Re: Ken, Alcohol abuser = abused child?

[Guest guest]

> 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.

>

-------------

(No argument from me there)

> 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.

>

-------------------

You know, Ken, I must say I've noticed a tendency in several of your recent

posts, to extrapolate from a handful of anecdotal examples, to pronouncements

about human beings in general. You spoke of the unhappy and possibly abusive

childhoods of 3 alcohol abusers -- then used this to claim that therefore *all*

alcohol abusers *must* have had traumatic or abusive childhoods. Now you

mention ONE mother of a schizophrenic, and purport to draw conclusions about

mothers of schizophrenics in general??

Despite what 12-step adorer M. Peck says, there have been no

scientific studies showing ANY distinct causation or correlation between any

type of childhood experiences, parenting styles, etc., and either schizophrenia

or so-called " addictive personality " -- in fact, the whole idea of there being a

certain personality common to alcohol/drug addicts has been completely

discredited by all research. These ideas may seem appealing, but I'm afraid

they are nothing more than mythology. And I find it curious that you are (quite

reasonably) skeptical about the validity of claims of " undesirable behavior

genes " being discovered -- but have no such interest in checking the validity of

claims of " maternal personality " causation of adult behaviors and conditions.

> 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. "

>

----------------

Sounds like a very annoying and self-involved mother, whom the child would

probably not choose to be close with when grown -- but a " schizophrenegenic

mother " ?? -- the notion has no scientific merit, was long ago discredited. Peck

is a quack if he espouses such tripe. Mothers of schizophrenics, as with

mothers of substance abusers, mothers of gays, etc., are as varied and

individual in their personalities and styles as human beings at large.

~Rita

[Guest guest]

> 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.

>

-------------

(No argument from me there)

> 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.

>

-------------------

You know, Ken, I must say I've noticed a tendency in several of your recent

posts, to extrapolate from a handful of anecdotal examples, to pronouncements

about human beings in general. You spoke of the unhappy and possibly abusive

childhoods of 3 alcohol abusers -- then used this to claim that therefore *all*

alcohol abusers *must* have had traumatic or abusive childhoods. Now you

mention ONE mother of a schizophrenic, and purport to draw conclusions about

mothers of schizophrenics in general??

Despite what 12-step adorer M. Peck says, there have been no

scientific studies showing ANY distinct causation or correlation between any

type of childhood experiences, parenting styles, etc., and either schizophrenia

or so-called " addictive personality " -- in fact, the whole idea of there being a

certain personality common to alcohol/drug addicts has been completely

discredited by all research. These ideas may seem appealing, but I'm afraid

they are nothing more than mythology. And I find it curious that you are (quite

reasonably) skeptical about the validity of claims of " undesirable behavior

genes " being discovered -- but have no such interest in checking the validity of

claims of " maternal personality " causation of adult behaviors and conditions.

> 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. "

>

----------------

Sounds like a very annoying and self-involved mother, whom the child would

probably not choose to be close with when grown -- but a " schizophrenegenic

mother " ?? -- the notion has no scientific merit, was long ago discredited. Peck

is a quack if he espouses such tripe. Mothers of schizophrenics, as with

mothers of substance abusers, mothers of gays, etc., are as varied and

individual in their personalities and styles as human beings at large.

~Rita

[Guest guest]

> 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.

>

-------------

(No argument from me there)

> 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.

>

-------------------

You know, Ken, I must say I've noticed a tendency in several of your recent

posts, to extrapolate from a handful of anecdotal examples, to pronouncements

about human beings in general. You spoke of the unhappy and possibly abusive

childhoods of 3 alcohol abusers -- then used this to claim that therefore *all*

alcohol abusers *must* have had traumatic or abusive childhoods. Now you

mention ONE mother of a schizophrenic, and purport to draw conclusions about

mothers of schizophrenics in general??

Despite what 12-step adorer M. Peck says, there have been no

scientific studies showing ANY distinct causation or correlation between any

type of childhood experiences, parenting styles, etc., and either schizophrenia

or so-called " addictive personality " -- in fact, the whole idea of there being a

certain personality common to alcohol/drug addicts has been completely

discredited by all research. These ideas may seem appealing, but I'm afraid

they are nothing more than mythology. And I find it curious that you are (quite

reasonably) skeptical about the validity of claims of " undesirable behavior

genes " being discovered -- but have no such interest in checking the validity of

claims of " maternal personality " causation of adult behaviors and conditions.

> 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. "

>

----------------

Sounds like a very annoying and self-involved mother, whom the child would

probably not choose to be close with when grown -- but a " schizophrenegenic

mother " ?? -- the notion has no scientific merit, was long ago discredited. Peck

is a quack if he espouses such tripe. Mothers of schizophrenics, as with

mothers of substance abusers, mothers of gays, etc., are as varied and

individual in their personalities and styles as human beings at large.

~Rita

[Guest guest]

rita66@... wrote:

<--- snip a point of agreement which I probably shouldn't have done, since we've

agreed so little lately <G> --->

> 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.

> >

>

> -------------------

>

> You know, Ken, I must say I've noticed a tendency in several of your

recent posts, to extrapolate from a handful of anecdotal examples, to

pronouncements about human beings in general. You spoke of the unhappy and

possibly abusive childhoods of 3 alcohol abusers -- then used this to claim that

therefore *all* alcohol abusers *must* have had traumatic or abusive childhoods.

Now you mention ONE mother of a schizophrenic, and purport to draw conclusions

about mothers of schizophrenics in general??

Rita,

What am I to do in an e-mail format? Certainly, as far as the three alcoholics

go, there was certainly research background information from various scientific

journals before the three were presented as examples. Two of them were chosen

as examples because they were the most famous alcoholics about. The third was

chosen in order to make clear that it wasn't necessarily a matter of anyone's

fault.

I have _never_ met anyone who had a more severe drinking problem that didn't

have severe trauma in childhood, ever. I'm not discounting that it can't

happen, but I haven't seen it. Shortly after writing the book I got a phone

call from someone soliciting money for some sort of " help educate the children "

twelve stepper. I told him I didn't buy the disease theory and that the origins

were in childhood. He responded that there was nothing in his childhood that

could have caused his destructive drinking and then went on and told me that his

parents died and he was raised by his grandparents who were Jehovah's Witnesses.

There is ample evidence that childhood environment is a big influencing factor

in the later development of addictions of all sorts. Am I to post research

papers? Is that what you are asking? I'll certainly dig up a few cites for you

if you like.

As far as one example of a schizophrenic mother, yes, that is one example from a

psychiatrist that matches what I've seen. Is it proof? Or is it fodder for

discussion? It is fodder for discussion.

>

>

> Despite what 12-step adorer M. Peck says,

I'm not at all a fan of Peck. I used to like to say that in all the hundreds of

pages of his there were only two things I found of interest.

