

Someone posted on this list how much dogs were harmed and made

" neurotic " or " crazy " (my words) by living with the " mentally ill. " So

are we to believe that a dog's experience of life has influence on the dog

but not a human infant is not effected?

Psychiatrists excuse their high suicide rate by saying how difficult it

is to work with the " mentally ill. " If this can push psychiatrists to

suicide, what does this do to children who have those same " mentally

ill " in charge of every detail of their lives?

According to statistics, there is no shortage of mental illness.

So where is the " shortage " of abusive environments? I have even

mentioned the very frequent nobody's fault, like parents dying.

>

>

> The way you seem to be trying to get around this is to assert that

> people don't remember their childhood abuse and/or assert that

> unspecified " practices " in our culture are so ubiquitious and abusive

> that they produce these drug/alcohol abusers. (Yet to be named by

> you, Ken).

>

No, not " yet unnamed " by me. Just not named recently by me. <G>

>

> Another thing that I believe *strongly* that it is as DAMAGING to

> accuse, aver or imply that child abuse has occurred in a situation

> where it hasn't as it is to IGNORE it in a situation where it HAS

> occurred.

>

Yes. Agreed.

>

> As part of my criticism of your theory of addiction, I wrote...

>

> > It is also disturbing because I feel certain that one population, or

> audience, that most needs to hear the message that AA should be

> shitcanned are precisely the people who are being told they are

> responsible, knowingly or unknowingly for the alcoholism in the first

> place--mothers of young kids.

>

> And you responded...

> >Are you suggesting that I shouldn't be expressing my honest opinions

> and view because it might make recovering mothers drink?

>

> My answer here is positively NOT. My concern first is with the

> accuracy of the information and the assumption that mothers don't

> know, read, care, understand, or think about what they are doing.

>

These mothers had mothers (and fathers, a probably a whole host of

other influences) themselves. It seems that you believe that mothers

come out of nowhere, prepackaged and nothing has influenced them.

Not true. You keep putting this into _your_ role as mother. If you

want to talk at a personal level, what about your mother and your

relationship to her?

>

> Next, I do think it is valid to think about some possible responses to

> it: the recovering mother says to herself " oh, here I am to blame

> again, this time for alcoholism...actually, I don't believe this, the

> guy must not know what he's talking about... " People really do have a

> hard time " hearing the message " when they're called on the carpet as

> the cause of the problem.

Who is being called on the carpet. If an " alcoholic " mother is here,

am I not saying that there were influences on _her_ which led to her

addiction?

>

>

> OR, " Oh, no...! What am I doing wrong? " (to which she will receive no

> reply).

>

Well, sometimes that is a loaded question and _very_ off the point, a

distraction into a guilt and innocence game, something which I see as

irrelevant to the topic at hand.

>

> Or, worst of all, " I thought I had a pretty good childhood, but maybe

> my mom did something to me...but I see it isn't the " disease " , and it

> isn't me, it must have been something my mom did... "

Perhaps so, perhaps not. I would most certainly argue that environmental

influences in childhood played a large role. Did Mom do awful things

which include dying herself?

>

>

> Ken again,

> >I wonder where one might hear similar arguments. Have you considered

> the possibility that some of them might think, " Oh, so it

> isn't me -- it is the system I grew up in. " ?

>

> Sounds alot like, " Oh, so it isn't me -- it is the disease I have. "

I'm sure it does to you. But how so?

>

>

> ========

>

> Ken, despite what you may think, childrearing practices do change a

> great deal over a relatively short period of time. Not one of the

> mainstream books about raising children advocates " spanking " or other

> corporeal punishment in any form. The most they will do is advise the

> parent how to repair the damage (sincere apology that does not mention

> the behavior that the adult objected to, ie, NOT " I'm sorry I spanked

> you, but you shouldn't have pushed your sister down " but " I'm sorry.

> I shouldn't have spanked you. " ) IF they have succumbed to this. They

> will advise parents on how to minimize yelling, how to diffuse power

> struggles, what to expect during different phases of development and

> how to solve problems that arise. They are very child-centered and

> very careful to give parents explanations for behavior that may be

> otherwise mystifying. Not one of them addresses matters of religion

> or equates the child to a devil in any form.

I would wager that in the majority of child-rearing books " Original Sin "

still plays a role under different names. Freud, an atheist, merely

translated Original Sin into psuedo-scientific language. Have there been

improvements? Doubtless.

However, it is also the case that an increasing number of mothers (paper

said 51% the other day) are in the work force. It used to be that what

was expected, staying home with small children, has become a luxury too

expensive for many families to afford. It is either work or we all starve.

That is not an improvement.

>

>

> All of them advocate breast-feeding, though some acknowlege that it

> may not be possible in some circumstances. Most of them advocate the

> mother staying home full time for as long as possible.

>

But does that mean they are able to? We aren't much for supporting mothers

in this country.

>

> Breast feeding was not advocated when I was an infant and my mother

> vividly remembers the sneers and " advice " she got about not doing it.

> When I was reading about breastfeeding I came across a poster from

> the 70s that had a picture of a woman's breasts and underneath in big

> black letters " UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION. " This issue certainly has

> completely changed in our culture.

>

And that is a very favorable change. However, " things " don't change over

night, although new (and favorable) trends do get started, sometimes over

night.

>

> I'm 38.

>

> ============

>

> Ken, I'm reading some of your Alice ; the web page and I have

> some of her books on reserve at the library. Take up the challenge

> and read some of my sources (posted earlier) rather than making

> personal attacks.

>

I've sworn not to add anything else to my reading list until after I'm out

of school this session. However, I'll make a point of going by the book

store and _at least_ taking a close look at the books on child-rearing.

>

> You've published an important book about what AA is really all about,

> with some really insightful analysis of the workings of the cult. I'm

> sure you've have tons of criticism heaped on you by steppers for your

> efforts. I'm not in their camp. I think one reason why that part of

> it is powerful for me is that I've been there too and seen that for

> myself. It rings true. The part about the childhood issues doesn't

> ring true to me because I'm in it, seeing it, doing it--not as a

> child, but as a parent. Yes, in our culture. Why can't you accept

> that as valid?

>

I'm not sure what you are suggesting I am accepting as valid.

Ken Ragge

>

> See you,

>

>

[Guest guest]

> ,

>

> Oversimplification? Of course. Can't talk about anything complex

without

> oversimplifying to some degree, not even things much simpler like

the

> dynamics of weather. However, there are some things that become

> readily apparent if one is willing to see them.

>

> A woman friend of mine from a number of years ago, after reading the

> first edition of my book insisted vehemently that there was no abuse

in her

> upbringing and what would be considered abusive nowadays was

> irrelevant. This struck me as rather odd. It wasn't odd that

someone

> who had been abused as a child would discount its importance -- one

> who must " kiss the hand that beats him " in order to survive _has to_

> learn to shut out the internal experience. What was odd was that

her

> father, now an elderly man, had _no_ problem in recognizing his past

> behavior, in a time with different " rules and regulations " as

abusive.

So, if someone asserts that there was no abuse in their background,

they are not to be believed? Are they in denial? I mean there must

have been something, right? It can't be just that they decided to do

it, liked it or whatever.

>

> I had already met the man whose mother cut his finger off when he

was 2 1/2

> years old. He explained to me, " You don't understand how messy I

> kept my room. "

>

> Then, of course, there are the examples of Bill and Dr. Bob,

which

> I will post separately. There is no shortage of examples. There is

no

> longer so much of a shortage of empirical research (e.g. from

neurology)

> that shows tremendous influence of environment no the development of

a

> human being. Nor is it always a problem of " bad parents. "

>

> >

> >

> > I do believe that it is a factor in some people's use/abuse, but

not

> > everyone's. Consider...(here you will always end up with soft

> > numbers, I am just asking you to think about it)... The numbers

of

> > people who have abused alcohol at one time or another. Then

consider

> > the numbers of cases of severely abused children. I think that no

> > matter how you slice and dice this scenario there will be many

more

> > alcohol/drug abusers than abused children.

>

> It depends very much on what one defines as abuse.

[snip]

> So are we to believe that a dog's experience of life has influence

on the dog

> but not a human infant is not effected?

I think you'd better quit putting all this quicksand out there and

define what you *are* talking about.

Of course people are affected by circumstances in their past.

However, does it MAKE them into alcohol abusers? Or the other way

around, every alcohol abuser is an abused child in your eyes?

> >

> > The way you seem to be trying to get around this is to assert that

> > people don't remember their childhood abuse and/or assert that

> > unspecified " practices " in our culture are so ubiquitious and

abusive

> > that they produce these drug/alcohol abusers. (Yet to be named by

> > you, Ken).

> >

>

> No, not " yet unnamed " by me. Just not named recently by me. <G>

Oh, I'm catching on now...those traumatic circumcisions <G>. I guess

if a guy can't find anything else to pin his abusive drinking on he

could use that. Talk about " subtle insanity. " ;^)

> > >

> > Another thing that I believe *strongly* that it is as DAMAGING to

> > accuse, aver or imply that child abuse has occurred in a situation

> > where it hasn't as it is to IGNORE it in a situation where it HAS

> > occurred.

> >

>

> Yes. Agreed.

>

> >

> > As part of my criticism of your theory of addiction, I wrote...

> >

> > > It is also disturbing because I feel certain that one

population, or

> > audience, that most needs to hear the message that AA should be

> > shitcanned are precisely the people who are being told they are

> > responsible, knowingly or unknowingly for the alcoholism in the

first

> > place--mothers of young kids.

> >

> > And you responded...

> > >Are you suggesting that I shouldn't be expressing my honest

opinions

> > and view because it might make recovering mothers drink?

> >

> > My answer here is positively NOT. My concern first is with the

> > accuracy of the information and the assumption that mothers don't

> > know, read, care, understand, or think about what they are doing.

> >

>

> These mothers had mothers (and fathers, a probably a whole host of

> other influences) themselves. It seems that you believe that

mothers

> come out of nowhere, prepackaged and nothing has influenced them.

I don't know where you're getting this. I never said anything

remotely similar to this. In fact I keep trying to point out to you

that the experience of other cultures is just that - the experience of

other cultures. You can't cherry-pick the things you like about them

and leave out the parts you don't and then judge the rest of us by the

result.

> Not true. You keep putting this into _your_ role as mother. If you

> want to talk at a personal level, what about your mother and your

> relationship to her?

I have a good relationship with my mother and father and was not an

abused child by *any* definition of the word. And yes, I think you

are wrong to keep expanding the definition of " abuse " to the point

where it would include pretty much everyone (still without giving any

definition of it). Of course, you can counter that I don't *remember*

the abuse. Then you are just as guilty of the tautology that you

accuse the diseasists of.

> >

> > Next, I do think it is valid to think about some possible

responses to

> > it: the recovering mother says to herself " oh, here I am to blame

> > again, this time for alcoholism...actually, I don't believe this,

the

> > guy must not know what he's talking about... " People really do

have a

> > hard time " hearing the message " when they're called on the carpet

as

> > the cause of the problem.

>

> Who is being called on the carpet. If an " alcoholic " mother is

here,

> am I not saying that there were influences on _her_ which led to her

> addiction?

Bogus, unprovable " influences " that call her parenting into question

without providing any specifics.

>

> >

> >

> > OR, " Oh, no...! What am I doing wrong? " (to which she will

receive no

> > reply).

> >

>

> Well, sometimes that is a loaded question and _very_ off the point,

a

> distraction into a guilt and innocence game, something which I see

as

> irrelevant to the topic at hand.

>

> >

> > Or, worst of all, " I thought I had a pretty good childhood, but

maybe

> > my mom did something to me...but I see it isn't the " disease " , and

it

> > isn't me, it must have been something my mom did... "

>

> Perhaps so, perhaps not. I would most certainly argue that

environmental

> influences in childhood played a large role. Did Mom do awful

things

> which include dying herself?

>

> >

> >

> > Ken again,

> > >I wonder where one might hear similar arguments. Have you

considered

> > the possibility that some of them might think, " Oh, so it

> > isn't me -- it is the system I grew up in. " ?

> >

> > Sounds alot like, " Oh, so it isn't me -- it is the disease I

have. "

>

> I'm sure it does to you. But how so?

Because both statements lead to the same result. The influences are

changed from " disease " to some sort of undefined parental abuse. In

either case the person was powerless to make decisions for himself or

act in his own best interests. It was because of [fill in the blank].

This is powerlessness. It is also a way to avoid the responsibility

for the acts that the alcohol-dependent person may have committed

against himself or others. After all, " it isn't me -- it is the

system I grew up in. "

> I would wager that in the majority of child-rearing books " Original

Sin "

> still plays a role under different names.

Well, you would lose your money. What the *do* is describe every

conceivable phase of development and explain *why* the child is acting

that way. However, most don't give the slightest hint what to do

about it. Understanding the behavior has taken the place of trying to

correct it in any way, shape or form.

>However, " things " don't change

over

> night, although new (and favorable) trends do get started, sometimes

over

> night.

The ubiquitious " things. "

However, I'll make a point of going by the

book

> store and _at least_ taking a close look at the books on

child-rearing.

Forget all my other recommendations and read only " Parents Who Think

Too Much " by Anne Cassidy. This gives a very good overview of the

ways parenting practices have changed over the years. At the turn of

the century, only 50% survived into adulthood. The focus has

certainly changed. As the title would suggest, parents are BOMBARDED

with information and advice.

>

> >

> > You've published an important book about what AA is really all

about,

> > with some really insightful analysis of the workings of the cult.

I'm

> > sure you've have tons of criticism heaped on you by steppers for

your

> > efforts. I'm not in their camp. I think one reason why that part

of

> > it is powerful for me is that I've been there too and seen that

for

> > myself. It rings true. The part about the childhood issues

doesn't

> > ring true to me because I'm in it, seeing it, doing it--not as a

> > child, but as a parent. Yes, in our culture. Why can't you

accept

> > that as valid?

