About Me

Name: Dr. Scott
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Starting to Get Some Traction Again

After about a week of stuttering around 283.5, I am back to losing. Yesterday was a new low, 281, and today I reached 280. Woohoo! And I bought a new computer today--no more crashes because my CPU can't handle my webcam. I've been *trying* to use Skype to keep in touch with family, and the last 2 times, I've had it crash my computer right after starting a webcam call. It would be less stressful if it were just my brother and I, but we also have our spouses and all our kids sitting there waiting for my 10-minute long reboot. I'm really hoping this will all be a funny memory in about a week.

I should also say that I have started using facebook, which has been a lot of fun. Shauri and I share an account, so look for my name, her name, then our last name if you're looking for us on there.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Still Losing!

I finally got my full 8 hours of sleep last night after getting 6 or 7 for the last week, and I can really feel the difference.

Last week I did 22.41 walking miles, which is not much different from what I started doing in January. But the pounds were coming off by the bucketload--I've lost 9 pounds in the last 10 days. The big difference is I've gone 100% off sugar, and I'm controlling portion size. I've always hated the idea of dieting, and avoided it all my life. But I'm giving it a try for the first time and it's really working!
 
It makes a big difference to have so much support--to go public with my goal, so my kids, my wife, and a lot of other people know that I'm not eating sugar. Sometimes it is the hardest thing I do all day, to not eat a chocolate chip pancake with honey on top (ftuor example). I'm finding though that the hunger pains are a lot more manageable than I thought--I have a nagging in my tummy, and it reminds me that I'm losing weight, but it isn't debilitating like I was afraid it would be.
 
I figured if I did this I would always have a cross expression on my face, and become one of those people who have frown lines instead of smile lines. I imagined I wouldn't be able to sleep at night. I thought my brain wouldn't work right and I wouldn't be able to do therapy very well with my clients if my tummy was asking for food the whole time.
 
None of those fears have materialized. Yesterday when I was having afternoon cravings, I just got out the Legos and the kids and I did some building. I wasn't even thinking of my stomach most of the time. And when it did get strong, I ate a grapefruit--and felt fine again. I don't know what the difference is--could it be that sugar has that big of an impact on hunger? It used to be that if I ate a grapefruit to quell my hunger pains, I would still be hungry.
 
It reminds me a lot of when I worked at Anasazi (where Shauri and I met). I was 260 lbs. when I went there, and hearing that I would be hiking 25 miles per week and surviving on 2500 calories per day, I was certain I would always feel starved. But the reality was that I was only mildly perturbed by hunger, and I actually never finished my entire food pack in any of the weeks I was there. There's something special about eating simple foods. I know there must be some of the principles involved that make the Shangri-La diet successful (my brother has had a lot of success with it)--your body going into weight-loss mode (instead of calorie hoarding mode) when you aren't eating rich and flavorful foods. My diet has been very plain lately compared to the past--oatmeal with some milk and berries on it is much much blander than Life cereal.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Various things--but Susan Boyle is the best part!

It just continues to go down. This morning I was at 287.5, another new low. I told Shauri that I'm like a gay guy who chooses to live straight--it's not that I'm no longer attracted to chocolate and ice cream (sometimes I want it with every fiber of my being--like last night when I gave everybody except myself a mini chocolate bar for family night treat), just that I'm choosing to abstain. Must. Have. Control. :)
 
Here's my neato graph from weightlosswars.com. Yes, my username there is Camberus--it's a variation of one I've used since high school.
 
 
Last night I got to talk to my brother and his family over Skype (webcam/voice chat application). I have had some positive experiences with the application, but this is the 3rd time that a session has ended with repeated dropped calls, and my computer has restarted twice while using it (once last night). I don't know if it's a bad driver, if my 1.33Ghz computer just isn't up for the job, or if there are other issues, but it had me very perplexed. Right now we are hoping that our webcam might allow us to keep in touch with family, being so far from our relatives. But if this continues...I don't know what we'll do. We're due for a new computer, but I don't even know if that would solve the problem.
 