> there have been no scientific studies showing ANY distinct causation or

correlation between any type of childhood experiences, parenting styles, etc.,

and either schizophrenia or so-called " addictive personality " -- in fact, the

whole idea of there being a certain personality common to alcohol/drug addicts

has been completely discredited by all research. These ideas may seem

appealing, but I'm afraid they are nothing more than mythology. And I find it

curious that you are (quite reasonably) skeptical about the validity of claims

of " undesirable behavior genes " being discovered -- but have no such interest in

checking the validity of claims of " maternal personality " causation of adult

behaviors and conditions.

>

Who said no interest? What I find is, at best, more or less moralistic

nonsense. Perhaps the whole concept of " maternal personality " is wrong. Going

off into a bit of a different area, I had a noted university professor tell me

that it has been proved that infants don't remember and then used evidence of no

verbal memory as proof of no memory.

>

>

> > 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. "

> >

> ----------------

>

> Sounds like a very annoying and self-involved mother, whom the child

would probably not choose to be close with when grown -- but a

" schizophrenegenic mother " ?? -- the notion has no scientific merit, was long ago

discredited. Peck is a quack if he espouses such tripe. Mothers of

schizophrenics, as with mothers of substance abusers, mothers of gays, etc., are

as varied and individual in their personalities and styles as human beings at

large.

Let me repeat myself and ask you. Psychiatrist justify their high suicide rate

by telling of the difficulty of working with mentally ill people all day -- it

is just so terribly depressing, that many fine, stable people just can not

endure it. Now you tell me how a child, growing up since infancy, is not going

to be seriously adversely effected with those same " crazy " people who push

psychiatrists of into suicide are put in a position of absolute power over them.

Ken Ragge

>

>

> ~Rita

[Guest guest]

rita66@... wrote:

<--- snip a point of agreement which I probably shouldn't have done, since we've

agreed so little lately <G> --->

> 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.

> >

>

> -------------------

>

> You know, Ken, I must say I've noticed a tendency in several of your

recent posts, to extrapolate from a handful of anecdotal examples, to

pronouncements about human beings in general. You spoke of the unhappy and

possibly abusive childhoods of 3 alcohol abusers -- then used this to claim that

therefore *all* alcohol abusers *must* have had traumatic or abusive childhoods.

Now you mention ONE mother of a schizophrenic, and purport to draw conclusions

about mothers of schizophrenics in general??

Rita,

What am I to do in an e-mail format? Certainly, as far as the three alcoholics

go, there was certainly research background information from various scientific

journals before the three were presented as examples. Two of them were chosen

as examples because they were the most famous alcoholics about. The third was

chosen in order to make clear that it wasn't necessarily a matter of anyone's

fault.

I have _never_ met anyone who had a more severe drinking problem that didn't

have severe trauma in childhood, ever. I'm not discounting that it can't

happen, but I haven't seen it. Shortly after writing the book I got a phone

call from someone soliciting money for some sort of " help educate the children "

twelve stepper. I told him I didn't buy the disease theory and that the origins

were in childhood. He responded that there was nothing in his childhood that

could have caused his destructive drinking and then went on and told me that his

parents died and he was raised by his grandparents who were Jehovah's Witnesses.

There is ample evidence that childhood environment is a big influencing factor

in the later development of addictions of all sorts. Am I to post research

papers? Is that what you are asking? I'll certainly dig up a few cites for you

if you like.

As far as one example of a schizophrenic mother, yes, that is one example from a

psychiatrist that matches what I've seen. Is it proof? Or is it fodder for

discussion? It is fodder for discussion.

>

>

> Despite what 12-step adorer M. Peck says,

I'm not at all a fan of Peck. I used to like to say that in all the hundreds of

pages of his there were only two things I found of interest.

> there have been no scientific studies showing ANY distinct causation or

correlation between any type of childhood experiences, parenting styles, etc.,

and either schizophrenia or so-called " addictive personality " -- in fact, the

whole idea of there being a certain personality common to alcohol/drug addicts

has been completely discredited by all research. These ideas may seem

appealing, but I'm afraid they are nothing more than mythology. And I find it

curious that you are (quite reasonably) skeptical about the validity of claims

of " undesirable behavior genes " being discovered -- but have no such interest in

checking the validity of claims of " maternal personality " causation of adult

behaviors and conditions.

>

Who said no interest? What I find is, at best, more or less moralistic

nonsense. Perhaps the whole concept of " maternal personality " is wrong. Going

off into a bit of a different area, I had a noted university professor tell me

that it has been proved that infants don't remember and then used evidence of no

verbal memory as proof of no memory.

>

>

> > 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. "

> >

> ----------------

>

> Sounds like a very annoying and self-involved mother, whom the child

would probably not choose to be close with when grown -- but a

" schizophrenegenic mother " ?? -- the notion has no scientific merit, was long ago

discredited. Peck is a quack if he espouses such tripe. Mothers of

schizophrenics, as with mothers of substance abusers, mothers of gays, etc., are

as varied and individual in their personalities and styles as human beings at

large.

Let me repeat myself and ask you. Psychiatrist justify their high suicide rate

by telling of the difficulty of working with mentally ill people all day -- it

is just so terribly depressing, that many fine, stable people just can not

endure it. Now you tell me how a child, growing up since infancy, is not going

to be seriously adversely effected with those same " crazy " people who push

psychiatrists of into suicide are put in a position of absolute power over them.

Ken Ragge

>

>

> ~Rita

[Guest guest]

>

> Let me repeat myself and ask you. Psychiatrist justify their high suicide

rate by telling of the difficulty of working with mentally ill people all day --

it is just so terribly depressing, that many fine, stable people just can not

endure it.

>

---------------

Actually, I DON'T know that psychiatrists say this -- did perhaps ONE psych

say this, and you are extrapolating again?

I have heard professionals say, regarding suicide (whether of psychiatrists

or anyone else) that it may have been averted if they reached out to someone

regarding their pain, before it reached such critical proportions.

> Now you tell me how a child, growing up since infancy, is not going to be

seriously adversely effected with those same " crazy " people who push

psychiatrists of into suicide are put in a position of absolute power over them.

>

Of course beong raised in a " crazy " environment can have an adverse effect

on a child -- children can have stress symptoms, anxiety disorders, depression.

And these can be overcome (with treatment if necessary), and don't necessarily

result in substance abuse and criminality. What I'm saying is that there is no

evidence that all children raised in less-than-ideal environments will grow up

to be substance abusers or criminals -- and there is no evidence whatsoever that

growing up in an imperfect or even traumatic home causes autism or

schizophrenia.

One question that I notice you don't seem interested in pursuing is, what

of the children who grow up in " crazy " homes, poverty-stricken homes, chaotic

environments -- who DON'T become substance abusers, school dropouts, criminals,

wife-beaters, etc. Some even become high achievers, kind and considerate

spouses. I work with an older gentleman who was homeless at the age of 12,

sleeping in people's yards, etc., later sent to a group home, dropped out of

school and joined the Navy as soon as he was of age -- very chaotic and insecure

upbringing, but an excellent worker and the sweetest guy you'll ever meet, very

happily married for 35 years to a kind and self-assured woman. He is among

those who truly rise above their adversities. What causes their resiliency? Why

aren't we researching this, and figuring out ways to foster resiliency? --

because what child is ever going to have a pain-free, idyllic childhood with

perfect parents!