> >

>

> I'm not sure what you are suggesting I am accepting as valid.

It seems like to you the only important thing is a " study " and that

personal experience is worthless (unless it agrees with your point of

view). Also, not in this one, but in the last post you made several

personal insults. You've put your theory out there and a criticism of

it does not warrant that response.

See you,

[Guest guest]

> ,

>

> Oversimplification? Of course. Can't talk about anything complex

without

> oversimplifying to some degree, not even things much simpler like

the

> dynamics of weather. However, there are some things that become

> readily apparent if one is willing to see them.

>

> A woman friend of mine from a number of years ago, after reading the

> first edition of my book insisted vehemently that there was no abuse

in her

> upbringing and what would be considered abusive nowadays was

> irrelevant. This struck me as rather odd. It wasn't odd that

someone

> who had been abused as a child would discount its importance -- one

> who must " kiss the hand that beats him " in order to survive _has to_

> learn to shut out the internal experience. What was odd was that

her

> father, now an elderly man, had _no_ problem in recognizing his past

> behavior, in a time with different " rules and regulations " as

abusive.

So, if someone asserts that there was no abuse in their background,

they are not to be believed? Are they in denial? I mean there must

have been something, right? It can't be just that they decided to do

it, liked it or whatever.

>

> I had already met the man whose mother cut his finger off when he

was 2 1/2

> years old. He explained to me, " You don't understand how messy I

> kept my room. "

>

> Then, of course, there are the examples of Bill and Dr. Bob,

which

> I will post separately. There is no shortage of examples. There is

no

> longer so much of a shortage of empirical research (e.g. from

neurology)

> that shows tremendous influence of environment no the development of

a

> human being. Nor is it always a problem of " bad parents. "

>

> >

> >

> > I do believe that it is a factor in some people's use/abuse, but

not

> > everyone's. Consider...(here you will always end up with soft

> > numbers, I am just asking you to think about it)... The numbers

of

> > people who have abused alcohol at one time or another. Then

consider

> > the numbers of cases of severely abused children. I think that no

> > matter how you slice and dice this scenario there will be many

more

> > alcohol/drug abusers than abused children.

>

> It depends very much on what one defines as abuse.

[snip]

> So are we to believe that a dog's experience of life has influence

on the dog

> but not a human infant is not effected?

I think you'd better quit putting all this quicksand out there and

define what you *are* talking about.

Of course people are affected by circumstances in their past.

However, does it MAKE them into alcohol abusers? Or the other way

around, every alcohol abuser is an abused child in your eyes?

> >

> > The way you seem to be trying to get around this is to assert that

> > people don't remember their childhood abuse and/or assert that

> > unspecified " practices " in our culture are so ubiquitious and

abusive

> > that they produce these drug/alcohol abusers. (Yet to be named by

> > you, Ken).

> >

>

> No, not " yet unnamed " by me. Just not named recently by me. <G>

Oh, I'm catching on now...those traumatic circumcisions <G>. I guess

if a guy can't find anything else to pin his abusive drinking on he

could use that. Talk about " subtle insanity. " ;^)

> > >

> > Another thing that I believe *strongly* that it is as DAMAGING to

> > accuse, aver or imply that child abuse has occurred in a situation

> > where it hasn't as it is to IGNORE it in a situation where it HAS

> > occurred.

> >

>

> Yes. Agreed.

>

> >

> > As part of my criticism of your theory of addiction, I wrote...

> >

> > > It is also disturbing because I feel certain that one

population, or

> > audience, that most needs to hear the message that AA should be

> > shitcanned are precisely the people who are being told they are

> > responsible, knowingly or unknowingly for the alcoholism in the

first

> > place--mothers of young kids.

> >

> > And you responded...

> > >Are you suggesting that I shouldn't be expressing my honest

opinions

> > and view because it might make recovering mothers drink?

> >

> > My answer here is positively NOT. My concern first is with the

> > accuracy of the information and the assumption that mothers don't

> > know, read, care, understand, or think about what they are doing.

> >

>

> These mothers had mothers (and fathers, a probably a whole host of

> other influences) themselves. It seems that you believe that

mothers

> come out of nowhere, prepackaged and nothing has influenced them.

I don't know where you're getting this. I never said anything

remotely similar to this. In fact I keep trying to point out to you

that the experience of other cultures is just that - the experience of

other cultures. You can't cherry-pick the things you like about them

and leave out the parts you don't and then judge the rest of us by the

result.

> Not true. You keep putting this into _your_ role as mother. If you

> want to talk at a personal level, what about your mother and your

> relationship to her?

I have a good relationship with my mother and father and was not an

abused child by *any* definition of the word. And yes, I think you

are wrong to keep expanding the definition of " abuse " to the point

where it would include pretty much everyone (still without giving any

definition of it). Of course, you can counter that I don't *remember*

the abuse. Then you are just as guilty of the tautology that you

accuse the diseasists of.

> >

> > Next, I do think it is valid to think about some possible

responses to

> > it: the recovering mother says to herself " oh, here I am to blame

> > again, this time for alcoholism...actually, I don't believe this,

the

> > guy must not know what he's talking about... " People really do

have a

> > hard time " hearing the message " when they're called on the carpet

as

> > the cause of the problem.

>

> Who is being called on the carpet. If an " alcoholic " mother is

here,

> am I not saying that there were influences on _her_ which led to her

> addiction?

Bogus, unprovable " influences " that call her parenting into question

without providing any specifics.

>

> >

> >

> > OR, " Oh, no...! What am I doing wrong? " (to which she will

receive no

> > reply).

> >

>

> Well, sometimes that is a loaded question and _very_ off the point,

a

> distraction into a guilt and innocence game, something which I see

as

> irrelevant to the topic at hand.

>

> >

> > Or, worst of all, " I thought I had a pretty good childhood, but

maybe

> > my mom did something to me...but I see it isn't the " disease " , and

it

> > isn't me, it must have been something my mom did... "

>

> Perhaps so, perhaps not. I would most certainly argue that

environmental

> influences in childhood played a large role. Did Mom do awful

things

> which include dying herself?

>

> >

> >

> > Ken again,

> > >I wonder where one might hear similar arguments. Have you

considered

> > the possibility that some of them might think, " Oh, so it

> > isn't me -- it is the system I grew up in. " ?

> >

> > Sounds alot like, " Oh, so it isn't me -- it is the disease I

have. "

>

> I'm sure it does to you. But how so?

Because both statements lead to the same result. The influences are

changed from " disease " to some sort of undefined parental abuse. In

either case the person was powerless to make decisions for himself or

act in his own best interests. It was because of [fill in the blank].

This is powerlessness. It is also a way to avoid the responsibility

for the acts that the alcohol-dependent person may have committed

against himself or others. After all, " it isn't me -- it is the

system I grew up in. "

> I would wager that in the majority of child-rearing books " Original

Sin "

> still plays a role under different names.

Well, you would lose your money. What the *do* is describe every

conceivable phase of development and explain *why* the child is acting

that way. However, most don't give the slightest hint what to do

about it. Understanding the behavior has taken the place of trying to

correct it in any way, shape or form.

>However, " things " don't change

over

> night, although new (and favorable) trends do get started, sometimes

over

> night.

The ubiquitious " things. "

However, I'll make a point of going by the

book

> store and _at least_ taking a close look at the books on

child-rearing.

Forget all my other recommendations and read only " Parents Who Think

Too Much " by Anne Cassidy. This gives a very good overview of the

ways parenting practices have changed over the years. At the turn of

the century, only 50% survived into adulthood. The focus has

certainly changed. As the title would suggest, parents are BOMBARDED

with information and advice.

>

> >

> > You've published an important book about what AA is really all

about,

> > with some really insightful analysis of the workings of the cult.

I'm

> > sure you've have tons of criticism heaped on you by steppers for

your

> > efforts. I'm not in their camp. I think one reason why that part

of

> > it is powerful for me is that I've been there too and seen that

for

> > myself. It rings true. The part about the childhood issues

doesn't

> > ring true to me because I'm in it, seeing it, doing it--not as a

> > child, but as a parent. Yes, in our culture. Why can't you

accept

> > that as valid?

> >

>

> I'm not sure what you are suggesting I am accepting as valid.

It seems like to you the only important thing is a " study " and that

personal experience is worthless (unless it agrees with your point of

view). Also, not in this one, but in the last post you made several

personal insults. You've put your theory out there and a criticism of

it does not warrant that response.

See you,

[Guest guest]

> ,

>

> Oversimplification? Of course. Can't talk about anything complex

without

> oversimplifying to some degree, not even things much simpler like

the

> dynamics of weather. However, there are some things that become

> readily apparent if one is willing to see them.

>

> A woman friend of mine from a number of years ago, after reading the

> first edition of my book insisted vehemently that there was no abuse

in her

> upbringing and what would be considered abusive nowadays was

> irrelevant. This struck me as rather odd. It wasn't odd that

someone

> who had been abused as a child would discount its importance -- one

> who must " kiss the hand that beats him " in order to survive _has to_

> learn to shut out the internal experience. What was odd was that

her

> father, now an elderly man, had _no_ problem in recognizing his past

> behavior, in a time with different " rules and regulations " as

abusive.

So, if someone asserts that there was no abuse in their background,

they are not to be believed? Are they in denial? I mean there must

have been something, right? It can't be just that they decided to do

it, liked it or whatever.

>

> I had already met the man whose mother cut his finger off when he

was 2 1/2

> years old. He explained to me, " You don't understand how messy I

> kept my room. "

>

> Then, of course, there are the examples of Bill and Dr. Bob,

which

> I will post separately. There is no shortage of examples. There is

no

> longer so much of a shortage of empirical research (e.g. from

neurology)

> that shows tremendous influence of environment no the development of

a

> human being. Nor is it always a problem of " bad parents. "

>

> >

> >

> > I do believe that it is a factor in some people's use/abuse, but

not

> > everyone's. Consider...(here you will always end up with soft

> > numbers, I am just asking you to think about it)... The numbers

of

> > people who have abused alcohol at one time or another. Then

consider

> > the numbers of cases of severely abused children. I think that no

> > matter how you slice and dice this scenario there will be many

more

> > alcohol/drug abusers than abused children.

>

> It depends very much on what one defines as abuse.

[snip]

> So are we to believe that a dog's experience of life has influence

on the dog

> but not a human infant is not effected?

I think you'd better quit putting all this quicksand out there and

define what you *are* talking about.

Of course people are affected by circumstances in their past.

However, does it MAKE them into alcohol abusers? Or the other way

around, every alcohol abuser is an abused child in your eyes?

> >

> > The way you seem to be trying to get around this is to assert that

> > people don't remember their childhood abuse and/or assert that

> > unspecified " practices " in our culture are so ubiquitious and

abusive

> > that they produce these drug/alcohol abusers. (Yet to be named by

> > you, Ken).

> >

>

> No, not " yet unnamed " by me. Just not named recently by me. <G>

Oh, I'm catching on now...those traumatic circumcisions <G>. I guess

if a guy can't find anything else to pin his abusive drinking on he

could use that. Talk about " subtle insanity. " ;^)

> > >

> > Another thing that I believe *strongly* that it is as DAMAGING to

> > accuse, aver or imply that child abuse has occurred in a situation

> > where it hasn't as it is to IGNORE it in a situation where it HAS

> > occurred.

> >

>

> Yes. Agreed.

>

> >

> > As part of my criticism of your theory of addiction, I wrote...

> >

> > > It is also disturbing because I feel certain that one

population, or

> > audience, that most needs to hear the message that AA should be

> > shitcanned are precisely the people who are being told they are

> > responsible, knowingly or unknowingly for the alcoholism in the

first

> > place--mothers of young kids.

> >

> > And you responded...

> > >Are you suggesting that I shouldn't be expressing my honest

opinions

> > and view because it might make recovering mothers drink?

> >

> > My answer here is positively NOT. My concern first is with the

> > accuracy of the information and the assumption that mothers don't

> > know, read, care, understand, or think about what they are doing.

> >

>

> These mothers had mothers (and fathers, a probably a whole host of

> other influences) themselves. It seems that you believe that

mothers

> come out of nowhere, prepackaged and nothing has influenced them.

I don't know where you're getting this. I never said anything

remotely similar to this. In fact I keep trying to point out to you

that the experience of other cultures is just that - the experience of

other cultures. You can't cherry-pick the things you like about them

and leave out the parts you don't and then judge the rest of us by the

result.

> Not true. You keep putting this into _your_ role as mother. If you

> want to talk at a personal level, what about your mother and your

> relationship to her?

I have a good relationship with my mother and father and was not an

abused child by *any* definition of the word. And yes, I think you

are wrong to keep expanding the definition of " abuse " to the point

where it would include pretty much everyone (still without giving any

definition of it). Of course, you can counter that I don't *remember*

the abuse. Then you are just as guilty of the tautology that you

accuse the diseasists of.

> >

> > Next, I do think it is valid to think about some possible

responses to

> > it: the recovering mother says to herself " oh, here I am to blame

> > again, this time for alcoholism...actually, I don't believe this,

the

> > guy must not know what he's talking about... " People really do

have a

> > hard time " hearing the message " when they're called on the carpet

as

> > the cause of the problem.

>

> Who is being called on the carpet. If an " alcoholic " mother is

here,

> am I not saying that there were influences on _her_ which led to her

> addiction?

Bogus, unprovable " influences " that call her parenting into question

without providing any specifics.

>

> >

> >

> > OR, " Oh, no...! What am I doing wrong? " (to which she will

receive no

> > reply).

> >

>

> Well, sometimes that is a loaded question and _very_ off the point,

a

> distraction into a guilt and innocence game, something which I see

as

> irrelevant to the topic at hand.