On a lighter note, I had 75% of my taxes finished last night (I have a little left to do, but the worst part is over--the Schedule C and the deductions!). I am looking forward to having that behind me. Shauri and I also had a blast watching Susan Boyle perform on Britain's Got Talent--if you haven't seen her yet, look her up on YouTube. Our favorite version is 7:31 long, and has more of the performance than what was on Yahoo!'s front page yesterday. Every time I watch her, I get get a huge smile. Go ahead, watch it. You'll see why people love her.
 
Last good thing: tonight I start a therapy group for Bipolar Disorder. The curriculum is straightforward--you can find it here on Amazon. Tonight we'll start with talking about the causes of manic depression, triggers and risk factors, the stigma associated with it and the discrimination that can come with it, and what can be done to prevent relapse if a person is doing well. I'm excited to start it. It was suggested by one of my clients; after reading the book Madness, she felt for the first time in her life like someone understood what she was going through. She asked if we could have a group at our clinic for people to get together and support each other through this disorder. My clinical director loved the idea, and a group was born.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Senator Tom Courtney's reply to my letter on protecting traditional marriage

Here is my Iowa state senator's reply to my letter on protecting traditional marriage. See my earlier post (2 down from this one) for my letter to him. Note that the typos and other errors have been preserved from Sen. Courtney's (D) original.
 
Scott,
 
 I have received over a hundred emails on this issue and I am trying to answer them in the order that they came. I am sorry if you have had to wait longer that you thought necessary.
 
I appreciate your perspective on  the recent Supreme Court , which I understand is unpopular to some Iowans.

First, as I continue to review the Supreme Court's lengthy decision, it is clear that Iowa has a long tradition  of ensuring the basic rights and protections of all Iowans.  Iowa has been a leader in extending rights and protections to all Iowans.  I respect that tradition.  I also respect the Supreme Court's determination in the ruling that by barring gay and lesbian couples from marrying, the state of Iowa was depriving many Iowans "of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law."
 
Second, I understand that Iowans are concerned about the possible impact of this decision on our churches and other religious institutions.  The Supreme Court  faced these concerns head-on when it stated this in its unanimous ruling: "Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views. A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution. The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past."

Finally, both Republican and Democratic legislative leaders have stated that they do not expect this issue will be addressed during this session. For that reason, in the final days of the legislative session, I intend to concentrate on completing the budget and helping Iowans recover from the deepening national recession.

For all those reasons, I intend to respect the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court and I hope that other Iowans can do the same.

Thank you for taking the time to write to express your opinions.
 
 
Senator Tom Courtney
Senate District 44
 
So basically he's saying, "I don't care that this flies in the face of the will of the majority, or that this goes completely against our long-standing tradition of marriage, or that gays and lesbians always had the right to marry (nobody ever tried to stop them from engaging in a legal heterosexual union, which is what marriage is)." He's pretending that only "some" Iowans are opposed to this (not the majority), and that none of the arguments are valid against this misuse of the state constitution. He is counting on us forgetting in the year and a half before he goes up again for reelection.
 
BTW, if you would like a look at this guy, his website has a photo:
 
schmuck
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Success at last!

I have been flirting with weight loss for 4 months now. I thought I was serious about it. I joined a weight loss competition in January, on weightlosswars.com . I have walked over 250 miles. But I have not been able to cross the 290-lb. barrier--I have bounced back and forth between 291 and 296 since starting.

Today, I have finally passed it: 289!

The frustrating thing is that this did not happen through getting more exercise--I am actually getting less right now, because I am recovering from a leg injury that has stopped me from walking to and from work every day (4 miles round trip). I have had to make up for it with short walks, biking, weightlifting, and some dancing and yoga. That may sound like a good substitute, but really I am exercising a lot less than I was a month ago--about half as much.

So how did it finally happen? Cutting sugar, and reducing portion size.