You wrote once, when I said I didn't think my son would ever be a stepper,

something about him not being an " alcoholic " if his father and I were not. You

misunderstood me -- I meant it literally -- that he wouldn't be a Stepper, i.e.

wouldn't look to 12-step ideology as the way to solve any problems. I didn't

mean that he would never HAVE any problems. has had a less than

" perfect " life -- I have been a single mother since his birth, and though I was

lucky to be able to take a relatively long maternity leave so I could stay home

and nurse him, I was back to working full-time from the time he was 10 months

old. He had a series of babysitters -- some were nuts -- one was actually

emotionally abusive to him. So, do I throw in the towel and say " Oh gosh, he's

damaged now, the poor thing " ?? I'm not the first nor the last single working

mother and Ben is not the first child to grow up with some adverse conditions --

the important thing is to sympathize with his hurts, let him know that I love

him, and try to teach him resiliency by recognizing his strengths and by talking

about everything with him -- the lesson is not that one must never be hurt, but

that one can survive the hurt, and continue to thrive. And guess what -- he's

doing OK!

Sorry, but I think if my head was filled with your ideas of children being

horribly affected for the rest of their lives by childhood hurts, I'd have gone

bonkers by now. And my lack of faith in human resiliency and in his ability to

persevere would have come across to Ben and damaged him much more than anything

else.

~Rita

[Guest guest]

>

> Let me repeat myself and ask you. Psychiatrist justify their high suicide

rate by telling of the difficulty of working with mentally ill people all day --

it is just so terribly depressing, that many fine, stable people just can not

endure it.

>

---------------

Actually, I DON'T know that psychiatrists say this -- did perhaps ONE psych

say this, and you are extrapolating again?

I have heard professionals say, regarding suicide (whether of psychiatrists

or anyone else) that it may have been averted if they reached out to someone

regarding their pain, before it reached such critical proportions.

> Now you tell me how a child, growing up since infancy, is not going to be

seriously adversely effected with those same " crazy " people who push

psychiatrists of into suicide are put in a position of absolute power over them.

>

Of course beong raised in a " crazy " environment can have an adverse effect

on a child -- children can have stress symptoms, anxiety disorders, depression.

And these can be overcome (with treatment if necessary), and don't necessarily

result in substance abuse and criminality. What I'm saying is that there is no

evidence that all children raised in less-than-ideal environments will grow up

to be substance abusers or criminals -- and there is no evidence whatsoever that

growing up in an imperfect or even traumatic home causes autism or

schizophrenia.

One question that I notice you don't seem interested in pursuing is, what

of the children who grow up in " crazy " homes, poverty-stricken homes, chaotic

environments -- who DON'T become substance abusers, school dropouts, criminals,

wife-beaters, etc. Some even become high achievers, kind and considerate

spouses. I work with an older gentleman who was homeless at the age of 12,

sleeping in people's yards, etc., later sent to a group home, dropped out of

school and joined the Navy as soon as he was of age -- very chaotic and insecure

upbringing, but an excellent worker and the sweetest guy you'll ever meet, very

happily married for 35 years to a kind and self-assured woman. He is among

those who truly rise above their adversities. What causes their resiliency? Why

aren't we researching this, and figuring out ways to foster resiliency? --

because what child is ever going to have a pain-free, idyllic childhood with

perfect parents!

You wrote once, when I said I didn't think my son would ever be a stepper,

something about him not being an " alcoholic " if his father and I were not. You

misunderstood me -- I meant it literally -- that he wouldn't be a Stepper, i.e.

wouldn't look to 12-step ideology as the way to solve any problems. I didn't

mean that he would never HAVE any problems. has had a less than

" perfect " life -- I have been a single mother since his birth, and though I was

lucky to be able to take a relatively long maternity leave so I could stay home

and nurse him, I was back to working full-time from the time he was 10 months

old. He had a series of babysitters -- some were nuts -- one was actually

emotionally abusive to him. So, do I throw in the towel and say " Oh gosh, he's

damaged now, the poor thing " ?? I'm not the first nor the last single working

mother and Ben is not the first child to grow up with some adverse conditions --

the important thing is to sympathize with his hurts, let him know that I love

him, and try to teach him resiliency by recognizing his strengths and by talking

about everything with him -- the lesson is not that one must never be hurt, but

that one can survive the hurt, and continue to thrive. And guess what -- he's

doing OK!

Sorry, but I think if my head was filled with your ideas of children being

horribly affected for the rest of their lives by childhood hurts, I'd have gone

bonkers by now. And my lack of faith in human resiliency and in his ability to

persevere would have come across to Ben and damaged him much more than anything

else.

~Rita

[Guest guest]

At 10:11 PM 4/5/01 +0000, you wrote:

>What causes their resiliency? Why aren't we researching this, and

>figuring out ways to foster resiliency? -- because what child is ever

>going to have a pain-free, idyllic childhood with perfect parents!

I once read a long-term study on so-called " Invulnerable Child Syndrome. "

That was a trendy name in some circles for the phenomenon of good

adults coming from bad childhoods.

Make of it what you will, but the researchers claimed to have found a

common factor. According to them, children who rose above their

bad childhoods had some other adult who consistently took an interest

in them and was available to them. In some cases it was an aunt or

uncle, in others it might have been a neighbor, and in a few cases it

was a schoolteacher who maintained contact with the child after that

particular school year was over.

I read this so long ago that there's no way I could find the citation

today. Sorry 'bout that. But perhaps this can at least provide

food for further thought.

[Guest guest]

Actually, Ken, my question was directed at the Szasz advocates. If

you are one of them, I was not aware of it, and missed whatever you

said about it. The Szasz advocates seem to say, " If you claim this is

a disease, then show me some organic difference. " This hasn't got to

do with genes, so far as I know, nor does it have to do with adaptive

organic differences, like that of your taxi drivers.

I think the point's been made, probably by Pete, that epilepsy was

once considered a " mental illness. " We know now, of course, that it

is not. To say that schizophrenia is not a disease until we can show

organic reasons for the phenomenon is really an exercise in semantics,

and irresponsible (in my opinion) if some people who really suffer

from their conditions find no relief.

Personally, I try to avoid using the word " disease " unless there's no

alternative, mostly because I think that using the word in the case of

" alcoholism " (a word I find both distasteful and undefinable) has let

people off the hook entirely in considering the effectiveness of the

solutions they propose to assist a person suffering from that

condition.

>

> > 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]

Hi Rita,

I just love what you wrote here!

>What causes their resiliency? Why aren't we researching

>this, and figuring out ways to foster resiliency? -- because what

>child is ever going to have a pain-free, idyllic childhood with

>perfect parents!

It won't happen. Nobody is perfect, therefore no one can parent

perfectly.

Ways to foster resiliency...this example is incredibly minor, but one

thing I think may be helpful is occasionally letting children solve

problems on their own. I have a " contract " with a friend of mine who

also has a 3 1/2 year old boy that we try to stay out of their

squabbling. Sometimes it is really hard to do, but the other day we

caught them trading little cars instead of the grab and scream

dynamic. We try not to butt in with our, " now boys, we have to

'share'! " etc. It seems minor, but this is the only other parent I

know that is comfortable doing this(!) Most want to at least be seen

as trying to get their kid to share, take turns, etc.