>

> >

> > Or, worst of all, " I thought I had a pretty good childhood, but

maybe

> > my mom did something to me...but I see it isn't the " disease " , and

it

> > isn't me, it must have been something my mom did... "

>

> Perhaps so, perhaps not. I would most certainly argue that

environmental

> influences in childhood played a large role. Did Mom do awful

things

> which include dying herself?

>

> >

> >

> > Ken again,

> > >I wonder where one might hear similar arguments. Have you

considered

> > the possibility that some of them might think, " Oh, so it

> > isn't me -- it is the system I grew up in. " ?

> >

> > Sounds alot like, " Oh, so it isn't me -- it is the disease I

have. "

>

> I'm sure it does to you. But how so?

Because both statements lead to the same result. The influences are

changed from " disease " to some sort of undefined parental abuse. In

either case the person was powerless to make decisions for himself or

act in his own best interests. It was because of [fill in the blank].

This is powerlessness. It is also a way to avoid the responsibility

for the acts that the alcohol-dependent person may have committed

against himself or others. After all, " it isn't me -- it is the

system I grew up in. "

> I would wager that in the majority of child-rearing books " Original

Sin "

> still plays a role under different names.

Well, you would lose your money. What the *do* is describe every

conceivable phase of development and explain *why* the child is acting

that way. However, most don't give the slightest hint what to do

about it. Understanding the behavior has taken the place of trying to

correct it in any way, shape or form.

>However, " things " don't change

over

> night, although new (and favorable) trends do get started, sometimes

over

> night.

The ubiquitious " things. "

However, I'll make a point of going by the

book

> store and _at least_ taking a close look at the books on

child-rearing.

Forget all my other recommendations and read only " Parents Who Think

Too Much " by Anne Cassidy. This gives a very good overview of the

ways parenting practices have changed over the years. At the turn of

the century, only 50% survived into adulthood. The focus has

certainly changed. As the title would suggest, parents are BOMBARDED

with information and advice.

>

> >

> > You've published an important book about what AA is really all

about,

> > with some really insightful analysis of the workings of the cult.

I'm

> > sure you've have tons of criticism heaped on you by steppers for

your

> > efforts. I'm not in their camp. I think one reason why that part

of

> > it is powerful for me is that I've been there too and seen that

for

> > myself. It rings true. The part about the childhood issues

doesn't

> > ring true to me because I'm in it, seeing it, doing it--not as a

> > child, but as a parent. Yes, in our culture. Why can't you

accept

> > that as valid?

> >

>

> I'm not sure what you are suggesting I am accepting as valid.

It seems like to you the only important thing is a " study " and that

personal experience is worthless (unless it agrees with your point of

view). Also, not in this one, but in the last post you made several

personal insults. You've put your theory out there and a criticism of

it does not warrant that response.

See you,

[Guest guest]

ahicks@... wrote:

>

>

> > ,

> >

> > Oversimplification? Of course. Can't talk about anything complex

> without

> > oversimplifying to some degree, not even things much simpler like

> the

> > dynamics of weather. However, there are some things that become

> > readily apparent if one is willing to see them.

> >

> > A woman friend of mine from a number of years ago, after reading the

> > first edition of my book insisted vehemently that there was no abuse

> in her

> > upbringing and what would be considered abusive nowadays was

> > irrelevant. This struck me as rather odd. It wasn't odd that

> someone

> > who had been abused as a child would discount its importance -- one

> > who must " kiss the hand that beats him " in order to survive _has to_

> > learn to shut out the internal experience. What was odd was that

> her

> > father, now an elderly man, had _no_ problem in recognizing his past

> > behavior, in a time with different " rules and regulations " as

> abusive.

>

> So, if someone asserts that there was no abuse in their background,

> they are not to be believed? Are they in denial? I mean there must

> have been something, right?

Well, with this individual there certainly was abuse as confirmed by

her father. The guy whose mother cut is finger off in one of her frequent

fits of rage, is he to be believed when he insists he wasn't abused, that his

mother's behavior was understandable since he kept his room such a

mess? (As an adult, this guy was the neatest, tidiest person I have ever

seen, more than tidy, obsessive that _everything_ be in _perfect_ order and

washes his hands about fifty times a day.) Are you going to suggest, as

you do in the follow sentence, that perhaps he " just decided . . . or what

ever " ?

What makes me suspicious that someone isn't being honest with

themselves is when they get very defensive before any such suggestion

is even made. Just like if I were to say, " There are a lot of robberies

of 7/11s lately " in response to a newspaper article and have some

guy tell me, " You ought to be ashamed of yourself. I never robbed

a 7/11 and I don't know anyone who has. "

" He who doth protest too loudly. "

> It can't be just that they decided to do

> it, liked it or whatever.

>

And it is rains because water comes from the sky sometimes.

>

> >

> > I had already met the man whose mother cut his finger off when he

> was 2 1/2

> > years old. He explained to me, " You don't understand how messy I

> > kept my room. "

> >

> > Then, of course, there are the examples of Bill and Dr. Bob,

> which

> > I will post separately. There is no shortage of examples. There is

> no

> > longer so much of a shortage of empirical research (e.g. from

> neurology)

> > that shows tremendous influence of environment no the development of

> a

> > human being. Nor is it always a problem of " bad parents. "

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > I do believe that it is a factor in some people's use/abuse, but

> not

> > > everyone's. Consider...(here you will always end up with soft

> > > numbers, I am just asking you to think about it)... The numbers

> of

> > > people who have abused alcohol at one time or another. Then

> consider

> > > the numbers of cases of severely abused children. I think that no

> > > matter how you slice and dice this scenario there will be many

> more

> > > alcohol/drug abusers than abused children.

> >

> > It depends very much on what one defines as abuse.

> [snip]

> > So are we to believe that a dog's experience of life has influence

> on the dog

> > but not a human infant is not effected?

>

> I think you'd better quit putting all this quicksand out there and

> define what you *are* talking about.

>

Did you not read the excerpts I posted? What do you not understand

about them? Are they not simple, direct and to the point?

>

> Of course people are affected by circumstances in their past.

> However, does it MAKE them into alcohol abusers?

Let me put it this way. Certain things do MAKE children chronically

anxious. Chronically anxious people get more pleasurable effect from

anti-anxiety agents.

> Or the other way

> around, every alcohol abuser is an abused child in your eyes?

Every self-destructive drinker had seriously detrimental environmental

influences as a child. I gave three examples, Dr. Bob who was " all the

parents fault, " Bill who had a mentally ill mother and father who

abandoned him and his first love die unexpectedly and , whose father

died when he was young and he saw himself as responsible.

You seem to be the only one who insists on intentional abuse and only

from the parents.

>

> > >

> > > The way you seem to be trying to get around this is to assert that

> > > people don't remember their childhood abuse and/or assert that

> > > unspecified " practices " in our culture are so ubiquitious and

> abusive

> > > that they produce these drug/alcohol abusers. (Yet to be named by

> > > you, Ken).

> > >

> >

> > No, not " yet unnamed " by me. Just not named recently by me. <G>

>

> Oh, I'm catching on now...those traumatic circumcisions <G>.

Again, you seem to have not read, not understood, or be intentionally

ignoring the excerpts about the three people above.

Now, you might find surgery on someone's genitals without anesthetic

amusing, something to joke about. I don't.

I also might ask, if cutting half the skin off someone's penis, the half

that is most endowed with sensory receptors to give sexual pleasure,

without anesthetic, what could _possibly_ be abusive in your book?

> I guess

> if a guy can't find anything else to pin his abusive drinking on he

> could use that. Talk about " subtle insanity. " ;^)

I've never heard any guy ever pin his abusive drinking on that. But

if it makes you feel more comfortable with yourself to pretend that

genital mutilation of boys in inconsequential, just go right ahead and

fabricate away. I pointed you to documented sources on just how

painful it is and precisely what is cut off.

The practice started in the late 1800s as punishment for masturbation.

They started doing it in infants because of the misguided belief that infants

feel no pain and they'd be protected from the dangers of the flesh

(sexual sensation).

As I said before, if you don't see that as abusive, what could possibly be?

Because Somalian women don't see slicing up their daughters' genitals

as abusive, does that make it not so?

>

> > > >

> > > Another thing that I believe *strongly* that it is as DAMAGING to

> > > accuse, aver or imply that child abuse has occurred in a situation

> > > where it hasn't as it is to IGNORE it in a situation where it HAS

> > > occurred.

> > >

> >

> > Yes. Agreed.

> >

> > >

> > > As part of my criticism of your theory of addiction, I wrote...

> > >

> > > > It is also disturbing because I feel certain that one

> population, or

> > > audience, that most needs to hear the message that AA should be

> > > shitcanned are precisely the people who are being told they are

> > > responsible, knowingly or unknowingly for the alcoholism in the

> first

> > > place--mothers of young kids.

> > >

> > > And you responded...

> > > >Are you suggesting that I shouldn't be expressing my honest

> opinions

> > > and view because it might make recovering mothers drink?

> > >

> > > My answer here is positively NOT. My concern first is with the

> > > accuracy of the information and the assumption that mothers don't

> > > know, read, care, understand, or think about what they are doing.

> > >

> >

> > These mothers had mothers (and fathers, a probably a whole host of

> > other influences) themselves. It seems that you believe that

> mothers

> > come out of nowhere, prepackaged and nothing has influenced them.

>

> I don't know where you're getting this. I never said anything

> remotely similar to this. In fact I keep trying to point out to you

> that the experience of other cultures is just that - the experience of

> other cultures. You can't cherry-pick the things you like about them

> and leave out the parts you don't and then judge the rest of us by the

> result.

What is wrong with noting what other peoples do, their successes and

their failures, and learning from them? What benefits do you see in being

a society closed to the ideas of the rest of the world?

>

>

> > Not true. You keep putting this into _your_ role as mother. If you

> > want to talk at a personal level, what about your mother and your

> > relationship to her?

>

> I have a good relationship with my mother and father and was not an

> abused child by *any* definition of the word. And yes, I think you

> are wrong to keep expanding the definition of " abuse " to the point

> where it would include pretty much everyone (still without giving any

> definition of it).

I've certainly given examples of things not in the best interest of the

child.

If those three stories I posted are not enough, I doubt anything could

ever be.

> Of course, you can counter that I don't *remember*

> the abuse. Then you are just as guilty of the tautology that you

> accuse the diseasists of.

You are one person. What does it matter if you are an exception or not?

>

>

> > >

> > > Next, I do think it is valid to think about some possible

> responses to

> > > it: the recovering mother says to herself " oh, here I am to blame

> > > again, this time for alcoholism...actually, I don't believe this,

> the

> > > guy must not know what he's talking about... " People really do

> have a

> > > hard time " hearing the message " when they're called on the carpet

> as

> > > the cause of the problem.

> >

> > Who is being called on the carpet. If an " alcoholic " mother is

> here,

> > am I not saying that there were influences on _her_ which led to her

> > addiction?

>

> Bogus, unprovable " influences " that call her parenting into question

> without providing any specifics.

>

Did you somehow miss the references I posted on the children of

alcoholics and those who grow up to become alcoholics?

>

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > OR, " Oh, no...! What am I doing wrong? " (to which she will

> receive no

> > > reply).

> > >

> >

> > Well, sometimes that is a loaded question and _very_ off the point,

> a

> > distraction into a guilt and innocence game, something which I see

> as

> > irrelevant to the topic at hand.

> >

> > >

> > > Or, worst of all, " I thought I had a pretty good childhood, but

> maybe

> > > my mom did something to me...but I see it isn't the " disease " , and

> it

> > > isn't me, it must have been something my mom did... "

> >

> > Perhaps so, perhaps not. I would most certainly argue that

> environmental

> > influences in childhood played a large role. Did Mom do awful

> things

> > which include dying herself?

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > Ken again,

> > > >I wonder where one might hear similar arguments. Have you

> considered

> > > the possibility that some of them might think, " Oh, so it

> > > isn't me -- it is the system I grew up in. " ?

> > >

> > > Sounds alot like, " Oh, so it isn't me -- it is the disease I

> have. "

> >

> > I'm sure it does to you. But how so?

>

> Because both statements lead to the same result. The influences are

> changed from " disease " to some sort of undefined parental abuse.

That is _exactly_ what Codependents Anonymous does.

> In

> either case the person was powerless to make decisions for himself or

> act in his own best interests.

Children are often powerless to make decisions for themselves or take

action to get their needs filled. That is not true of the adult.

>

> It was because of [fill in the blank].

> This is powerlessness. It is also a way to avoid the responsibility

> for the acts that the alcohol-dependent person may have committed

> against himself or others. After all, " it isn't me -- it is the

> system I grew up in. "

You are talking about blame and innocence again. Want to switch things

over to whose fault the weather is? It would make as much sense.

Here is another probably pointless example, pointless because it will

probably be ignored by you and launch you off into another repetition of

your innocence, benevolence and martyrdom.

Researchers went into a poorly-performing school and selected the

students who were known to be unable to learn to read. In a few

hours, the researchers had them reading complete sentences in Chinese.

If it wasn't for the researchers there, no one would have ever known

the kids weren't " too stupid. "

But someone who grows up in this sort of environment and gets the " too

stupid " message is not going to learn to read. Being an adult and not

being able to read does not condemn oneself to never learning to read.

However, not questioning what he learned, that he is not intelligent

enough to learn to read (that all his teachers and perhaps even parents

were wrong) is condemning him to never learning to read.

>

>

> > I would wager that in the majority of child-rearing books " Original

> Sin "

> > still plays a role under different names.

>

> Well, you would lose your money. What the *do* is describe every

> conceivable phase of development and explain *why* the child is acting

> that way. However, most don't give the slightest hint what to do

> about it. Understanding the behavior has taken the place of trying to

> correct it in any way, shape or form.

>

> >However, " things " don't change

> over

> > night, although new (and favorable) trends do get started, sometimes

> over

> > night.

>

> The ubiquitious " things. "

>

> However, I'll make a point of going by the

> book

> > store and _at least_ taking a close look at the books on

> child-rearing.