Yup. Horrible. Plain old dieting.

I have been asking my wife for suggestions, and sharing with her my frustrations about not losing weight despite exercising so much. About a week ago she wondered to me about whether cutting out sugar may make a difference. That rang true for me, because I've had a nagging feeling in recent months that I might be close to becoming diabetic. So, I decided to take up the challenge. I have cut out all obvious sugars, like candy, ice cream, sugar and honey on things, etc. But I've also cut out simple carbs as much as possible too, like most pasta, white rice, white flour, breakfast cereal, sweetened yogurt, etc.

The other thing that I've changed is portion size. A client came into my office last Wed. who looked fit and healthy--about 230 lbs. and 6'2". He told me that in 2002 he was over 400 lbs. He had gastric bypass surgery, lost the weight, and has kept it off. He has changed his way of eating, and also works out about 5x per week, including at least twice a week weightlifting.

I was envious, especially when he talked about the social rewards of getting thin, like having people look at you at the checkout line instead of avoiding eye contact with you--he said that he used to have to be really cheerful and outgoing to get anyone to respond to him in public. It sounded painfully familiar.

So I went on the web and looked up the procedure. The most eye-opening parts of the site I found, which was an informational site designed for those considering the procedure, were those that talked about the lifestyle changes that would be required. It said the procedure isn't for you unless you can commit to things like regular doctor visits, exercising regularly, and drastic dietary changes.

I got to thinking--if I had the procedure done, I would be "forced" to make these changes--I would be in a program that would make it hard not to do them. But aren't most of these ones that I could do on my own, if I really decided to?

My client had explained that he had learned to think differently about food, like how big is a standard portion size, and to not think of himself as a "big" guy who needs a big meal. He eats about 6 times a day now, but meals are far smaller.

Although I have struggles with it, the concept has been helpful for me. Like Saturday, I ate a burrito at dinner, and felt like I was entitled to more--"after all," (my thinking goes), "I'm a big guy." It's that kind of thinking that has gotten me into this mess.

So, having "only" eaten one burrito, I still felt entitled to "the rest" of my supper. Our family went to a conference, and my wife brought snacks (Isn't she wonderful?)--fruit roll-ups and cheese sticks for the kids, and an orange and a cheese stick for us--which should have been plenty. But because I still had this idea of deprivation in my head, I accepted a second cheese stick when it was offered. Later, when I thought about it, I realized I didn't really need the second one, and I didn't feel hungry anymore after the first one--I just had this set amount in my head of how much I was supposed to eat before stopping, and I hadn't passed it yet.

I'm expecting that I will experience this psychological hunger a lot, for a long time. These kinds of thinking patterns are not easy to change. But I'll keep working on it, and I have a wonderful wife who is definitely on my side in this. When I talked to her about what I'd realized about the cheese sticks, she asked if I'd like her to not offer me seconds usually, hoping that that would be helpful. I told her it would be very helpful, and thanked her soundly :)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

In Support of Traditional Marriage

I wrote this letter today and sent it to my state senator and representative:

As an outraged constituent, I am writing because you have the opportunity--again, but this time with greater urgency--to support a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage.

I am saddened and disappointed by yesterday's ruling, but I am even more saddened knowing that this could easily have been prevented if previous legislatures had shown bravery and taken up this issue preemptively, rather than letting it be decided by the courts, our least democratic institution.

You could easily have acted on this issue in the last legislative session, but there was a lack of perceived political expediency. I followed the drama closely, hoping, praying, and urging that you would act to bring a constitutional amendment forward--so that we wouldn't have to wait until 2012 before getting an amendment through. Unfortunately, too many senators and representatives called for us to "wait and see how the courts would decide"--as if it were not your *express responsibility* to protect us from unelected judges twisting our laws by fiat!

We could see the writing on the wall--did anyone really doubt how the state supreme court would rule on this question? But regardless of how they would rule, we all knew that the opponents of traditional marriage are determined and relentless, and that *nothing* short of a constitutional amendment would stop them.