>

> You wrote once, when I said I didn't think my son would ever

be a stepper, something about him not being an " alcoholic " if his

father and I were not. You misunderstood me -- I meant it literally

-- that he wouldn't be a Stepper, i.e. wouldn't look to 12-step

ideology as the way to solve any problems. I didn't mean that he

would never HAVE any problems. has had a less than " perfect "

life -- I have been a single mother since his birth, and though I was

lucky to be able to take a relatively long maternity leave so I could

stay home and nurse him, I was back to working full-time from the time

he was 10 months old. He had a series of babysitters -- some were

nuts -- one was actually emotionally abusive to him. So, do I throw

in the towel and say " Oh gosh, he's damaged now, the poor thing " ??

I'm not the first nor the last single working mother and Ben is not

the first child to grow up with some adverse conditions -- the

important thing is to sympathize with his hurts, let him know that I

love him, and try to teach him resiliency by recognizing his strengths

and by talking about everything with him -- the lesson is not that one

must never be hurt, but that one can survive the hurt, and continue to

thrive. And guess what -- he's doing OK!

>

> Sorry, but I think if my head was filled with your ideas of

children being horribly affected for the rest of their lives by

childhood hurts, I'd have gone bonkers by now. And my lack of faith

in human resiliency and in his ability to persevere would have come

across to Ben and damaged him much more than anything else.

>

> ~Rita

I love hearing this positive and hopeful outlook!

See you,

[Guest guest]

Hi Rita,

I just love what you wrote here!

>What causes their resiliency? Why aren't we researching

>this, and figuring out ways to foster resiliency? -- because what

>child is ever going to have a pain-free, idyllic childhood with

>perfect parents!

It won't happen. Nobody is perfect, therefore no one can parent

perfectly.

Ways to foster resiliency...this example is incredibly minor, but one

thing I think may be helpful is occasionally letting children solve

problems on their own. I have a " contract " with a friend of mine who

also has a 3 1/2 year old boy that we try to stay out of their

squabbling. Sometimes it is really hard to do, but the other day we

caught them trading little cars instead of the grab and scream

dynamic. We try not to butt in with our, " now boys, we have to

'share'! " etc. It seems minor, but this is the only other parent I

know that is comfortable doing this(!) Most want to at least be seen

as trying to get their kid to share, take turns, etc.

>

> You wrote once, when I said I didn't think my son would ever

be a stepper, something about him not being an " alcoholic " if his

father and I were not. You misunderstood me -- I meant it literally

-- that he wouldn't be a Stepper, i.e. wouldn't look to 12-step

ideology as the way to solve any problems. I didn't mean that he

would never HAVE any problems. has had a less than " perfect "

life -- I have been a single mother since his birth, and though I was

lucky to be able to take a relatively long maternity leave so I could

stay home and nurse him, I was back to working full-time from the time

he was 10 months old. He had a series of babysitters -- some were

nuts -- one was actually emotionally abusive to him. So, do I throw

in the towel and say " Oh gosh, he's damaged now, the poor thing " ??

I'm not the first nor the last single working mother and Ben is not

the first child to grow up with some adverse conditions -- the

important thing is to sympathize with his hurts, let him know that I

love him, and try to teach him resiliency by recognizing his strengths

and by talking about everything with him -- the lesson is not that one

must never be hurt, but that one can survive the hurt, and continue to

thrive. And guess what -- he's doing OK!

>

> Sorry, but I think if my head was filled with your ideas of

children being horribly affected for the rest of their lives by

childhood hurts, I'd have gone bonkers by now. And my lack of faith

in human resiliency and in his ability to persevere would have come

across to Ben and damaged him much more than anything else.

>

> ~Rita

I love hearing this positive and hopeful outlook!

See you,

[Guest guest]

Hi Rita,

I just love what you wrote here!

>What causes their resiliency? Why aren't we researching

>this, and figuring out ways to foster resiliency? -- because what

>child is ever going to have a pain-free, idyllic childhood with

>perfect parents!

It won't happen. Nobody is perfect, therefore no one can parent

perfectly.

Ways to foster resiliency...this example is incredibly minor, but one

thing I think may be helpful is occasionally letting children solve

problems on their own. I have a " contract " with a friend of mine who

also has a 3 1/2 year old boy that we try to stay out of their

squabbling. Sometimes it is really hard to do, but the other day we

caught them trading little cars instead of the grab and scream

dynamic. We try not to butt in with our, " now boys, we have to

'share'! " etc. It seems minor, but this is the only other parent I

know that is comfortable doing this(!) Most want to at least be seen

as trying to get their kid to share, take turns, etc.

>

> You wrote once, when I said I didn't think my son would ever

be a stepper, something about him not being an " alcoholic " if his

father and I were not. You misunderstood me -- I meant it literally

-- that he wouldn't be a Stepper, i.e. wouldn't look to 12-step

ideology as the way to solve any problems. I didn't mean that he

would never HAVE any problems. has had a less than " perfect "

life -- I have been a single mother since his birth, and though I was

lucky to be able to take a relatively long maternity leave so I could

stay home and nurse him, I was back to working full-time from the time

he was 10 months old. He had a series of babysitters -- some were

nuts -- one was actually emotionally abusive to him. So, do I throw

in the towel and say " Oh gosh, he's damaged now, the poor thing " ??

I'm not the first nor the last single working mother and Ben is not

the first child to grow up with some adverse conditions -- the

important thing is to sympathize with his hurts, let him know that I

love him, and try to teach him resiliency by recognizing his strengths

and by talking about everything with him -- the lesson is not that one

must never be hurt, but that one can survive the hurt, and continue to

thrive. And guess what -- he's doing OK!

>

> Sorry, but I think if my head was filled with your ideas of

children being horribly affected for the rest of their lives by

childhood hurts, I'd have gone bonkers by now. And my lack of faith

in human resiliency and in his ability to persevere would have come

across to Ben and damaged him much more than anything else.

>

> ~Rita

I love hearing this positive and hopeful outlook!

See you,

[Guest guest]

I've read this too, in several different places, and I believe the

cite couldn't be too hard to find. I am not particularly interested

in looking for it, but those who are should find it a piece of cake.

> >What causes their resiliency? Why aren't we researching this, and

> >figuring out ways to foster resiliency? -- because what child is

ever

> >going to have a pain-free, idyllic childhood with perfect parents!

>

>

> I once read a long-term study on so-called " Invulnerable Child

Syndrome. "

> That was a trendy name in some circles for the phenomenon of good

> adults coming from bad childhoods.

>

> Make of it what you will, but the researchers claimed to have found

a

> common factor. According to them, children who rose above their

> bad childhoods had some other adult who consistently took an

interest

> in them and was available to them. In some cases it was an aunt or

> uncle, in others it might have been a neighbor, and in a few cases

it

> was a schoolteacher who maintained contact with the child after that

> particular school year was over.