>

> Forget all my other recommendations and read only " Parents Who Think

> Too Much " by Anne Cassidy. This gives a very good overview of the

> ways parenting practices have changed over the years. At the turn of

> the century, only 50% survived into adulthood. The focus has

> certainly changed. As the title would suggest, parents are BOMBARDED

> with information and advice.

> >

> > >

> > > You've published an important book about what AA is really all

> about,

> > > with some really insightful analysis of the workings of the cult.

> I'm

> > > sure you've have tons of criticism heaped on you by steppers for

> your

> > > efforts. I'm not in their camp. I think one reason why that part

> of

> > > it is powerful for me is that I've been there too and seen that

> for

> > > myself. It rings true. The part about the childhood issues

> doesn't

> > > ring true to me because I'm in it, seeing it, doing it--not as a

> > > child, but as a parent. Yes, in our culture. Why can't you

> accept

> > > that as valid?

> > >

> >

> > I'm not sure what you are suggesting I am accepting as valid.

>

> It seems like to you the only important thing is a " study " and that

> personal experience is worthless (unless it agrees with your point of

> view).

Then I guess I have to elevate the credibility of AA members over what

the research actually shows. And I have to accept the world as flat

because that is how I experience it.

> Also, not in this one, but in the last post you made several

> personal insults. You've put your theory out there and a criticism of

> it does not warrant that response.

>

Then stop changing the subject to being about you whereever it is at

and stop making light of infant genital mutilation.

Ken Ragge

>

> See you,

>

[Guest guest]

ahicks@... wrote:

>

>

> > ,

> >

> > Oversimplification? Of course. Can't talk about anything complex

> without

> > oversimplifying to some degree, not even things much simpler like

> the

> > dynamics of weather. However, there are some things that become

> > readily apparent if one is willing to see them.

> >

> > A woman friend of mine from a number of years ago, after reading the

> > first edition of my book insisted vehemently that there was no abuse

> in her

> > upbringing and what would be considered abusive nowadays was

> > irrelevant. This struck me as rather odd. It wasn't odd that

> someone

> > who had been abused as a child would discount its importance -- one

> > who must " kiss the hand that beats him " in order to survive _has to_

> > learn to shut out the internal experience. What was odd was that

> her

> > father, now an elderly man, had _no_ problem in recognizing his past

> > behavior, in a time with different " rules and regulations " as

> abusive.

>

> So, if someone asserts that there was no abuse in their background,

> they are not to be believed? Are they in denial? I mean there must

> have been something, right?

Well, with this individual there certainly was abuse as confirmed by

her father. The guy whose mother cut is finger off in one of her frequent

fits of rage, is he to be believed when he insists he wasn't abused, that his

mother's behavior was understandable since he kept his room such a

mess? (As an adult, this guy was the neatest, tidiest person I have ever

seen, more than tidy, obsessive that _everything_ be in _perfect_ order and

washes his hands about fifty times a day.) Are you going to suggest, as

you do in the follow sentence, that perhaps he " just decided . . . or what

ever " ?

What makes me suspicious that someone isn't being honest with

themselves is when they get very defensive before any such suggestion

is even made. Just like if I were to say, " There are a lot of robberies

of 7/11s lately " in response to a newspaper article and have some

guy tell me, " You ought to be ashamed of yourself. I never robbed

a 7/11 and I don't know anyone who has. "

" He who doth protest too loudly. "

> It can't be just that they decided to do

> it, liked it or whatever.

>

And it is rains because water comes from the sky sometimes.

>

> >

> > I had already met the man whose mother cut his finger off when he

> was 2 1/2

> > years old. He explained to me, " You don't understand how messy I

> > kept my room. "

> >

> > Then, of course, there are the examples of Bill and Dr. Bob,

> which

> > I will post separately. There is no shortage of examples. There is

> no

> > longer so much of a shortage of empirical research (e.g. from

> neurology)

> > that shows tremendous influence of environment no the development of

> a

> > human being. Nor is it always a problem of " bad parents. "

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > I do believe that it is a factor in some people's use/abuse, but

> not

> > > everyone's. Consider...(here you will always end up with soft

> > > numbers, I am just asking you to think about it)... The numbers

> of

> > > people who have abused alcohol at one time or another. Then

> consider

> > > the numbers of cases of severely abused children. I think that no

> > > matter how you slice and dice this scenario there will be many

> more

> > > alcohol/drug abusers than abused children.

> >

> > It depends very much on what one defines as abuse.

> [snip]

> > So are we to believe that a dog's experience of life has influence

> on the dog

> > but not a human infant is not effected?

>

> I think you'd better quit putting all this quicksand out there and

> define what you *are* talking about.

>

Did you not read the excerpts I posted? What do you not understand

about them? Are they not simple, direct and to the point?

>

> Of course people are affected by circumstances in their past.

> However, does it MAKE them into alcohol abusers?

Let me put it this way. Certain things do MAKE children chronically

anxious. Chronically anxious people get more pleasurable effect from

anti-anxiety agents.

> Or the other way

> around, every alcohol abuser is an abused child in your eyes?

Every self-destructive drinker had seriously detrimental environmental

influences as a child. I gave three examples, Dr. Bob who was " all the

parents fault, " Bill who had a mentally ill mother and father who

abandoned him and his first love die unexpectedly and , whose father

died when he was young and he saw himself as responsible.

You seem to be the only one who insists on intentional abuse and only

from the parents.

>

> > >

> > > The way you seem to be trying to get around this is to assert that

> > > people don't remember their childhood abuse and/or assert that

> > > unspecified " practices " in our culture are so ubiquitious and

> abusive

> > > that they produce these drug/alcohol abusers. (Yet to be named by

> > > you, Ken).

> > >

> >

> > No, not " yet unnamed " by me. Just not named recently by me. <G>

>

> Oh, I'm catching on now...those traumatic circumcisions <G>.

Again, you seem to have not read, not understood, or be intentionally

ignoring the excerpts about the three people above.

Now, you might find surgery on someone's genitals without anesthetic

amusing, something to joke about. I don't.

I also might ask, if cutting half the skin off someone's penis, the half

that is most endowed with sensory receptors to give sexual pleasure,

without anesthetic, what could _possibly_ be abusive in your book?

> I guess

> if a guy can't find anything else to pin his abusive drinking on he

> could use that. Talk about " subtle insanity. " ;^)

I've never heard any guy ever pin his abusive drinking on that. But

if it makes you feel more comfortable with yourself to pretend that

genital mutilation of boys in inconsequential, just go right ahead and

fabricate away. I pointed you to documented sources on just how

painful it is and precisely what is cut off.

The practice started in the late 1800s as punishment for masturbation.

They started doing it in infants because of the misguided belief that infants

feel no pain and they'd be protected from the dangers of the flesh

(sexual sensation).

As I said before, if you don't see that as abusive, what could possibly be?

Because Somalian women don't see slicing up their daughters' genitals

as abusive, does that make it not so?

>

> > > >

> > > Another thing that I believe *strongly* that it is as DAMAGING to

> > > accuse, aver or imply that child abuse has occurred in a situation

> > > where it hasn't as it is to IGNORE it in a situation where it HAS

> > > occurred.

> > >

> >

> > Yes. Agreed.

> >

> > >

> > > As part of my criticism of your theory of addiction, I wrote...

> > >

> > > > It is also disturbing because I feel certain that one

> population, or

> > > audience, that most needs to hear the message that AA should be

> > > shitcanned are precisely the people who are being told they are

> > > responsible, knowingly or unknowingly for the alcoholism in the

> first

> > > place--mothers of young kids.

> > >

> > > And you responded...

> > > >Are you suggesting that I shouldn't be expressing my honest

> opinions

> > > and view because it might make recovering mothers drink?

> > >

> > > My answer here is positively NOT. My concern first is with the

> > > accuracy of the information and the assumption that mothers don't

> > > know, read, care, understand, or think about what they are doing.

> > >

> >

> > These mothers had mothers (and fathers, a probably a whole host of

> > other influences) themselves. It seems that you believe that

> mothers

> > come out of nowhere, prepackaged and nothing has influenced them.

>

> I don't know where you're getting this. I never said anything

> remotely similar to this. In fact I keep trying to point out to you

> that the experience of other cultures is just that - the experience of

> other cultures. You can't cherry-pick the things you like about them

> and leave out the parts you don't and then judge the rest of us by the

> result.

What is wrong with noting what other peoples do, their successes and

their failures, and learning from them? What benefits do you see in being

a society closed to the ideas of the rest of the world?

>

>

> > Not true. You keep putting this into _your_ role as mother. If you

> > want to talk at a personal level, what about your mother and your

> > relationship to her?

>

> I have a good relationship with my mother and father and was not an

> abused child by *any* definition of the word. And yes, I think you

> are wrong to keep expanding the definition of " abuse " to the point

> where it would include pretty much everyone (still without giving any

> definition of it).

I've certainly given examples of things not in the best interest of the

child.

If those three stories I posted are not enough, I doubt anything could

ever be.

> Of course, you can counter that I don't *remember*

> the abuse. Then you are just as guilty of the tautology that you

> accuse the diseasists of.

You are one person. What does it matter if you are an exception or not?

>

>

> > >

> > > Next, I do think it is valid to think about some possible

> responses to

> > > it: the recovering mother says to herself " oh, here I am to blame

> > > again, this time for alcoholism...actually, I don't believe this,

> the

> > > guy must not know what he's talking about... " People really do

> have a

> > > hard time " hearing the message " when they're called on the carpet

> as

> > > the cause of the problem.

> >

> > Who is being called on the carpet. If an " alcoholic " mother is

> here,

> > am I not saying that there were influences on _her_ which led to her

> > addiction?

>

> Bogus, unprovable " influences " that call her parenting into question

> without providing any specifics.

>

Did you somehow miss the references I posted on the children of

alcoholics and those who grow up to become alcoholics?

>

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > OR, " Oh, no...! What am I doing wrong? " (to which she will

> receive no

> > > reply).

> > >

> >

> > Well, sometimes that is a loaded question and _very_ off the point,

> a

> > distraction into a guilt and innocence game, something which I see

> as

> > irrelevant to the topic at hand.

> >

> > >

> > > Or, worst of all, " I thought I had a pretty good childhood, but

> maybe

> > > my mom did something to me...but I see it isn't the " disease " , and

> it

> > > isn't me, it must have been something my mom did... "

> >

> > Perhaps so, perhaps not. I would most certainly argue that

> environmental

> > influences in childhood played a large role. Did Mom do awful

> things

> > which include dying herself?

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > Ken again,

> > > >I wonder where one might hear similar arguments. Have you

> considered

> > > the possibility that some of them might think, " Oh, so it

> > > isn't me -- it is the system I grew up in. " ?

> > >

> > > Sounds alot like, " Oh, so it isn't me -- it is the disease I

> have. "

> >

> > I'm sure it does to you. But how so?

>

> Because both statements lead to the same result. The influences are

> changed from " disease " to some sort of undefined parental abuse.

That is _exactly_ what Codependents Anonymous does.

> In

> either case the person was powerless to make decisions for himself or

> act in his own best interests.

Children are often powerless to make decisions for themselves or take

action to get their needs filled. That is not true of the adult.

>

> It was because of [fill in the blank].

> This is powerlessness. It is also a way to avoid the responsibility

> for the acts that the alcohol-dependent person may have committed

> against himself or others. After all, " it isn't me -- it is the

> system I grew up in. "

You are talking about blame and innocence again. Want to switch things

over to whose fault the weather is? It would make as much sense.

Here is another probably pointless example, pointless because it will

probably be ignored by you and launch you off into another repetition of

your innocence, benevolence and martyrdom.

Researchers went into a poorly-performing school and selected the

students who were known to be unable to learn to read. In a few

hours, the researchers had them reading complete sentences in Chinese.

If it wasn't for the researchers there, no one would have ever known

the kids weren't " too stupid. "

But someone who grows up in this sort of environment and gets the " too

stupid " message is not going to learn to read. Being an adult and not

being able to read does not condemn oneself to never learning to read.

However, not questioning what he learned, that he is not intelligent

enough to learn to read (that all his teachers and perhaps even parents

were wrong) is condemning him to never learning to read.

>

>

> > I would wager that in the majority of child-rearing books " Original

> Sin "

> > still plays a role under different names.

>

> Well, you would lose your money. What the *do* is describe every

> conceivable phase of development and explain *why* the child is acting

> that way. However, most don't give the slightest hint what to do

> about it. Understanding the behavior has taken the place of trying to

> correct it in any way, shape or form.

>

> >However, " things " don't change

> over

> > night, although new (and favorable) trends do get started, sometimes

> over

> > night.

>

> The ubiquitious " things. "

>

> However, I'll make a point of going by the

> book

> > store and _at least_ taking a close look at the books on

> child-rearing.

>

> Forget all my other recommendations and read only " Parents Who Think

> Too Much " by Anne Cassidy. This gives a very good overview of the

> ways parenting practices have changed over the years. At the turn of

> the century, only 50% survived into adulthood. The focus has

> certainly changed. As the title would suggest, parents are BOMBARDED

> with information and advice.

> >

> > >

> > > You've published an important book about what AA is really all

> about,

> > > with some really insightful analysis of the workings of the cult.

> I'm

> > > sure you've have tons of criticism heaped on you by steppers for

> your

> > > efforts. I'm not in their camp. I think one reason why that part

> of

> > > it is powerful for me is that I've been there too and seen that

> for

> > > myself. It rings true. The part about the childhood issues

> doesn't

> > > ring true to me because I'm in it, seeing it, doing it--not as a

> > > child, but as a parent. Yes, in our culture. Why can't you

> accept

> > > that as valid?

> > >

> >

> > I'm not sure what you are suggesting I am accepting as valid.

>

> It seems like to you the only important thing is a " study " and that

> personal experience is worthless (unless it agrees with your point of

> view).

