raechel's Comments (390)

“OK, at the risk of coming across as a mean, uncaring person (which I am not), I have to try one more time to talk about the risks that our hyper-pharmacological approach pose, for adults certainly, but most tragically for children.

We have words for many things. Doesn't mean they exist (how about unicorns?). Recall that there used to be a disorder called "homosexuality." Now it's no longer a disorder. Was it cured? No. What happened is that cooler and more scientific heads prevailed.

In some times and in some cultures, undesirable behavior is considered to be evil, or a sign of possession by demons. Today, we call behavior we don't like symptomatic of "illness." Consider the mother who murders her children. She's mentally ill because she murdered her child; she murdered her child because she's mentally ill. It reduces the term "mental illness" to "does things we think are very, very bad."

As I noted in another post here, I do believe that there is biochemical mental illness. I've seen it, I've worked with it, I've seen symptoms ameliorated by medication. However we should beware of extending our notions of mental illness or disability. The label you so enthusiastically embrace, because it "explains" your pain or your discomfort, and the pharmacological "solution" you embrace, because it seems to solve your problems, may simply be the chains a dysfunctional society employs to render people more "convenient."”

“Very colorful, James, but still more mythology than science. I will give you points for imagination.”

“How about an article that gets into the specific health issues related to microwaves, and discusses evidence pro & con? And it would be interesting to hear a discussion of relative merits energy-wise, of stove top and microwave heating of things like canned soup, or whatever it is people use their microwaves for. Just an example, but I frequently use the microwave to "start" cooking a casserole, bringing it to a lukewarm temperature, before finishing it off in the oven. I do this to make sure the center comes to a safe temp. before the top burns. Good idea or bad? Hard to tell from this post.”

“LaurieAnn, I understand why the neurologically atypical child would be of special interest to you.

However, I'm concerned that by thinking of this as a "special needs" issue, we shift the focus of the conversation from the effectiveness of some of our most common educational approaches. And by doing that, we make it in some people's minds, a "problem with the child" issue rather than a "problem with our approaches" issue.

The result of that is lots of special funding for special things (when fundamental changes are in order), lots of teacher time spent on diagnosis (when it could be spent on delivering quality education), lots of public debate and discussion about diagnosis and categories of defect (when it could be discussion of what outcomes we as a society want to see for our investment in public education).”

“I don't think this is entirely the fault of physicians. Most of them learn about drugs from the drug companies (last time I checked, pharmacology was not part of the medical school curriculum at most universities). And of course, they're in the business of making patients happy. Many patients are looking for quick pharmacological fixes to their health and behavior issues, responding in part to television and print advertising by big pharma. How do you explain the fact that a person would rather sign up for a lifetime of medications to treat diabetes than lose weight? And you do know that big pharma spends more on advertising than on research, right? That the average American has twelve prescriptions a year? We are NOT healthy compared to the rest of the industrialized world, because we rely on the big-profit pharmacological approach to medicine, when the simpler lifestyle solutions produce better results. In spite of our rush to medicate our children, they are not achieving what children in other countries achieve. We're on a downward spiral, and we need to step back and question our assumptions.

I do not question the existence of serious, biochemical mental illness. I have seen it, and I have seen it treated with beneficial results. I don't argue for a return to the big mental hospitals, with people chained to the walls. But we are in mind control territory, and this is not going to turn out the way we want it to.”

“Not naive, just terribly well educated in psychology, law, and a few other fields. And not easily misled by advertising.”

“Great point. ADHD is a "disorder" only because we "need" children to sit quietly in classrooms (or at home, even sadder). OK, their behavior is inconvenient for us. Doesn't mean it's an illness. Maybe it means we should find appropriate activities and environments for kids with a whole lot of energy, and a tendency to lack focus when bombarded with stimulation.”

“Yeah, and no one considers an interview with a psychiatrist (usually short and consisting of a parent reporting undesirable behavior and requesting medication) to be an appropriate "test."”

“I believe ALL children would be served well by what you call a "kinesthetic-based curriculum" and what I would call simply lots of activity and exercise. No one is served by worksheets. My daughter attended a very highly-regarded public elementary school and never once saw a worksheet until we changed districts, something I still regret. The classes were the same size, but the approaches were entirely different.

You bring up the "minimal decorations and sensory disruptions." I think that's an important point as well. The classroom with lots of pictures, posters, and other stuff hung everywhere around might make adults happy (they look like the sets of children's TV programs), but I know my normal children were distracted by them. What kind of environment is most conducive to focus and learning?

Bottom line - we need to re-think how we're approaching education for all children, not just those who seem to be most harmed by how we're doing things now.”

“Sorry it offends you, but I and many others have examined the material taught in education programs and found it wanting. The teachers in my family agree. I have written a number of dissertations for people obtaining education PhDs (working my way through another degree program), so I think I have some knowledge of the topic.