>

> I read this so long ago that there's no way I could find the

citation

> today. Sorry 'bout that. But perhaps this can at least provide

> food for further thought.

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 03:02 AM 4/6/01 -0000, kayleighs@... wrote:

>I've read this too, in several different places, and I believe the

>cite couldn't be too hard to find. I am not particularly interested

>in looking for it, but those who are should find it a piece of cake.

>

>

>> >What causes their resiliency? Why aren't we researching this, and

>> >figuring out ways to foster resiliency? -- because what child is

>ever

>> >going to have a pain-free, idyllic childhood with perfect parents!

>>

>>

>> I once read a long-term study on so-called " Invulnerable Child

>Syndrome. "

>> That was a trendy name in some circles for the phenomenon of good

>> adults coming from bad childhoods.

>>

>> Make of it what you will, but the researchers claimed to have found

>a

>> common factor. According to them, children who rose above their

>> bad childhoods had some other adult who consistently took an

>interest

>> in them and was available to them. In some cases it was an aunt or

>> uncle, in others it might have been a neighbor, and in a few cases

>it

>> was a schoolteacher who maintained contact with the child after that

>> particular school year was over.

Alice described this in one of her books, and she had a name

for this special adult in the child's life, it wasn't 'cheerleader',

but it was something along that line. I can almost think of the word,

it'll come to me...

-----

This post (except quoted portions) Copyright 2001, Ben Bradley.

http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

At 03:02 AM 4/6/01 -0000, kayleighs@... wrote:

>I've read this too, in several different places, and I believe the

>cite couldn't be too hard to find. I am not particularly interested

>in looking for it, but those who are should find it a piece of cake.

>

>

>> >What causes their resiliency? Why aren't we researching this, and

>> >figuring out ways to foster resiliency? -- because what child is

>ever

>> >going to have a pain-free, idyllic childhood with perfect parents!

>>

>>

>> I once read a long-term study on so-called " Invulnerable Child

>Syndrome. "

>> That was a trendy name in some circles for the phenomenon of good

>> adults coming from bad childhoods.

>>

>> Make of it what you will, but the researchers claimed to have found

>a

>> common factor. According to them, children who rose above their

>> bad childhoods had some other adult who consistently took an

>interest

>> in them and was available to them. In some cases it was an aunt or

>> uncle, in others it might have been a neighbor, and in a few cases

>it

>> was a schoolteacher who maintained contact with the child after that

>> particular school year was over.

Alice described this in one of her books, and she had a name

for this special adult in the child's life, it wasn't 'cheerleader',

but it was something along that line. I can almost think of the word,

it'll come to me...

-----

This post (except quoted portions) Copyright 2001, Ben Bradley.

http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

At 03:02 AM 4/6/01 -0000, kayleighs@... wrote:

>I've read this too, in several different places, and I believe the

>cite couldn't be too hard to find. I am not particularly interested

>in looking for it, but those who are should find it a piece of cake.

>

>

>> >What causes their resiliency? Why aren't we researching this, and

>> >figuring out ways to foster resiliency? -- because what child is

>ever

>> >going to have a pain-free, idyllic childhood with perfect parents!

>>

>>

>> I once read a long-term study on so-called " Invulnerable Child

>Syndrome. "

>> That was a trendy name in some circles for the phenomenon of good

>> adults coming from bad childhoods.

>>

>> Make of it what you will, but the researchers claimed to have found

>a

>> common factor. According to them, children who rose above their

>> bad childhoods had some other adult who consistently took an

>interest

>> in them and was available to them. In some cases it was an aunt or

>> uncle, in others it might have been a neighbor, and in a few cases

>it

>> was a schoolteacher who maintained contact with the child after that

>> particular school year was over.

Alice described this in one of her books, and she had a name

for this special adult in the child's life, it wasn't 'cheerleader',

but it was something along that line. I can almost think of the word,

it'll come to me...

-----

This post (except quoted portions) Copyright 2001, Ben Bradley.

http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

At 11:36 AM 4/5/01 -0700, Ken wrote:

>

>

>rita66@... wrote:

>> You know, Ken, I must say I've noticed a tendency in several of

your recent posts, to extrapolate from a handful of anecdotal examples, to

pronouncements about human beings in general.

> You spoke of the unhappy and possibly abusive childhoods of 3 alcohol

abusers -- then used this to claim that therefore *all* alcohol abusers

*must* have had traumatic or abusive childhoods. Now you mention ONE

mother of a schizophrenic, and purport to draw conclusions about mothers of

schizophrenics in general??

I noticed that too, but I don't think Ken is just picking incidences

to support a hypothesis. I mostly agree with Ken's opinions, and it seems

that those who disagree are reacting as if Ken were claiming absolute

proof.

I'd like to discuss the actual topic more (childhood experiences and

adult alcohol use and/or general adult behavior), but I feel like I'd

have to write a book to say anything significant.

>Rita,

>

>What am I to do in an e-mail format? Certainly, as far as the three

alcoholics go, there was certainly research background information from

various scientific journals before the three were presented as examples.

Two of them were chosen as examples because they were the most famous

alcoholics about. The third was chosen in order to make clear that it

wasn't necessarily a matter of anyone's fault.

>

>I have _never_ met anyone who had a more severe drinking problem that

didn't have severe trauma in childhood, ever. I'm not discounting that it

can't happen, but I haven't seen it. Shortly after writing the book I got

a phone call from someone soliciting money for some sort of " help educate

the children " twelve stepper. I told him I didn't buy the disease theory

and that the origins were in childhood. He responded that there was

nothing in his childhood that could have caused his destructive drinking

and then went on and told me that his parents died and he was raised by his

grandparents who were Jehovah's Witnesses.

I've heard this in many AA speaker meetings. At my last meeting I

heard a speaker talk a few minutes about his painful childhood, then

he stated " I want to make absolutely clear, though, that this had

absolutely nothing to do with my alcoholism. " Furthermore, many AA'ers

state that they believe alcooholism is genetic, or that " I was born

an alcoholic because I had the " ism's " [selfishness, self-centeredness,

the things that make up AA's description of alcoholics, and the very

attributes of any healthy small child] of alcoholism all my life, as

far back as I can remember " . For anyone who believes he was was " born

an alcoholic " , it follows logically that there's absolutely nothing

their parents could have done about it one way or the other.

The other typical AA story is by those who had a perfectly normal

childhood, and then go on to describe it. Their childhoods sounded more

like King novels than anything else I can think of. I should

have taken notes and sold the stories as horror fiction.

>There is ample evidence that childhood environment is a big influencing

factor in the later development of addictions of all sorts. Am I to post

research papers? Is that what you are asking? I'll certainly dig up a few

cites for you if you like.

>

>As far as one example of a schizophrenic mother, yes, that is one example

from a psychiatrist that matches what I've seen. Is it proof? Or is it

fodder for discussion? It is fodder for discussion.

That's the problem, others have been reacting as if (or even claiming

that) you were offering proof.