Then I guess I have to elevate the credibility of AA members over what

the research actually shows. And I have to accept the world as flat

because that is how I experience it.

> Also, not in this one, but in the last post you made several

> personal insults. You've put your theory out there and a criticism of

> it does not warrant that response.

>

Then stop changing the subject to being about you whereever it is at

and stop making light of infant genital mutilation.

Ken Ragge

>

> See you,

>

[Guest guest]

ahicks@... wrote:

>

>

> > ,

> >

> > Oversimplification? Of course. Can't talk about anything complex

> without

> > oversimplifying to some degree, not even things much simpler like

> the

> > dynamics of weather. However, there are some things that become

> > readily apparent if one is willing to see them.

> >

> > A woman friend of mine from a number of years ago, after reading the

> > first edition of my book insisted vehemently that there was no abuse

> in her

> > upbringing and what would be considered abusive nowadays was

> > irrelevant. This struck me as rather odd. It wasn't odd that

> someone

> > who had been abused as a child would discount its importance -- one

> > who must " kiss the hand that beats him " in order to survive _has to_

> > learn to shut out the internal experience. What was odd was that

> her

> > father, now an elderly man, had _no_ problem in recognizing his past

> > behavior, in a time with different " rules and regulations " as

> abusive.

>

> So, if someone asserts that there was no abuse in their background,

> they are not to be believed? Are they in denial? I mean there must

> have been something, right?

Well, with this individual there certainly was abuse as confirmed by

her father. The guy whose mother cut is finger off in one of her frequent

fits of rage, is he to be believed when he insists he wasn't abused, that his

mother's behavior was understandable since he kept his room such a

mess? (As an adult, this guy was the neatest, tidiest person I have ever

seen, more than tidy, obsessive that _everything_ be in _perfect_ order and

washes his hands about fifty times a day.) Are you going to suggest, as

you do in the follow sentence, that perhaps he " just decided . . . or what

ever " ?

What makes me suspicious that someone isn't being honest with

themselves is when they get very defensive before any such suggestion

is even made. Just like if I were to say, " There are a lot of robberies

of 7/11s lately " in response to a newspaper article and have some

guy tell me, " You ought to be ashamed of yourself. I never robbed

a 7/11 and I don't know anyone who has. "

" He who doth protest too loudly. "

> It can't be just that they decided to do

> it, liked it or whatever.

>

And it is rains because water comes from the sky sometimes.

>

> >

> > I had already met the man whose mother cut his finger off when he

> was 2 1/2

> > years old. He explained to me, " You don't understand how messy I

> > kept my room. "

> >

> > Then, of course, there are the examples of Bill and Dr. Bob,

> which

> > I will post separately. There is no shortage of examples. There is

> no

> > longer so much of a shortage of empirical research (e.g. from

> neurology)

> > that shows tremendous influence of environment no the development of

> a

> > human being. Nor is it always a problem of " bad parents. "

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > I do believe that it is a factor in some people's use/abuse, but

> not

> > > everyone's. Consider...(here you will always end up with soft

> > > numbers, I am just asking you to think about it)... The numbers

> of

> > > people who have abused alcohol at one time or another. Then

> consider

> > > the numbers of cases of severely abused children. I think that no

> > > matter how you slice and dice this scenario there will be many

> more

> > > alcohol/drug abusers than abused children.

> >

> > It depends very much on what one defines as abuse.

> [snip]

> > So are we to believe that a dog's experience of life has influence

> on the dog

> > but not a human infant is not effected?

>

> I think you'd better quit putting all this quicksand out there and

> define what you *are* talking about.

>

Did you not read the excerpts I posted? What do you not understand

about them? Are they not simple, direct and to the point?

>

> Of course people are affected by circumstances in their past.

> However, does it MAKE them into alcohol abusers?

Let me put it this way. Certain things do MAKE children chronically

anxious. Chronically anxious people get more pleasurable effect from

anti-anxiety agents.

> Or the other way

> around, every alcohol abuser is an abused child in your eyes?

Every self-destructive drinker had seriously detrimental environmental

influences as a child. I gave three examples, Dr. Bob who was " all the

parents fault, " Bill who had a mentally ill mother and father who

abandoned him and his first love die unexpectedly and , whose father

died when he was young and he saw himself as responsible.

You seem to be the only one who insists on intentional abuse and only

from the parents.

>

> > >

> > > The way you seem to be trying to get around this is to assert that

> > > people don't remember their childhood abuse and/or assert that

> > > unspecified " practices " in our culture are so ubiquitious and

> abusive

> > > that they produce these drug/alcohol abusers. (Yet to be named by

> > > you, Ken).

> > >

> >

> > No, not " yet unnamed " by me. Just not named recently by me. <G>

>

> Oh, I'm catching on now...those traumatic circumcisions <G>.

Again, you seem to have not read, not understood, or be intentionally

ignoring the excerpts about the three people above.

Now, you might find surgery on someone's genitals without anesthetic

amusing, something to joke about. I don't.

I also might ask, if cutting half the skin off someone's penis, the half

that is most endowed with sensory receptors to give sexual pleasure,

without anesthetic, what could _possibly_ be abusive in your book?

> I guess

> if a guy can't find anything else to pin his abusive drinking on he

> could use that. Talk about " subtle insanity. " ;^)

I've never heard any guy ever pin his abusive drinking on that. But

if it makes you feel more comfortable with yourself to pretend that

genital mutilation of boys in inconsequential, just go right ahead and

fabricate away. I pointed you to documented sources on just how

painful it is and precisely what is cut off.

The practice started in the late 1800s as punishment for masturbation.

They started doing it in infants because of the misguided belief that infants

feel no pain and they'd be protected from the dangers of the flesh

(sexual sensation).

As I said before, if you don't see that as abusive, what could possibly be?

Because Somalian women don't see slicing up their daughters' genitals

as abusive, does that make it not so?

>

> > > >

> > > Another thing that I believe *strongly* that it is as DAMAGING to

> > > accuse, aver or imply that child abuse has occurred in a situation

> > > where it hasn't as it is to IGNORE it in a situation where it HAS

> > > occurred.

> > >

> >

> > Yes. Agreed.

> >

> > >

> > > As part of my criticism of your theory of addiction, I wrote...

> > >

> > > > It is also disturbing because I feel certain that one

> population, or

> > > audience, that most needs to hear the message that AA should be

> > > shitcanned are precisely the people who are being told they are

> > > responsible, knowingly or unknowingly for the alcoholism in the

> first

> > > place--mothers of young kids.

> > >

> > > And you responded...

> > > >Are you suggesting that I shouldn't be expressing my honest

> opinions

> > > and view because it might make recovering mothers drink?

> > >

> > > My answer here is positively NOT. My concern first is with the

> > > accuracy of the information and the assumption that mothers don't

> > > know, read, care, understand, or think about what they are doing.

> > >

> >

> > These mothers had mothers (and fathers, a probably a whole host of

> > other influences) themselves. It seems that you believe that

> mothers

> > come out of nowhere, prepackaged and nothing has influenced them.

>

> I don't know where you're getting this. I never said anything

> remotely similar to this. In fact I keep trying to point out to you

> that the experience of other cultures is just that - the experience of

> other cultures. You can't cherry-pick the things you like about them

> and leave out the parts you don't and then judge the rest of us by the

> result.

What is wrong with noting what other peoples do, their successes and

their failures, and learning from them? What benefits do you see in being

a society closed to the ideas of the rest of the world?

>

>

> > Not true. You keep putting this into _your_ role as mother. If you

> > want to talk at a personal level, what about your mother and your

> > relationship to her?

>

> I have a good relationship with my mother and father and was not an

> abused child by *any* definition of the word. And yes, I think you

> are wrong to keep expanding the definition of " abuse " to the point

> where it would include pretty much everyone (still without giving any

> definition of it).

I've certainly given examples of things not in the best interest of the

child.

If those three stories I posted are not enough, I doubt anything could

ever be.

> Of course, you can counter that I don't *remember*

> the abuse. Then you are just as guilty of the tautology that you

> accuse the diseasists of.

You are one person. What does it matter if you are an exception or not?

>

>

> > >

> > > Next, I do think it is valid to think about some possible

> responses to

> > > it: the recovering mother says to herself " oh, here I am to blame

> > > again, this time for alcoholism...actually, I don't believe this,

> the

> > > guy must not know what he's talking about... " People really do

> have a

> > > hard time " hearing the message " when they're called on the carpet

> as

> > > the cause of the problem.

> >

> > Who is being called on the carpet. If an " alcoholic " mother is

> here,

> > am I not saying that there were influences on _her_ which led to her

> > addiction?

>

> Bogus, unprovable " influences " that call her parenting into question

> without providing any specifics.

>

Did you somehow miss the references I posted on the children of

alcoholics and those who grow up to become alcoholics?

>

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > OR, " Oh, no...! What am I doing wrong? " (to which she will

> receive no

> > > reply).

> > >

> >

> > Well, sometimes that is a loaded question and _very_ off the point,

> a

> > distraction into a guilt and innocence game, something which I see

> as

> > irrelevant to the topic at hand.

> >

> > >

> > > Or, worst of all, " I thought I had a pretty good childhood, but

> maybe

> > > my mom did something to me...but I see it isn't the " disease " , and

> it

> > > isn't me, it must have been something my mom did... "

> >

> > Perhaps so, perhaps not. I would most certainly argue that

> environmental

> > influences in childhood played a large role. Did Mom do awful

> things

> > which include dying herself?

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > Ken again,

> > > >I wonder where one might hear similar arguments. Have you

> considered

> > > the possibility that some of them might think, " Oh, so it

> > > isn't me -- it is the system I grew up in. " ?

> > >

> > > Sounds alot like, " Oh, so it isn't me -- it is the disease I

> have. "

> >

> > I'm sure it does to you. But how so?

>

> Because both statements lead to the same result. The influences are

> changed from " disease " to some sort of undefined parental abuse.

That is _exactly_ what Codependents Anonymous does.

> In

> either case the person was powerless to make decisions for himself or

> act in his own best interests.

Children are often powerless to make decisions for themselves or take

action to get their needs filled. That is not true of the adult.

>

> It was because of [fill in the blank].

> This is powerlessness. It is also a way to avoid the responsibility

> for the acts that the alcohol-dependent person may have committed

> against himself or others. After all, " it isn't me -- it is the

> system I grew up in. "

You are talking about blame and innocence again. Want to switch things

over to whose fault the weather is? It would make as much sense.

Here is another probably pointless example, pointless because it will

probably be ignored by you and launch you off into another repetition of

your innocence, benevolence and martyrdom.

Researchers went into a poorly-performing school and selected the

students who were known to be unable to learn to read. In a few

hours, the researchers had them reading complete sentences in Chinese.

If it wasn't for the researchers there, no one would have ever known

the kids weren't " too stupid. "

But someone who grows up in this sort of environment and gets the " too

stupid " message is not going to learn to read. Being an adult and not

being able to read does not condemn oneself to never learning to read.

However, not questioning what he learned, that he is not intelligent

enough to learn to read (that all his teachers and perhaps even parents

were wrong) is condemning him to never learning to read.

>

>

> > I would wager that in the majority of child-rearing books " Original

> Sin "

> > still plays a role under different names.

>

> Well, you would lose your money. What the *do* is describe every

> conceivable phase of development and explain *why* the child is acting

> that way. However, most don't give the slightest hint what to do

> about it. Understanding the behavior has taken the place of trying to

> correct it in any way, shape or form.

>

> >However, " things " don't change

> over

> > night, although new (and favorable) trends do get started, sometimes

> over

> > night.

>

> The ubiquitious " things. "

>

> However, I'll make a point of going by the

> book

> > store and _at least_ taking a close look at the books on

> child-rearing.

>

> Forget all my other recommendations and read only " Parents Who Think

> Too Much " by Anne Cassidy. This gives a very good overview of the

> ways parenting practices have changed over the years. At the turn of

> the century, only 50% survived into adulthood. The focus has

> certainly changed. As the title would suggest, parents are BOMBARDED

> with information and advice.

> >

> > >

> > > You've published an important book about what AA is really all

> about,

> > > with some really insightful analysis of the workings of the cult.

> I'm

> > > sure you've have tons of criticism heaped on you by steppers for

> your

> > > efforts. I'm not in their camp. I think one reason why that part

> of

> > > it is powerful for me is that I've been there too and seen that

> for

> > > myself. It rings true. The part about the childhood issues

> doesn't

> > > ring true to me because I'm in it, seeing it, doing it--not as a

> > > child, but as a parent. Yes, in our culture. Why can't you

> accept

> > > that as valid?

> > >

> >

> > I'm not sure what you are suggesting I am accepting as valid.

>

> It seems like to you the only important thing is a " study " and that

> personal experience is worthless (unless it agrees with your point of

> view).

Then I guess I have to elevate the credibility of AA members over what

the research actually shows. And I have to accept the world as flat

because that is how I experience it.

> Also, not in this one, but in the last post you made several

> personal insults. You've put your theory out there and a criticism of

> it does not warrant that response.

>

Then stop changing the subject to being about you whereever it is at

and stop making light of infant genital mutilation.

Ken Ragge

>

> See you,

>

[Guest guest]

Hello,

Yes, Ken, you will never convince me that 100% of the alcohol abuse

that I see, that I know, that I have experienced that I have read

about is directly related to children being abused by their parents,

by their circumstances or by any other factor. Abuse in an issue in

some people's lives. I am not minimizing that nor have I tried to.

But I also believe that just because a person has become alcohol

dependent DOES NOT MEAN that they suffered " abuse " in their past.

And yes, I do mean intentionally inflicted abuse by that as you most

frequently site. Further, I think it is destructive to tell them that

they have.

All people have traumas and frustrations in their lives both as

children and adults. Some people use alcohol to numb it. Some people

just like to drink, they get pleasure from it so they do it. They

don't have to have some deep dark past to feel good from alcohol use

or to get hooked. By attributing all alcohol use to that one cause,

you allow yourself to overlook, deny and ignore other causes or

influences, most especially personal responsibility.