We should have known better. We should have acted when we had the chance. I am disgusted with those who did not support action earlier--but I pray that they will now understand that their reelection hinges on how they act now.

I urge you to understand that this is one of the two or three most important issues facing Iowa now. If you fail to act in the interests of the majority this time, there will be no forgiveness. You will be removed. We will cleanse our government of those who show spite and disdain for the institutions that have made our civilization stable and lasting. Traditional marriage is one of the key foundations that have helped us survive as a civilization, and people who support that view of marriage will not step aside and watch idly as self-serving men and women attempt to destroy those foundations.

Act now before it is too late.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What Twilight taught me about Jesus

Yesterday I was driving to the mall with my daughter, listening to a local radio station, and a song came on that seemed to be a love song, but I suspect it was actually written by a Christian rock band (you get that occasionally in Iowa; I don't know about the rest of the country). It was saying things like (loose paraphrase): "You are so incredible"; "I can't believe you would notice me"; "You have become everything to me"; "There could never be anything like this"; "There is nobody even remotely like you." It seemed apparent to me that the female singer was singing about her newly discovered love affair with God, but that the message crossed over enough to the way we sometimes feel when infatuated with human lovers, that it was picked up also by a mainstream radio station.

Since I recently finished Twilight and the characters and relationships are on my mind a lot, I couldn't help noticing the parallel with Bella and Edward. She can hardly believe that a being so beautiful and talented as he would stoop to noticing her. She is obsessed with him, can't stop thinking about him, and can't imagine living without him. She immediately flutters at the thought of him, at the sight of him, and at the touch of him.

There are a lot of Meyer fans who seem to delight in the idea of ever having a relationship like that--with an Adonis-like person who is so far out there in beauty and ability that it is like dating someone from another world.

It occurred to me while listening to the song that we each have the opportunity for something exactly like that. Jesus is so far beyond what Edward is that there is no comparison, and yet He offers an intimate, personal relationship with each of us. He actually wants to communicate with us individually, notices our every thought and word, and wants to be with us all the time. How unbelievable is that!?

It seems to me that if any of us actually caught the full realization of this, we would be so bowled over by it, that it would make Bella's response to Edward seem tame by comparison. Not only would we not be able to stop thinking about Him, but all of our actions, thoughts, and wants would be driven by the desire to stay as close to Him as possible, so that He would never leave us. There would be a prayer in our hearts at all times, an ever-open two-way line of communication, always sharing whatever was on our minds, rather than hiding from Him and ignoring Him the way we usually tend to.

Needless to say, these thoughts come as a surprise to me, and the implications have brought me some joy already today--a prayer in my heart doesn't seem like such a hard thing to do, especially when I'm thinking about how wonderful and amazing He is, rather than how lowly, uninteresting, and silly I am. It's a love affair that never has to end, and the eventual outcome promises to be much better than getting bitten and becoming a vampire--but He certainly does want to make me just like Him, without any nasty side effects and no regrets!
 
Last night as a family, in our evening Book of Mormon study, we were reading 3 Nephi 28, when Jesus gives each of his disciples 1 wish. It was neat to discuss with my children what they would wish for if they could have just one wish (so "more wishes," the idea of my 9-year old daughter, wouldn't work; besides, I told her, you don't get cheeky with Jesus). Shauri, my wife, has recently been telling them the story of Twilight, so it was fun also to discuss the amazing gift that the Three Nephites got, in terms of what Edward's characteristics are. They can never die. They can't be hurt by anything (including fire). They cannot be held in even the deepest pits (they smote the earth with the word of God, and were delivered from the pits). All animals are friendly toward them. They can converse with angels at will. They can ask the Father to be able to show themselves to and talk with anyone. They apparently were able to cross oceans (Mormon said they would also minister among the Jews, and the Jews would know it not--that's on the other side of the world). They can feel no pain, except sorrow for the sins of the world. All of this, and it isn't even as good as we're all going to get when we're resurrected; Mormon states that the change that happened to them is inferior to the one that will occur at Judgement Day, when they will be fully celestialized.
 