-----

This post (except quoted portions) Copyright 2001, Ben Bradley.

http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

rita66@... wrote:

>

>

> >

> > Let me repeat myself and ask you. Psychiatrist justify their high suicide

rate by telling of the difficulty of working with mentally ill people all day --

it is just so terribly depressing, that many fine, stable people just can not

endure it.

> >

> ---------------

>

> Actually, I DON'T know that psychiatrists say this -- did perhaps ONE

psych say this, and you are extrapolating again?

Rita,

I used to hear it quite often, but not at all in recent years.

>

>

> I have heard professionals say, regarding suicide (whether of

psychiatrists or anyone else) that it may have been averted if they reached out

to someone regarding their pain, before it reached such critical proportions.

>

> > Now you tell me how a child, growing up since infancy, is not going to be

seriously adversely effected with those same " crazy " people who push

psychiatrists of into suicide are put in a position of absolute power over them.

> >

>

> Of course beong raised in a " crazy " environment can have an adverse

effect on a child -- children can have stress symptoms, anxiety disorders,

depression. And these can be overcome (with treatment if necessary), and don't

necessarily result in substance abuse and criminality. What I'm saying is that

there is no evidence that all children raised in less-than-ideal environments

will grow up to be substance abusers or criminals --

When did I ever say all children raised in less-than-ideal environments will

grow up to be substance abusers or criminals? Yes, I've made the _opposite_

generality, or statements very close to it, that substance abusers and criminals

are made. Your suggestion I said the above would be parallel to changing " All

people with broken bones had trauma to their body " to " All people who get in car

accidents have broken bones. "

> and there is no evidence whatsoever that growing up in an imperfect or even

traumatic home causes autism or schizophrenia.

As I've said several times, I know nothing about autism. As far as

schizophrenia goes, I've yet to come across a reasonable explanation for its

existence and mostly after-the-fact symptoms or hallmarks as proof of origin.

" The bones are so severely broken it has to be a disease of biochemical origin.

Are you going to tell me that normal people have so many broken bones? "

>

>

> One question that I notice you don't seem interested in pursuing is, what

of the children who grow up in " crazy " homes, poverty-stricken homes, chaotic

environments -- who DON'T become substance abusers, school dropouts, criminals,

wife-beaters, etc. Some even become high achievers, kind and considerate

spouses. I work with an older gentleman who was homeless at the age of 12,

sleeping in people's yards, etc., later sent to a group home, dropped out of

school and joined the Navy as soon as he was of age -- very chaotic and insecure

upbringing, but an excellent worker and the sweetest guy you'll ever meet, very

happily married for 35 years to a kind and self-assured woman. He is among

those who truly rise above their adversities. What causes their resiliency? Why

aren't we researching this, and figuring out ways to foster resiliency? --

because what child is ever going to have a pain-free, idyllic childhood with

perfect parents!

I think gave the answer. Because there is at least one other person

there to help the child, to take the child's side, to give the child a different

view of the world.

>

>

> You wrote once, when I said I didn't think my son would ever be a

stepper, something about him not being an " alcoholic " if his father and I were

not. You misunderstood me -- I meant it literally -- that he wouldn't be a

Stepper, i.e. wouldn't look to 12-step ideology as the way to solve any

problems. I didn't mean that he would never HAVE any problems. has

had a less than " perfect " life -- I have been a single mother since his birth,

and though I was lucky to be able to take a relatively long maternity leave so I

could stay home and nurse him, I was back to working full-time from the time he

was 10 months old. He had a series of babysitters -- some were nuts -- one was

actually emotionally abusive to him. So, do I throw in the towel and say " Oh

gosh, he's damaged now, the poor thing " ?? I'm not the first nor the last single

working mother and Ben is not the first child to grow up with some adverse

conditions -- the important thing is to sympathize with his hurts, let him know

that I love him, and try to teach him resiliency by recognizing his strengths

and by talking about everything with him -- the lesson is not that one must

never be hurt, but that one can survive the hurt, and continue to thrive. And

guess what -- he's doing OK!

But what if he had a different mother? What if his mother was one of the one

who was nuts or the one who was actually emotionally abusive? What if his world

from birth was made up entirely of " nuts " and emotionally abusive people?

Ken Ragge

>

>

> Sorry, but I think if my head was filled with your ideas of children

being horribly affected for the rest of their lives by childhood hurts, I'd have

gone bonkers by now. And my lack of faith in human resiliency and in his

ability to persevere would have come across to Ben and damaged him much more

than anything else.

>

> ~Rita

[Guest guest]

rita66@... wrote:

>

>

> >

> > Let me repeat myself and ask you. Psychiatrist justify their high suicide

rate by telling of the difficulty of working with mentally ill people all day --

it is just so terribly depressing, that many fine, stable people just can not

endure it.

> >

> ---------------

>

> Actually, I DON'T know that psychiatrists say this -- did perhaps ONE

psych say this, and you are extrapolating again?

Rita,

I used to hear it quite often, but not at all in recent years.

>

>

> I have heard professionals say, regarding suicide (whether of

psychiatrists or anyone else) that it may have been averted if they reached out

to someone regarding their pain, before it reached such critical proportions.

>

> > Now you tell me how a child, growing up since infancy, is not going to be

seriously adversely effected with those same " crazy " people who push

psychiatrists of into suicide are put in a position of absolute power over them.

> >

>

> Of course beong raised in a " crazy " environment can have an adverse

effect on a child -- children can have stress symptoms, anxiety disorders,

depression. And these can be overcome (with treatment if necessary), and don't

necessarily result in substance abuse and criminality. What I'm saying is that

there is no evidence that all children raised in less-than-ideal environments

will grow up to be substance abusers or criminals --

When did I ever say all children raised in less-than-ideal environments will

grow up to be substance abusers or criminals? Yes, I've made the _opposite_

generality, or statements very close to it, that substance abusers and criminals

are made. Your suggestion I said the above would be parallel to changing " All

people with broken bones had trauma to their body " to " All people who get in car

accidents have broken bones. "

> and there is no evidence whatsoever that growing up in an imperfect or even

traumatic home causes autism or schizophrenia.

As I've said several times, I know nothing about autism. As far as

schizophrenia goes, I've yet to come across a reasonable explanation for its

existence and mostly after-the-fact symptoms or hallmarks as proof of origin.

" The bones are so severely broken it has to be a disease of biochemical origin.

Are you going to tell me that normal people have so many broken bones? "

>

>

> One question that I notice you don't seem interested in pursuing is, what

of the children who grow up in " crazy " homes, poverty-stricken homes, chaotic

environments -- who DON'T become substance abusers, school dropouts, criminals,

wife-beaters, etc. Some even become high achievers, kind and considerate

spouses. I work with an older gentleman who was homeless at the age of 12,

sleeping in people's yards, etc., later sent to a group home, dropped out of

school and joined the Navy as soon as he was of age -- very chaotic and insecure

upbringing, but an excellent worker and the sweetest guy you'll ever meet, very

happily married for 35 years to a kind and self-assured woman. He is among

those who truly rise above their adversities. What causes their resiliency? Why

aren't we researching this, and figuring out ways to foster resiliency? --

because what child is ever going to have a pain-free, idyllic childhood with

perfect parents!