Also, by attributing alcohol abuse to outside influences in all cases

you play into the powerlessness mindset. It surprises me that you

would want to do this.

Attributing alcohol abuse to child abuse also leads to entitlement.

" These awful things happened to me, so I'm entitled to drink myself

silly, nevermind who it hurts. " Now the person can see themselves

(should they believe you) as permanently damaged by their

circumstances and can't be held responsible for their actions.

You have constructed a lose <> lose situation and a tautology. In

your last post you were willing to see me as an " exception. " How

kind. In the next breath I " protest too much. " If I say I am not an

abused child and I have been an alcohol abuser I don't fit into your

theory. You can get around this by saying that I don't remember the

abuse, as you have asserted in analyzing other people's lives.

However, I don't think this is true of real abuse survivors. I think

they mostly know and remember exactly what happened to them. You can

get around it by claiming that I was never alcohol dependent as has

been done by diseasists. You would be wrong again. Finally, you can

get around it by widening the definition of abuse. To what purpose?

When you are questioned on it, you respond with hostility and personal

attacks. Some " moderator. " So, yes, I am done debating with you

about it, I don't need any more abuse from you. However, I'm not

going off this list because I get plenty of good out of the other

discussions.

[Guest guest]

Perhaps what Ken means is closer to " childhood trauma. " " Abuse " does

connote intentional infliction. Ken?

> Hello,

>

> Yes, Ken, you will never convince me that 100% of the alcohol abuse

> that I see, that I know, that I have experienced that I have read

> about is directly related to children being abused by their parents,

> by their circumstances or by any other factor. Abuse in an issue in

> some people's lives. I am not minimizing that nor have I tried to.

> But I also believe that just because a person has become alcohol

> dependent DOES NOT MEAN that they suffered " abuse " in their past.

> And yes, I do mean intentionally inflicted abuse by that as you most

> frequently site. Further, I think it is destructive to tell them

that

> they have.

>

> All people have traumas and frustrations in their lives both as

> children and adults. Some people use alcohol to numb it. Some

people

> just like to drink, they get pleasure from it so they do it. They

> don't have to have some deep dark past to feel good from alcohol use

> or to get hooked. By attributing all alcohol use to that one cause,

> you allow yourself to overlook, deny and ignore other causes or

> influences, most especially personal responsibility.

>

> Also, by attributing alcohol abuse to outside influences in all

cases

> you play into the powerlessness mindset. It surprises me that you

> would want to do this.

>

> Attributing alcohol abuse to child abuse also leads to entitlement.

> " These awful things happened to me, so I'm entitled to drink myself

> silly, nevermind who it hurts. " Now the person can see themselves

> (should they believe you) as permanently damaged by their

> circumstances and can't be held responsible for their actions.

>

> You have constructed a lose <> lose situation and a tautology. In

> your last post you were willing to see me as an " exception. " How

> kind. In the next breath I " protest too much. " If I say I am not

an

> abused child and I have been an alcohol abuser I don't fit into your

> theory. You can get around this by saying that I don't remember the

> abuse, as you have asserted in analyzing other people's lives.

> However, I don't think this is true of real abuse survivors. I

think

> they mostly know and remember exactly what happened to them. You

can

> get around it by claiming that I was never alcohol dependent as has

> been done by diseasists. You would be wrong again. Finally, you

can

> get around it by widening the definition of abuse. To what purpose?

>

> When you are questioned on it, you respond with hostility and

personal

> attacks. Some " moderator. " So, yes, I am done debating with you

> about it, I don't need any more abuse from you. However, I'm not

> going off this list because I get plenty of good out of the other

> discussions.

>

>

[Guest guest]

kayleighs@... wrote:

> Perhaps what Ken means is closer to " childhood trauma. " " Abuse " does

> connote intentional infliction. Ken?

>

Kayleigh,

That is _exactly_ what I mean.

Thanks for putting the right word in my mouth.<G>

Ken

[Guest guest]

kayleighs@... wrote:

> Perhaps what Ken means is closer to " childhood trauma. " " Abuse " does

> connote intentional infliction. Ken?

>

Kayleigh,

That is _exactly_ what I mean.

Thanks for putting the right word in my mouth.<G>

Ken

[Guest guest]

kayleighs@... wrote:

> Perhaps what Ken means is closer to " childhood trauma. " " Abuse " does

> connote intentional infliction. Ken?

>

Kayleigh,

That is _exactly_ what I mean.

Thanks for putting the right word in my mouth.<G>

Ken

[Guest guest]

> Perhaps what Ken means is closer to " childhood trauma. " " Abuse "

does

> connote intentional infliction. Ken?

Hi Kayleighs,

The dialogue has gotten too long and too polarized. I was originally

interested in Ken's book, " The Real AA. " This is the first few

paragraphs of chapter 6:

" The impact of early childhood lessons can be best understood in a

biological framework. Since human beings, relative to other animals,

survive by intellect rather than instinct, a human child's primary

biological urge is to *learn* [emphasis Ken's between stars] how to

survive, *to learn to be like his parents.* In this context, the

parent is the supreme, unquestionable authority. Winning parental

approval is, the the child's mind, equivalent to being worthy of

survival (lovable, good). Parental disapproval, likewise, is

equivalent to a message that something about the child is, in some

way, unfit for survival (unlovable, bad). Through parental

expressions of approval and disapproval, the child learns to see the

world, and himself, through his parents eyes. Barring traumatic

events, what a child learns by about age six remains as a framework

upon which all future learning is based.

[new paragraph]This parental authority, bsed in a *biological*

assumption of parental fitness for both parenthood and survival, is

the ultimate measuring stick for the child's perception of his own

fitness for survival/goodness/lovability or

unfitness/badness/unlovability.

[new paragraph]In the " ideal " family, parents have excellent

self-images, a good sense of their own self-worth, and a system of

values that serves them well. They effectively pass these on to their

children through modeling, mirroring, warm and loving support, and

encouragement of and confidence in the child's growing ability. In

the ideal family, the child learns that he is lovable by being loved.

He learns that he is capable of loving by the warm response of his

parents to his loving gestures. Because parents are the ultimate

authority, their show of interest and concern for the child, and

treatment of the child as valuable, *can't* be questioned. All this

is learned. All this is the framework on which future lessons are

built.

=============

I do express disapproval to my children at times. From watching them,

I know they understand that my disapproval is for various of their

actions rather than their *very beings.* When I read this chapter of

Ken's, in my parental role, I could not see how I could discipline my

children without harming them (even supposing I bought into the rest

of it).

There IS a confusion in terms. I think if we are discussing this that

there should be definitions and distinctions made between regular

discipline and abuse. The two are not synonymous. When I've asked

Ken to do this for me, he has declined.

Another thing that I need to strongly question is the idea, the MYTH,

that a loving upbringing necessarily means a loving, good, etc.,

person. I think it *helps,* but it is no guarantee. How many times

do you see the parent standing there, wondering, what in the hell did

I do wrong? The answer may be nothing. It may have been the

individual choices that person made on their own, no matter who he

chooses to blame for them.

OTOH, how many times do you see a *great* person survive a horrible

upbringing?

I believe, as humans, that we are the ultimate authority over our own

actions and that our pasts do not determine our futures.

See you,

[Guest guest]

I really don't want to open any wounds here, and I think that you and

Ken are simply polarized because of semantic problems. If Ken had

said " childhood trauma " from the outset, and if you hadn't felt so

overwhelmed by having no help with parenting, I doubt your

disagreements would have occurred. I know that when my son was small,

I often felt overwhelmed by the often contradictory advice that

experts offered, and I finally decided just not to care and try to use

common sense.

I think that both of you are, for the most part, right.

> > Perhaps what Ken means is closer to " childhood trauma. " " Abuse "

> does

> > connote intentional infliction. Ken?

>

> Hi Kayleighs,

>

> The dialogue has gotten too long and too polarized. I was

originally

> interested in Ken's book, " The Real AA. " This is the first few

> paragraphs of chapter 6:

>

> " The impact of early childhood lessons can be best understood in a

> biological framework. Since human beings, relative to other

animals,

> survive by intellect rather than instinct, a human child's primary

> biological urge is to *learn* [emphasis Ken's between stars] how to

> survive, *to learn to be like his parents.* In this context, the

> parent is the supreme, unquestionable authority. Winning parental

> approval is, the the child's mind, equivalent to being worthy of

> survival (lovable, good). Parental disapproval, likewise, is

> equivalent to a message that something about the child is, in some

> way, unfit for survival (unlovable, bad). Through parental

> expressions of approval and disapproval, the child learns to see the

> world, and himself, through his parents eyes. Barring traumatic

> events, what a child learns by about age six remains as a framework

> upon which all future learning is based.

> [new paragraph]This parental authority, bsed in a *biological*

> assumption of parental fitness for both parenthood and survival, is

> the ultimate measuring stick for the child's perception of his own

> fitness for survival/goodness/lovability or

> unfitness/badness/unlovability.

> [new paragraph]In the " ideal " family, parents have excellent

> self-images, a good sense of their own self-worth, and a system of

> values that serves them well. They effectively pass these on to

their

> children through modeling, mirroring, warm and loving support, and

> encouragement of and confidence in the child's growing ability. In

> the ideal family, the child learns that he is lovable by being

loved.

> He learns that he is capable of loving by the warm response of his

> parents to his loving gestures. Because parents are the ultimate

> authority, their show of interest and concern for the child, and

> treatment of the child as valuable, *can't* be questioned. All this

> is learned. All this is the framework on which future lessons are

> built.

>

> =============

>

> I do express disapproval to my children at times. From watching

them,

> I know they understand that my disapproval is for various of their

> actions rather than their *very beings.* When I read this chapter

of

> Ken's, in my parental role, I could not see how I could discipline

my

> children without harming them (even supposing I bought into the rest

> of it).

>

> There IS a confusion in terms. I think if we are discussing this

that

> there should be definitions and distinctions made between regular

> discipline and abuse. The two are not synonymous. When I've asked

> Ken to do this for me, he has declined.

>

> Another thing that I need to strongly question is the idea, the

MYTH,

> that a loving upbringing necessarily means a loving, good, etc.,

> person. I think it *helps,* but it is no guarantee. How many times

> do you see the parent standing there, wondering, what in the hell

did

> I do wrong? The answer may be nothing. It may have been the

> individual choices that person made on their own, no matter who he

> chooses to blame for them.

>

> OTOH, how many times do you see a *great* person survive a horrible

> upbringing?

>

> I believe, as humans, that we are the ultimate authority over our

own

> actions and that our pasts do not determine our futures.

>

> See you,

>

[Guest guest]

> I really don't want to open any wounds here, and I think that you

and

> Ken are simply polarized because of semantic problems. If Ken had

> said " childhood trauma " from the outset, and if you hadn't felt so

> overwhelmed by having no help with parenting, I doubt your

> disagreements would have occurred.

I know what you're saying here, but I can't agree. In another post,

Ken agreed that he means " childhood trauma, " responding to you, but

that isn't really what his chapter on " The Child " is all about. Even

as a former child without my kids I could not have agreed with it.

But you are right - with my children I am more sensitive to this. It

seems there is no *right* way to do it.

I know that when my son was

small,

> I often felt overwhelmed by the often contradictory advice that

> experts offered, and I finally decided just not to care and try to

use

> common sense.

This is what I propose to do from now on. With the advice there is

always the caveat " Use your own judgement, but.... " then they go on to

tell you exactly what to do. The current advice is very

child-centered and I do think this is one reason why Ken's analysis

struck the wrong chord.

However, beyond this, the idea that an individual's alcohol abusing

must always relate back to his childhood does not work for me. And

here I mean either " abuse " or " trauma " although I do find a

qualitative difference between the two. My true opinion on it is that

the average alcohol abuser's problems are much more immediate than

something that happened in childhood. I certainly think mine were.

I was taken in by disease theory. I truly thought I had " the disease

of alcoholism. " It let me off the hook for my behavior because I had

a disease. Having worked through that, and understanding the purposes

of that model has made me much more critical of any explanation,

including Ken's, especially when I can't square it with my reality.

In a way, disease theory was more convincing because I couldn't look

into my life and see it, to validate it or not. With Ken's I can. I

can look back and say that I wasn't abused or traumatized as a child.

In a couple of Ken's posts, he has attempted to use this very

affirmation to insinuate that there *was* something there. I do

object to this. I find this to be exactly the same as using " denial "

as a diagnosis criteria.

There is something else at work as well. When I was drinking a lot in

highschool, my mother always attempted to blame my behavior on my

friends. When I ran into problems later, the treatment center blamed

it on my disease. Ken thinks early childhood holds the key. Schaler

(bless his heart, I don't agree with everything he writes) puts it

down to me and I appreciate that. All these other theories assume

that I am a powerless child myself and can't control my own behavior.

I just can't help feeling that that isn't really doing me a service.

>

> I think that both of you are, for the most part, right.

Kayleighs, thanks for writing this.

See you,

[Guest guest]

> I really don't want to open any wounds here, and I think that you

and

> Ken are simply polarized because of semantic problems. If Ken had

> said " childhood trauma " from the outset, and if you hadn't felt so

> overwhelmed by having no help with parenting, I doubt your

> disagreements would have occurred.

I know what you're saying here, but I can't agree. In another post,

Ken agreed that he means " childhood trauma, " responding to you, but

that isn't really what his chapter on " The Child " is all about. Even

as a former child without my kids I could not have agreed with it.

But you are right - with my children I am more sensitive to this. It

seems there is no *right* way to do it.

I know that when my son was

small,

> I often felt overwhelmed by the often contradictory advice that

> experts offered, and I finally decided just not to care and try to

use

> common sense.

This is what I propose to do from now on. With the advice there is

always the caveat " Use your own judgement, but.... " then they go on to

tell you exactly what to do. The current advice is very

child-centered and I do think this is one reason why Ken's analysis

struck the wrong chord.