OK, so let's forget about your name calling. What exactly do you know of research on learning, memory, cognition, etc. that bears on the topic of this post? Have anything to contribute?”

“Maybe instead of treating a large proportion of school children for ADHD, we should consider whether schools are structured properly to meet the needs of children. These and some other psychiatric "disorders" in children are more properly thought of as disorders of society, and the treatment of these disorders in children with psychotropic drugs more properly as thought and behavior control. Aldous Huxley was prescient.”

“I want to modify my comment a bit. There is some excellent education research. It's not what's popular, and appears not to be what's taught in most education programs.”

“The point is that the research that purports to demonstrate the existence of multiple intelligences does not, that there is no evidence that supports this notion and some evidence that argues against its existence. I had friends in college who insisted that different colors of M&Ms taste different. So we did an experiment. They were blindfolded, given two M&Ms, and asked to say simply "same" or "different." They couldn't do it. The swore they would be able to tell. Now these were smart folks, so data trumped b.s. What do the data here tell you?”

“OK, it attempts to be scientific. But the quality of the science is embarrassing to anyone who has been exposed to real science. Reminds me of psychology in the days of psychoanalysis: all myth and jargon. Lots of "faith" and lots of true believers.”

“Second.”

“Some kids start out with advantages that others don't have based on their home situations. It is not true that there is "nothing" that a teacher can do. There is a great deal of evidence that certain teachers have consistent success with kids that lack the advantages others might have, while some teachers consistently fail. To me that says that we are not training teachers properly, and that we really need to get rid of some so-called professionals who believe that the fact that "it's hard" excuses them from responsibility. Thank goodness other professionals don't use that same logic. "Sorry, you have cancer. How can I be expected to do anything?"”

“Maybe it's because we progressives are the last of the working people -- with jobs to do, families to care for, and a whole bunch of charity work taking up what's left of our time. Who has time to take a trip anywhere, let alone to Washington?”

“Now that is an insightful comment. These are the drugs used to tranquilize us. Say no. Just stop if you still have the will to do anything.”

“"We" drove up the cost of houses by speculating in real estate and buying more than we needed.

Insurance companies and banks invested in mortgage-backed securities, relying upon the ratings provided by companies like Standard & Poor's, and not investigating the quality of the underlying mortgages themselves, which would have been difficult anyway because of the unavailability of the documentation. They speculated, and they should have known better. Probably did know better, just thought they'd get out in time. Sort of like the house-flipping consumers.

Banks for the most part didn't give out the bad loans -- they really can't because of regulatory controls. Those were sold primarily by mortgage companies, many or most of which are now out of business.”

“I wonder whether the growth of the middle class after WWII didn't help to fuel our current economic crisis. From the folks working in the factories to the folks working on Wall St., we were all middle class folks proving our worth by engaging in a buying frenzy. The upper class folks? Well, they were busy investing and making a fortune. We need to break this cycle, which is self-defeating in every way imaginable -- for marriages, for our own economic well-being, for the environment.”

“If you want someone who shares your values, go where that kind of person will be. The library, not the bookstore. An investment seminar, not a bar. And try to look past the lack of expensive highlights in her hair.”

“I've been reading a book by Ruby Payne entitled "A Framework for Understanding Poverty." As my sister has said, "It is not without its detractors," but I am finding an eye-opener nonetheless.

Payne is talking not just about poverty, but about class in general, and the hidden rules that operate in each class in our country. People learn the rules of the class or classes they grow up in. They aren't really aware of them, but they do notice when others violate them, and are usually critical of the offenders.

For lack of space I'll have to over-simplify a great deal here, but this is the gist: the poverty class doesn't have or expect much and focuses on having a good time, and on relationships with friends and family. The middle class is focused on acquiring stuff. The upper classes save their money and invest while networking and building relationships of influence.

If you grew up squarely in the middle class, or if you had one foot in the middle class and wanted to move into it, you want to acquire stuff, because that's how you show that you're there, and that's what being there means. It's hard to break the cycle of acquisitiveness because it's an unwritten rule - if you aren't buying stuff, for your home, yourself, your girlfriend or boyfriend, your spouse, your kids, etc., you're not successful, you're not a "provider." .”

“Thanks, Virginia. There we have the crux of the problem.”

“What the author fails to discuss is the very real cost of this naming of sensations. We medicalize relatively normal, but undesirable, sensations, and then we expect medical remedies, covered of course by insurance. So suddenly we are all paying for people's pharmacology and massages. And if the "syndrome" continues unabated? Well, then there's a disability, and that means a lifetime of payments and accommodation in the workplace. The individual with the syndrome, who in another time and place might just have adapted to the discomfort and carried on, is disabled by a label.

In the future, everyone will be disabled by syndromes.”

“One should not break conversation on the wheel of exact inquiry.

(But yes, you are correct)”