I think gave the answer. Because there is at least one other person

there to help the child, to take the child's side, to give the child a different

view of the world.

>

>

> You wrote once, when I said I didn't think my son would ever be a

stepper, something about him not being an " alcoholic " if his father and I were

not. You misunderstood me -- I meant it literally -- that he wouldn't be a

Stepper, i.e. wouldn't look to 12-step ideology as the way to solve any

problems. I didn't mean that he would never HAVE any problems. has

had a less than " perfect " life -- I have been a single mother since his birth,

and though I was lucky to be able to take a relatively long maternity leave so I

could stay home and nurse him, I was back to working full-time from the time he

was 10 months old. He had a series of babysitters -- some were nuts -- one was

actually emotionally abusive to him. So, do I throw in the towel and say " Oh

gosh, he's damaged now, the poor thing " ?? I'm not the first nor the last single

working mother and Ben is not the first child to grow up with some adverse

conditions -- the important thing is to sympathize with his hurts, let him know

that I love him, and try to teach him resiliency by recognizing his strengths

and by talking about everything with him -- the lesson is not that one must

never be hurt, but that one can survive the hurt, and continue to thrive. And

guess what -- he's doing OK!

But what if he had a different mother? What if his mother was one of the one

who was nuts or the one who was actually emotionally abusive? What if his world

from birth was made up entirely of " nuts " and emotionally abusive people?

Ken Ragge

>

>

> Sorry, but I think if my head was filled with your ideas of children

being horribly affected for the rest of their lives by childhood hurts, I'd have

gone bonkers by now. And my lack of faith in human resiliency and in his

ability to persevere would have come across to Ben and damaged him much more

than anything else.

>

> ~Rita

[Guest guest]

rita66@... wrote:

>

>

> >

> > Let me repeat myself and ask you. Psychiatrist justify their high suicide

rate by telling of the difficulty of working with mentally ill people all day --

it is just so terribly depressing, that many fine, stable people just can not

endure it.

> >

> ---------------

>

> Actually, I DON'T know that psychiatrists say this -- did perhaps ONE

psych say this, and you are extrapolating again?

Rita,

I used to hear it quite often, but not at all in recent years.

>

>

> I have heard professionals say, regarding suicide (whether of

psychiatrists or anyone else) that it may have been averted if they reached out

to someone regarding their pain, before it reached such critical proportions.

>

> > Now you tell me how a child, growing up since infancy, is not going to be

seriously adversely effected with those same " crazy " people who push

psychiatrists of into suicide are put in a position of absolute power over them.

> >

>

> Of course beong raised in a " crazy " environment can have an adverse

effect on a child -- children can have stress symptoms, anxiety disorders,

depression. And these can be overcome (with treatment if necessary), and don't

necessarily result in substance abuse and criminality. What I'm saying is that

there is no evidence that all children raised in less-than-ideal environments

will grow up to be substance abusers or criminals --

When did I ever say all children raised in less-than-ideal environments will

grow up to be substance abusers or criminals? Yes, I've made the _opposite_

generality, or statements very close to it, that substance abusers and criminals

are made. Your suggestion I said the above would be parallel to changing " All

people with broken bones had trauma to their body " to " All people who get in car

accidents have broken bones. "

> and there is no evidence whatsoever that growing up in an imperfect or even

traumatic home causes autism or schizophrenia.

As I've said several times, I know nothing about autism. As far as

schizophrenia goes, I've yet to come across a reasonable explanation for its

existence and mostly after-the-fact symptoms or hallmarks as proof of origin.

" The bones are so severely broken it has to be a disease of biochemical origin.

Are you going to tell me that normal people have so many broken bones? "

>

>

> One question that I notice you don't seem interested in pursuing is, what

of the children who grow up in " crazy " homes, poverty-stricken homes, chaotic

environments -- who DON'T become substance abusers, school dropouts, criminals,

wife-beaters, etc. Some even become high achievers, kind and considerate

spouses. I work with an older gentleman who was homeless at the age of 12,

sleeping in people's yards, etc., later sent to a group home, dropped out of

school and joined the Navy as soon as he was of age -- very chaotic and insecure

upbringing, but an excellent worker and the sweetest guy you'll ever meet, very

happily married for 35 years to a kind and self-assured woman. He is among

those who truly rise above their adversities. What causes their resiliency? Why

aren't we researching this, and figuring out ways to foster resiliency? --

because what child is ever going to have a pain-free, idyllic childhood with

perfect parents!

I think gave the answer. Because there is at least one other person

there to help the child, to take the child's side, to give the child a different

view of the world.

>

>

> You wrote once, when I said I didn't think my son would ever be a

stepper, something about him not being an " alcoholic " if his father and I were

not. You misunderstood me -- I meant it literally -- that he wouldn't be a

Stepper, i.e. wouldn't look to 12-step ideology as the way to solve any

problems. I didn't mean that he would never HAVE any problems. has

had a less than " perfect " life -- I have been a single mother since his birth,

and though I was lucky to be able to take a relatively long maternity leave so I

could stay home and nurse him, I was back to working full-time from the time he

was 10 months old. He had a series of babysitters -- some were nuts -- one was

actually emotionally abusive to him. So, do I throw in the towel and say " Oh

gosh, he's damaged now, the poor thing " ?? I'm not the first nor the last single

working mother and Ben is not the first child to grow up with some adverse

conditions -- the important thing is to sympathize with his hurts, let him know

that I love him, and try to teach him resiliency by recognizing his strengths

and by talking about everything with him -- the lesson is not that one must

never be hurt, but that one can survive the hurt, and continue to thrive. And

guess what -- he's doing OK!

But what if he had a different mother? What if his mother was one of the one

who was nuts or the one who was actually emotionally abusive? What if his world

from birth was made up entirely of " nuts " and emotionally abusive people?

Ken Ragge

>

>

> Sorry, but I think if my head was filled with your ideas of children

being horribly affected for the rest of their lives by childhood hurts, I'd have

gone bonkers by now. And my lack of faith in human resiliency and in his

ability to persevere would have come across to Ben and damaged him much more

than anything else.

>

> ~Rita

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> At 10:11 PM 4/5/01 +0000, you wrote:

> >What causes their resiliency? Why aren't we researching this, and

> >figuring out ways to foster resiliency? -- because what child is ever

> >going to have a pain-free, idyllic childhood with perfect parents!

>

> I once read a long-term study on so-called " Invulnerable Child Syndrome. "

> That was a trendy name in some circles for the phenomenon of good

> adults coming from bad childhoods.

>

> Make of it what you will, but the researchers claimed to have found a

> common factor. According to them, children who rose above their

> bad childhoods had some other adult who consistently took an interest

> in them and was available to them. In some cases it was an aunt or

> uncle, in others it might have been a neighbor, and in a few cases it

> was a schoolteacher who maintained contact with the child after that

> particular school year was over.

>

> I read this so long ago that there's no way I could find the citation

> today. Sorry 'bout that. But perhaps this can at least provide

> food for further thought.