However, beyond this, the idea that an individual's alcohol abusing

must always relate back to his childhood does not work for me. And

here I mean either " abuse " or " trauma " although I do find a

qualitative difference between the two. My true opinion on it is that

the average alcohol abuser's problems are much more immediate than

something that happened in childhood. I certainly think mine were.

I was taken in by disease theory. I truly thought I had " the disease

of alcoholism. " It let me off the hook for my behavior because I had

a disease. Having worked through that, and understanding the purposes

of that model has made me much more critical of any explanation,

including Ken's, especially when I can't square it with my reality.

In a way, disease theory was more convincing because I couldn't look

into my life and see it, to validate it or not. With Ken's I can. I

can look back and say that I wasn't abused or traumatized as a child.

In a couple of Ken's posts, he has attempted to use this very

affirmation to insinuate that there *was* something there. I do

object to this. I find this to be exactly the same as using " denial "

as a diagnosis criteria.

There is something else at work as well. When I was drinking a lot in

highschool, my mother always attempted to blame my behavior on my

friends. When I ran into problems later, the treatment center blamed

it on my disease. Ken thinks early childhood holds the key. Schaler

(bless his heart, I don't agree with everything he writes) puts it

down to me and I appreciate that. All these other theories assume

that I am a powerless child myself and can't control my own behavior.

I just can't help feeling that that isn't really doing me a service.

>

> I think that both of you are, for the most part, right.

Kayleighs, thanks for writing this.

See you,

[Guest guest]

> I really don't want to open any wounds here, and I think that you

and

> Ken are simply polarized because of semantic problems. If Ken had

> said " childhood trauma " from the outset, and if you hadn't felt so

> overwhelmed by having no help with parenting, I doubt your

> disagreements would have occurred.

I know what you're saying here, but I can't agree. In another post,

Ken agreed that he means " childhood trauma, " responding to you, but

that isn't really what his chapter on " The Child " is all about. Even

as a former child without my kids I could not have agreed with it.

But you are right - with my children I am more sensitive to this. It

seems there is no *right* way to do it.

I know that when my son was

small,

> I often felt overwhelmed by the often contradictory advice that

> experts offered, and I finally decided just not to care and try to

use

> common sense.

This is what I propose to do from now on. With the advice there is

always the caveat " Use your own judgement, but.... " then they go on to

tell you exactly what to do. The current advice is very

child-centered and I do think this is one reason why Ken's analysis

struck the wrong chord.

However, beyond this, the idea that an individual's alcohol abusing

must always relate back to his childhood does not work for me. And

here I mean either " abuse " or " trauma " although I do find a

qualitative difference between the two. My true opinion on it is that

the average alcohol abuser's problems are much more immediate than

something that happened in childhood. I certainly think mine were.

I was taken in by disease theory. I truly thought I had " the disease

of alcoholism. " It let me off the hook for my behavior because I had

a disease. Having worked through that, and understanding the purposes

of that model has made me much more critical of any explanation,

including Ken's, especially when I can't square it with my reality.

In a way, disease theory was more convincing because I couldn't look

into my life and see it, to validate it or not. With Ken's I can. I

can look back and say that I wasn't abused or traumatized as a child.

In a couple of Ken's posts, he has attempted to use this very

affirmation to insinuate that there *was* something there. I do

object to this. I find this to be exactly the same as using " denial "

as a diagnosis criteria.

There is something else at work as well. When I was drinking a lot in

highschool, my mother always attempted to blame my behavior on my

friends. When I ran into problems later, the treatment center blamed

it on my disease. Ken thinks early childhood holds the key. Schaler

(bless his heart, I don't agree with everything he writes) puts it

down to me and I appreciate that. All these other theories assume

that I am a powerless child myself and can't control my own behavior.

I just can't help feeling that that isn't really doing me a service.

>

> I think that both of you are, for the most part, right.

Kayleighs, thanks for writing this.

See you,

[Guest guest]

>

> I've never heard any guy ever pin his abusive drinking on that. But

> if it makes you feel more comfortable with yourself to pretend that

> genital mutilation of boys in inconsequential, just go right ahead and

> fabricate away. I pointed you to documented sources on just how

> painful it is and precisely what is cut off.

>

> The practice started in the late 1800s as punishment for masturbation.

> They started doing it in infants because of the misguided belief that infants

>

> feel no pain and they'd be protected from the dangers of the flesh

> (sexual sensation).

>

------------------

Ken -- I don't want to re-open the circumcision debate (you are clearly

closed to all evidence which conflicts with the hyperbole of the anti-circ

groups), but the above is blatantly false. Circumcision dates back more than

3500 years to Mesopotamian and other Near Eastern fertility-worshipping tribes.

Peruse any archeology textbook dealing with that era and you will see pictures

of the phallic-deity statues found in the region -- figurines with huge, erect,

circumcised penises. Judaism, in the opinion of most anthropologists, evolved

from these fertility cults -- and circumcision has been continually practiced by

Jews for 3,000 years. Judaism also has no history of condemning or demonizing

sexuality or sexual sensation.

I am disappointed that after many posts describing the significance and

importance of circumcision to the Jewish people, you would continue to

intentionally ignore this, and make the assertion that circumcision was

" invented " 100 years ago by Christians who were uptight about masturbation.

~Rita

p.s. By the way, according to one of my college anthropology texts, the Pygmies

whom you so admire, practice circumcision of their boys in a coming-of-age

ceremony when they are between 9 and 13 years old. The practice may have been

adopted from neighboring Bantu tribes, but it is practiced nonetheless.

[Guest guest]

Pipercubxt@... wrote:

> In a message dated 4/4/01 9:37:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time, kenr1@...

> writes:

>

> << 'm not so sure schizophrenia is not the result of a combination of

> genetics and

> environment. The assumption is it is all genetic (or at least biochemical)

> and

> it may be true that certain " predispositions " are necessary for it to come

> into

> being. However, could that merely be a matter of where and how someone

> _breaks_? From what I've seen, schizophrenics _do not_ come from anything

> like a normal environment, although they could come from a house with

> a nicely manicured lawn and white picket fence.

>

>

> >

> > If we don't stick with systematically examining things, we will feel badly

> > when we find out that the primary cause of abuse in people is, say, onions

> in

> > the diet!

> >

>

> I'll leave the search for cause and effect between onions in the diet and

> abuse

> to

> you. <G>

>

> Ken

> >>

> <G> gee thanks. You have some very good points. My first thought

> was that if you are going to ask for responses to an abuse question, you

> probably wouldn't want to do it on the Geraldo show. Lol. Talk about skewing

> responses .. . With the examples you gave, at least they admitted to the

> behavior of someone beating them. If you provide items that cover just the

> facts of what happened to them and then an item about how they interpreted

> what happened, at least you have documentation of behavioral abuse. You are

> probably right about some who would not even report the behavior. A lot of

> times people will use the numbers they obtain for people reporting whatever

> behavior or emotion and then try to extrapolate from that # , that % who

> might be in this latter category as silently abused, having some expertise,

> as you do about the dynamics of abuse. I hope I am not boring you and

> everyone to death.

>

> There are other points I would like to respond to, but just today I found

> more recent findings on schizophrenia (doing a paper) that I want to share

> with you. Also, just recently in the news, it was reported that they found

> the gene associated with a particular kind of schizophrenia--catatonia, and

> the search is on for others. They studied in depth, the families in which

> catatonic schizophrenia was present. I agree, no one knows percentages of

> genetic or learned causality factors.

>

> This comes from an article on working memory (vs. long-term stored memory) in

> which there is short-term storage of input so that we can manipulate the data

> coming in, e.g. making decisions and having to hold one thing in memory for

> brief time while considering another aspect of situation. Just delete if

> this gets too ponderous lol

>

> " .......prefrontal areas display depressed blood flow or metabolism in

> patients with schizophrenia, depression and other conditions of impaired

> affect or cognition. As might be expected if working memory were essential

> to executive function, working-memory deficits and correlated prefrontal

> dysfunction have been demonstrated in schizophrenics, in Parkinson patients,

> and age-related memory decline---neuropathological conditions in which

> impairments of higher cortical processing are expressed. Prefrontal cortical

> volume is reduced in schizophrenia and cellular changes have also been

> observed in prefontal areas in this disorder. On the strength of these and

> other findings, Goldman-Rakic has proposed that working memory dysfunction

> may be the core functional deficit underlying thought disorder in

> schizophrena. It has now become clear that schizophrenic patients are also

> impaired in tasks requiring working memory. " (these results are from PET

> scans of brain). http://cognet.mit.edu/MITECS/Articles/raichle.html

>

> I can't find other article--later. It was essentially that the schizophrenic

> is like someone who is derailed in thought processes because of these brain

> deficits. If you don't have this basic communication system and memory to

> work with, it is unreasonable to expect that they can learn positive, no less

> negative effects from people or the environment. This is always a matter of

> degree of course, but the whole " mainframe " is out of whack.

>

> Anyway, thanks for replying. Piper

Piper,

Even assuming that the brain functions in the various schizophrenias exactly

as postulated, this says _nothing_ about origin.

In adults, " mental disorders, " changes in brain function, can be evoked. For

example, someone undergoing the " hot seat " can become psychotic. Doubtless,

there are differences in brain function. More sugar is taken up here, less

there.

The brain most certainly is working " differently. "

In an adult, where most of the brain growth has already occurred, one wouldn't

expect drastic changes in brain structure, at least over the short term. But

what about the small child who _lives_ in " the hot seat " during a period of

rapid

brain growth where the brain is growing in direct response to the environment,

where the brain is learning how to adapt to the world?

As far as the gene for catatonic schizophrenia being found, I'll believe it when

I see confirming studies. Over the last decade or so, there have been a number

of such pronouncements on varying diseases and social problems. When the

alcoholism gene was last found, there were front page stories in every major

newspaper and lead stories about it on all the major networks. Only in the very

back of some of the newspaper articles was it mentioned that the method used was

one that in every previous case, with other diseases, was found to be in error.

Of course, this finding was debunked by attempts at repetition. I don't trust

studies that find _the_ gene that _causes_ a complex human behavior.

The most reasonable thing I've ever seen about (paranoid) schizophrenics is from

a most unreasonable source -- M. Peck.

Peck was told about seeing the mother of one of his schizophrenic patients. In

telling her how well her child was now doing, the mother kept reponding about

her

child's sadness. Sort of odd considering what she was being told and what her

professed concerns were.

According to Peck, the schizophrenicgenic mother suffers a particular disorder

in

which other people only exist as a reflection of her loathed self. The examples

he gave of interaction between mother and child are:

Little girl gets a hundred on a spelling test and, all excited, tells Mom about

it. Depending how Mom feels, is how Mom responds. If she happens to be tired,

she will tell the child, " You must be exhausted. Go take a nap. "

By the same token, if the child comes in crying and telling of how the boys on

the bus slapped her around, if Mom happens to be in a cheerful mood she might

respond, " That bus driver is so nice for putting up with you kids cutting up.

We

ought to buy him a real nice present this Christmas. "

Note that this is far different from the mother responding in the first instance

" Who cares. I'm tired and going to bed " and " What do I care. I'll not let

your

whining distract me from enjoying my day. "

Take this a step further back in time, when the little girl is an infant in the

crib. What will the mother do when _she_ is hungry, tired, angry, has to use

the

bathroom, etc.

An infant in a crib has no power in the situation whatsoever. The child, from

the mother's perspective, only exists as a projection of the mother.

As I've noted before, psychiatrists discount their high suicide rate by telling

how difficult it is working with mentally ill people all day -- it is so awful

it

pushes many of them off the edge. Then they turn around and discount the effect

on someone growing up with, and completely subjected to the whims of, those very

same mentally ill people.

I could go on but it is getting late.

Ken

[Guest guest]

Pipercubxt@... wrote:

> In a message dated 4/4/01 9:37:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time, kenr1@...

> writes:

>

> << 'm not so sure schizophrenia is not the result of a combination of

> genetics and

> environment. The assumption is it is all genetic (or at least biochemical)

> and

> it may be true that certain " predispositions " are necessary for it to come

> into

> being. However, could that merely be a matter of where and how someone

> _breaks_? From what I've seen, schizophrenics _do not_ come from anything

> like a normal environment, although they could come from a house with

> a nicely manicured lawn and white picket fence.

>

>

> >

> > If we don't stick with systematically examining things, we will feel badly

> > when we find out that the primary cause of abuse in people is, say, onions

> in

> > the diet!

> >

>

> I'll leave the search for cause and effect between onions in the diet and

> abuse

> to

> you. <G>

>

> Ken

> >>

> <G> gee thanks. You have some very good points. My first thought

> was that if you are going to ask for responses to an abuse question, you

> probably wouldn't want to do it on the Geraldo show. Lol. Talk about skewing

> responses .. . With the examples you gave, at least they admitted to the

> behavior of someone beating them. If you provide items that cover just the

> facts of what happened to them and then an item about how they interpreted

> what happened, at least you have documentation of behavioral abuse. You are

> probably right about some who would not even report the behavior. A lot of

> times people will use the numbers they obtain for people reporting whatever

> behavior or emotion and then try to extrapolate from that # , that % who

> might be in this latter category as silently abused, having some expertise,

> as you do about the dynamics of abuse. I hope I am not boring you and

> everyone to death.

>

> There are other points I would like to respond to, but just today I found

> more recent findings on schizophrenia (doing a paper) that I want to share

> with you. Also, just recently in the news, it was reported that they found

> the gene associated with a particular kind of schizophrenia--catatonia, and

> the search is on for others. They studied in depth, the families in which

> catatonic schizophrenia was present. I agree, no one knows percentages of

> genetic or learned causality factors.