>

>

>

,

I think you are right on target with this. Thanks for posting it.

Ken Ragge

[Guest guest]

kayleighs@... wrote:

> Actually, Ken, my question was directed at the Szasz advocates. If

> you are one of them, I was not aware of it, and missed whatever you

> said about it.

Kayleigh,

I don't know if I qualify as a Szasz advocate or not, but I have read

" Manufacture of Madness " and " The Myth of Mental Illness " and was

_very_ impressed by both. It seems to me that the arguments about Szasz

get side-tracked over things that I don't see, at least from the perspective

of

the aforementioned books, that he ever said, or if he did, where in an

entirely

different context.

> The Szasz advocates seem to say, " If you claim this is

> a disease, then show me some organic difference. " This hasn't got to

> do with genes, so far as I know, nor does it have to do with adaptive

> organic differences, like that of your taxi drivers.

But brain differences are often traipsed out as proof of disease, whether to

Szasz supporters or the general public.

>

>

> I think the point's been made, probably by Pete, that epilepsy was

> once considered a " mental illness. " We know now, of course, that it

> is not. To say that schizophrenia is not a disease until we can show

> organic reasons for the phenomenon is really an exercise in semantics,

> and irresponsible (in my opinion) if some people who really suffer

> from their conditions find no relief.

>

Wouldn't it also be irresponsible to simply label it a disease and then spend

millions of dollars gene-hunting and prematurely announce the finding of a

gene with much fanfare when the evidence simply hasn't been found by any

means that hasn't found to provide credible, repeatable results before?

Doesn't

giving the disease label give an impression of helplessness, go counter to

ones efforts at coping?

>

> Personally, I try to avoid using the word " disease " unless there's no

> alternative, mostly because I think that using the word in the case of

> " alcoholism " (a word I find both distasteful and undefinable) has let

> people off the hook entirely in considering the effectiveness of the

> solutions they propose to assist a person suffering from that

> condition.

Isn't " mental illness " as " brain disease " often very similar?

Ken

[Guest guest]

kayleighs@... wrote:

> Actually, Ken, my question was directed at the Szasz advocates. If

> you are one of them, I was not aware of it, and missed whatever you

> said about it.

Kayleigh,

I don't know if I qualify as a Szasz advocate or not, but I have read

" Manufacture of Madness " and " The Myth of Mental Illness " and was

_very_ impressed by both. It seems to me that the arguments about Szasz

get side-tracked over things that I don't see, at least from the perspective

of

the aforementioned books, that he ever said, or if he did, where in an

entirely

different context.

> The Szasz advocates seem to say, " If you claim this is

> a disease, then show me some organic difference. " This hasn't got to

> do with genes, so far as I know, nor does it have to do with adaptive

> organic differences, like that of your taxi drivers.

But brain differences are often traipsed out as proof of disease, whether to

Szasz supporters or the general public.

>

>

> I think the point's been made, probably by Pete, that epilepsy was

> once considered a " mental illness. " We know now, of course, that it

> is not. To say that schizophrenia is not a disease until we can show

> organic reasons for the phenomenon is really an exercise in semantics,

> and irresponsible (in my opinion) if some people who really suffer

> from their conditions find no relief.

>

Wouldn't it also be irresponsible to simply label it a disease and then spend

millions of dollars gene-hunting and prematurely announce the finding of a

gene with much fanfare when the evidence simply hasn't been found by any

means that hasn't found to provide credible, repeatable results before?

Doesn't

giving the disease label give an impression of helplessness, go counter to

ones efforts at coping?

>

> Personally, I try to avoid using the word " disease " unless there's no

> alternative, mostly because I think that using the word in the case of

> " alcoholism " (a word I find both distasteful and undefinable) has let

> people off the hook entirely in considering the effectiveness of the

> solutions they propose to assist a person suffering from that

> condition.

Isn't " mental illness " as " brain disease " often very similar?

Ken

[Guest guest]

kayleighs@... wrote:

> Actually, Ken, my question was directed at the Szasz advocates. If

> you are one of them, I was not aware of it, and missed whatever you

> said about it.

Kayleigh,

I don't know if I qualify as a Szasz advocate or not, but I have read

" Manufacture of Madness " and " The Myth of Mental Illness " and was

_very_ impressed by both. It seems to me that the arguments about Szasz

get side-tracked over things that I don't see, at least from the perspective

of

the aforementioned books, that he ever said, or if he did, where in an

entirely

different context.

> The Szasz advocates seem to say, " If you claim this is

> a disease, then show me some organic difference. " This hasn't got to

> do with genes, so far as I know, nor does it have to do with adaptive

> organic differences, like that of your taxi drivers.

But brain differences are often traipsed out as proof of disease, whether to

Szasz supporters or the general public.

>

>

> I think the point's been made, probably by Pete, that epilepsy was

> once considered a " mental illness. " We know now, of course, that it

> is not. To say that schizophrenia is not a disease until we can show

> organic reasons for the phenomenon is really an exercise in semantics,

> and irresponsible (in my opinion) if some people who really suffer

> from their conditions find no relief.

>

Wouldn't it also be irresponsible to simply label it a disease and then spend

millions of dollars gene-hunting and prematurely announce the finding of a

gene with much fanfare when the evidence simply hasn't been found by any

means that hasn't found to provide credible, repeatable results before?

Doesn't

giving the disease label give an impression of helplessness, go counter to

ones efforts at coping?

>

> Personally, I try to avoid using the word " disease " unless there's no

> alternative, mostly because I think that using the word in the case of

> " alcoholism " (a word I find both distasteful and undefinable) has let

> people off the hook entirely in considering the effectiveness of the

> solutions they propose to assist a person suffering from that

> condition.

Isn't " mental illness " as " brain disease " often very similar?

Ken

[Guest guest]

Ben Bradley wrote:

> At 11:36 AM 4/5/01 -0700, Ken wrote:

> >

> >

> >rita66@... wrote:

>

> >> You know, Ken, I must say I've noticed a tendency in several of

> your recent posts, to extrapolate from a handful of anecdotal examples, to

> pronouncements about human beings in general.

> > You spoke of the unhappy and possibly abusive childhoods of 3 alcohol

> abusers -- then used this to claim that therefore *all* alcohol abusers

> *must* have had traumatic or abusive childhoods. Now you mention ONE

> mother of a schizophrenic, and purport to draw conclusions about mothers of

> schizophrenics in general??

>

> I noticed that too, but I don't think Ken is just picking incidences

> to support a hypothesis. I mostly agree with Ken's opinions, and it seems

> that those who disagree are reacting as if Ken were claiming absolute

> proof.

> I'd like to discuss the actual topic more (childhood experiences and

> adult alcohol use and/or general adult behavior), but I feel like I'd

> have to write a book to say anything significant.

Ben,

That is the subject that I've most wanted to research and write about ever

since finishing " More Revealed. " Maybe one of these days I'll get to it. Of

course, it is getting easier with time because there is now a vast body of

research and, surprising to me, much of it is coming from neurologist --

" simple " empirical evidence. You are correct, it really would take a book to

say anything meaningful.

Ken