>

> This comes from an article on working memory (vs. long-term stored memory) in

> which there is short-term storage of input so that we can manipulate the data

> coming in, e.g. making decisions and having to hold one thing in memory for

> brief time while considering another aspect of situation. Just delete if

> this gets too ponderous lol

>

> " .......prefrontal areas display depressed blood flow or metabolism in

> patients with schizophrenia, depression and other conditions of impaired

> affect or cognition. As might be expected if working memory were essential

> to executive function, working-memory deficits and correlated prefrontal

> dysfunction have been demonstrated in schizophrenics, in Parkinson patients,

> and age-related memory decline---neuropathological conditions in which

> impairments of higher cortical processing are expressed. Prefrontal cortical

> volume is reduced in schizophrenia and cellular changes have also been

> observed in prefontal areas in this disorder. On the strength of these and

> other findings, Goldman-Rakic has proposed that working memory dysfunction

> may be the core functional deficit underlying thought disorder in

> schizophrena. It has now become clear that schizophrenic patients are also

> impaired in tasks requiring working memory. " (these results are from PET

> scans of brain). http://cognet.mit.edu/MITECS/Articles/raichle.html

>

> I can't find other article--later. It was essentially that the schizophrenic

> is like someone who is derailed in thought processes because of these brain

> deficits. If you don't have this basic communication system and memory to

> work with, it is unreasonable to expect that they can learn positive, no less

> negative effects from people or the environment. This is always a matter of

> degree of course, but the whole " mainframe " is out of whack.

>

> Anyway, thanks for replying. Piper

Piper,

Even assuming that the brain functions in the various schizophrenias exactly

as postulated, this says _nothing_ about origin.

In adults, " mental disorders, " changes in brain function, can be evoked. For

example, someone undergoing the " hot seat " can become psychotic. Doubtless,

there are differences in brain function. More sugar is taken up here, less

there.

The brain most certainly is working " differently. "

In an adult, where most of the brain growth has already occurred, one wouldn't

expect drastic changes in brain structure, at least over the short term. But

what about the small child who _lives_ in " the hot seat " during a period of

rapid

brain growth where the brain is growing in direct response to the environment,

where the brain is learning how to adapt to the world?

As far as the gene for catatonic schizophrenia being found, I'll believe it when

I see confirming studies. Over the last decade or so, there have been a number

of such pronouncements on varying diseases and social problems. When the

alcoholism gene was last found, there were front page stories in every major

newspaper and lead stories about it on all the major networks. Only in the very

back of some of the newspaper articles was it mentioned that the method used was

one that in every previous case, with other diseases, was found to be in error.

Of course, this finding was debunked by attempts at repetition. I don't trust

studies that find _the_ gene that _causes_ a complex human behavior.

The most reasonable thing I've ever seen about (paranoid) schizophrenics is from

a most unreasonable source -- M. Peck.

Peck was told about seeing the mother of one of his schizophrenic patients. In

telling her how well her child was now doing, the mother kept reponding about

her

child's sadness. Sort of odd considering what she was being told and what her

professed concerns were.

According to Peck, the schizophrenicgenic mother suffers a particular disorder

in

which other people only exist as a reflection of her loathed self. The examples

he gave of interaction between mother and child are:

Little girl gets a hundred on a spelling test and, all excited, tells Mom about

it. Depending how Mom feels, is how Mom responds. If she happens to be tired,

she will tell the child, " You must be exhausted. Go take a nap. "

By the same token, if the child comes in crying and telling of how the boys on

the bus slapped her around, if Mom happens to be in a cheerful mood she might

respond, " That bus driver is so nice for putting up with you kids cutting up.

We

ought to buy him a real nice present this Christmas. "

Note that this is far different from the mother responding in the first instance

" Who cares. I'm tired and going to bed " and " What do I care. I'll not let

your

whining distract me from enjoying my day. "

Take this a step further back in time, when the little girl is an infant in the

crib. What will the mother do when _she_ is hungry, tired, angry, has to use

the

bathroom, etc.

An infant in a crib has no power in the situation whatsoever. The child, from

the mother's perspective, only exists as a projection of the mother.

As I've noted before, psychiatrists discount their high suicide rate by telling

how difficult it is working with mentally ill people all day -- it is so awful

it

pushes many of them off the edge. Then they turn around and discount the effect

on someone growing up with, and completely subjected to the whims of, those very

same mentally ill people.

I could go on but it is getting late.

Ken

[Guest guest]

Pipercubxt@... wrote:

> In a message dated 4/4/01 9:37:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time, kenr1@...

> writes:

>

> << 'm not so sure schizophrenia is not the result of a combination of

> genetics and

> environment. The assumption is it is all genetic (or at least biochemical)

> and

> it may be true that certain " predispositions " are necessary for it to come

> into

> being. However, could that merely be a matter of where and how someone

> _breaks_? From what I've seen, schizophrenics _do not_ come from anything

> like a normal environment, although they could come from a house with

> a nicely manicured lawn and white picket fence.

>

>

> >

> > If we don't stick with systematically examining things, we will feel badly

> > when we find out that the primary cause of abuse in people is, say, onions

> in

> > the diet!

> >

>

> I'll leave the search for cause and effect between onions in the diet and

> abuse

> to

> you. <G>

>

> Ken

> >>

> <G> gee thanks. You have some very good points. My first thought

> was that if you are going to ask for responses to an abuse question, you

> probably wouldn't want to do it on the Geraldo show. Lol. Talk about skewing

> responses .. . With the examples you gave, at least they admitted to the

> behavior of someone beating them. If you provide items that cover just the

> facts of what happened to them and then an item about how they interpreted

> what happened, at least you have documentation of behavioral abuse. You are

> probably right about some who would not even report the behavior. A lot of

> times people will use the numbers they obtain for people reporting whatever

> behavior or emotion and then try to extrapolate from that # , that % who

> might be in this latter category as silently abused, having some expertise,

> as you do about the dynamics of abuse. I hope I am not boring you and

> everyone to death.

>

> There are other points I would like to respond to, but just today I found

> more recent findings on schizophrenia (doing a paper) that I want to share

> with you. Also, just recently in the news, it was reported that they found

> the gene associated with a particular kind of schizophrenia--catatonia, and

> the search is on for others. They studied in depth, the families in which

> catatonic schizophrenia was present. I agree, no one knows percentages of

> genetic or learned causality factors.

>

> This comes from an article on working memory (vs. long-term stored memory) in

> which there is short-term storage of input so that we can manipulate the data

> coming in, e.g. making decisions and having to hold one thing in memory for

> brief time while considering another aspect of situation. Just delete if

> this gets too ponderous lol

>

> " .......prefrontal areas display depressed blood flow or metabolism in

> patients with schizophrenia, depression and other conditions of impaired

> affect or cognition. As might be expected if working memory were essential

> to executive function, working-memory deficits and correlated prefrontal

> dysfunction have been demonstrated in schizophrenics, in Parkinson patients,

> and age-related memory decline---neuropathological conditions in which

> impairments of higher cortical processing are expressed. Prefrontal cortical

> volume is reduced in schizophrenia and cellular changes have also been

> observed in prefontal areas in this disorder. On the strength of these and

> other findings, Goldman-Rakic has proposed that working memory dysfunction

> may be the core functional deficit underlying thought disorder in

> schizophrena. It has now become clear that schizophrenic patients are also

> impaired in tasks requiring working memory. " (these results are from PET

> scans of brain). http://cognet.mit.edu/MITECS/Articles/raichle.html

>

> I can't find other article--later. It was essentially that the schizophrenic

> is like someone who is derailed in thought processes because of these brain

> deficits. If you don't have this basic communication system and memory to

> work with, it is unreasonable to expect that they can learn positive, no less

> negative effects from people or the environment. This is always a matter of

> degree of course, but the whole " mainframe " is out of whack.

>

> Anyway, thanks for replying. Piper

Piper,

Even assuming that the brain functions in the various schizophrenias exactly

as postulated, this says _nothing_ about origin.

In adults, " mental disorders, " changes in brain function, can be evoked. For

example, someone undergoing the " hot seat " can become psychotic. Doubtless,

there are differences in brain function. More sugar is taken up here, less

there.

The brain most certainly is working " differently. "

In an adult, where most of the brain growth has already occurred, one wouldn't

expect drastic changes in brain structure, at least over the short term. But

what about the small child who _lives_ in " the hot seat " during a period of

rapid

brain growth where the brain is growing in direct response to the environment,

where the brain is learning how to adapt to the world?

As far as the gene for catatonic schizophrenia being found, I'll believe it when

I see confirming studies. Over the last decade or so, there have been a number

of such pronouncements on varying diseases and social problems. When the

alcoholism gene was last found, there were front page stories in every major

newspaper and lead stories about it on all the major networks. Only in the very

back of some of the newspaper articles was it mentioned that the method used was

one that in every previous case, with other diseases, was found to be in error.

Of course, this finding was debunked by attempts at repetition. I don't trust

studies that find _the_ gene that _causes_ a complex human behavior.

The most reasonable thing I've ever seen about (paranoid) schizophrenics is from

a most unreasonable source -- M. Peck.

Peck was told about seeing the mother of one of his schizophrenic patients. In

telling her how well her child was now doing, the mother kept reponding about

her

child's sadness. Sort of odd considering what she was being told and what her

professed concerns were.

According to Peck, the schizophrenicgenic mother suffers a particular disorder

in

which other people only exist as a reflection of her loathed self. The examples

he gave of interaction between mother and child are:

Little girl gets a hundred on a spelling test and, all excited, tells Mom about

it. Depending how Mom feels, is how Mom responds. If she happens to be tired,

she will tell the child, " You must be exhausted. Go take a nap. "

By the same token, if the child comes in crying and telling of how the boys on

the bus slapped her around, if Mom happens to be in a cheerful mood she might

respond, " That bus driver is so nice for putting up with you kids cutting up.

We

ought to buy him a real nice present this Christmas. "

Note that this is far different from the mother responding in the first instance

" Who cares. I'm tired and going to bed " and " What do I care. I'll not let

your

whining distract me from enjoying my day. "

Take this a step further back in time, when the little girl is an infant in the

crib. What will the mother do when _she_ is hungry, tired, angry, has to use

the

bathroom, etc.

An infant in a crib has no power in the situation whatsoever. The child, from

the mother's perspective, only exists as a projection of the mother.

As I've noted before, psychiatrists discount their high suicide rate by telling

how difficult it is working with mentally ill people all day -- it is so awful

it

pushes many of them off the edge. Then they turn around and discount the effect

on someone growing up with, and completely subjected to the whims of, those very

same mentally ill people.

I could go on but it is getting late.

Ken

[Guest guest]

kayleighs@... wrote:

> Has any disbeliever here now come around to the belief that

> schizophrenia is a disease?

Kayleighs,

I've never questioned differences in brain function. What I question is the

insistence that the important place to look and find answers is in in the

details of genetics and biochemical reactions.

What I've seen of disease treatment of paranoid schizophrenics is that

someone undergoing a great deal of stress (hearing voices) is sequestered

away in a mental hospital, given drugs that the patient _knows_ will cause

permanent brain damage to " alleviate the symptoms " and then sent back to the

insane environment that brought on the situation in the first place. Being

" better " is simply being compliant with the craziest of the crazies.

What I've always argued against is taking someone's behavior (and particular

brain chemistry) out of the context of their life, and taking the hope of

changing one's life out of one's own hands and turning it over to

less-than-sympathetic authority.

If brain differences connote disease, then taxi-drivers also have a disease,

since the part of their brains that are involved with finding one's way about

are of an abnormally large size.

I'm not sure it is much different than " alcoholism. " Once labelled with a

disease, one must look to outside authority and follow instruction to keep

the disease at bay. Fundamental changes, like making one's own choices,

changing the way one views internal response or the outside world, changing

the way one interacts with their environment, or changing environments are

forclosed. " I have a (biochemical) disease and must do as the disease

experts tell me. "

Of course, admitted by the healers themselves, no one _ever_ really gets well

without their constant intervention. However, even with some schizophrenics,

without treatment they " outgrow " their schizophrenia. The voices are seen as

just that, one's own disowned voice and may even go away -- permanently. The

facts are, not discounting that some people are so damaged that drugs,

institutionalization, whatever is the best way to go, that the brain

_continues_ to change and grow and adapt to the environment.

Ken

[Guest guest]

kayleighs@... wrote:

> Has any disbeliever here now come around to the belief that

> schizophrenia is a disease?

Kayleighs,

I've never questioned differences in brain function. What I question is the

insistence that the important place to look and find answers is in in the

details of genetics and biochemical reactions.

What I've seen of disease treatment of paranoid schizophrenics is that

someone undergoing a great deal of stress (hearing voices) is sequestered

away in a mental hospital, given drugs that the patient _knows_ will cause

permanent brain damage to " alleviate the symptoms " and then sent back to the

insane environment that brought on the situation in the first place. Being

" better " is simply being compliant with the craziest of the crazies.

What I've always argued against is taking someone's behavior (and particular

brain chemistry) out of the context of their life, and taking the hope of

changing one's life out of one's own hands and turning it over to

less-than-sympathetic authority.

If brain differences connote disease, then taxi-drivers also have a disease,

since the part of their brains that are involved with finding one's way about

are of an abnormally large size.

I'm not sure it is much different than " alcoholism. " Once labelled with a

disease, one must look to outside authority and follow instruction to keep

the disease at bay. Fundamental changes, like making one's own choices,

changing the way one views internal response or the outside world, changing

the way one interacts with their environment, or changing environments are

forclosed. " I have a (biochemical) disease and must do as the disease

experts tell me. "

Of course, admitted by the healers themselves, no one _ever_ really gets well

without their constant intervention. However, even with some schizophrenics,

without treatment they " outgrow " their schizophrenia. The voices are seen as

just that, one's own disowned voice and may even go away -- permanently. The

facts are, not discounting that some people are so damaged that drugs,

institutionalization, whatever is the best way to go, that the brain

_continues_ to change and grow and adapt to the environment.

Ken