My kids loved the discussion, and wanted to talk about length about what resurrected people can do--fly, move at the speed of thought, stand in the middle of the sun--their imaginations were running pretty wild with it.
 
So as long as we're comparing Jesus to Edward (I know, poor comparison), isn't it incredible what he offers us? The Three Nephites are a cool example, a concrete example, of what is in store for all who develop a close relationship with Him. "Come unto me," is His constant open invitation. And that's no fantasy.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Spirit of Christmas

Last night for family home evening, Shauri summarized for our children the story of A Christmas Carol, using illustrations from a beautiful edition from our local library. Afterward, we watched the Patrick Stewart version as a family; our children got restless with all the dialogue, but it was nice that they already knew the story, because it was able to hold their attention fairly well. I still prefer the George C. Scott version, but this one was fine despite some choppy editing--like when Scrooge goes to put the cap on the first Spirit, and there is nothing leading up to it, so the viewer is left wondering why he is getting so aggressive.
 
What I was most impressed with, while I watched with my family, was the way the Bob Cratchit family were joyful and optimistic in their poverty. And it brough to mind a shameful episode this last Sunday, when I tersely told Shauri that we needed to find a way to buy some bulk food soon so that we'll have enough to eat this December. I later felt bad (and still do) about having the conversation in front of our children. I recalled almost immediately a story I had read about a husband and wife who both came from families with lots of children, who had difficulty making ends meet. Whenever his family discussed money issues (like, "can I buy some candy?"), his parents would say they couldn't afford it. Whenever her family discussed money issues, the children got a simple "No" that didn't focus on the lack of money in the family.
 
The result was that he grew up with a sense of weight about family finances which carried over into his adulthood--a gloomy bleak attitude about money that affected his marriage. On the other hand she grew up feeling happy and unconcerned about money, and wasn't burdened with adult cares while a child and never realized that her parents were barely making ends meet. The family lived within its means, but money was not a source of anxiety to her when she grew up, the way it was for him. Instead, she developed a can-do, practical attitude toward it.
 
As I watched the portrayal of Charles Dickens' archetypal large impoverished family, I wanted to be more cheerful about our financial difficulties--not perhaps to the point of hiding them from our children (everyone in Bob Cratchit's home seemed to understand that the goose and pudding were probably the best treats they'd get all year)--but certainly in a way that found joy in more things that don't involve money, like playing games together and reading books together.
 
On a related note, I'd like to share a heartwarming Christmas story (follow the link) from Stephenie Meyer, the author of a bestselling book (Twilight) that I'm reading. It also illustrates what we can and can't afford, but with an important twist. The story appeared in The Ensign in 2006, so any regular readers of that LDS periodical will probably recognize it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More on Prop 8

Here is Catholic response to the bigotry being heaped on the LDS Church in the aftermath of Prop. 8.

Catholic Response to Anti-LDS post-election backlash

The only other thing I have to say, is how interesting it is that I haven't yet seen a single news article from a mainstream news source that has reported that Prop 8 is the will of the people, and therefore has weight--i.e., certain things are going to happen as a result. Instead, they at most say that it "calls in to question" or "casts doubt on the status of" the thousands of same-sex marriages that were entered into prior to the election.

A constitutional amendment was passed that states clearly what it is meant to do. It does more than cast doubt on those marriages or call them into question. It invalidates them!

If things had gone the other way, I have little doubt that it would have been reported as a slam-dunk, definitive, and the final word on the issue.

So I for one would like to say, elections mean something, and if your side is having the court invalidate a democratically-decided constitutional amendment, which is supposed to supersede the courts in this form of government, then you have just declared yourselves to be, at the very least, uninterested in settling the question through democratic processes.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why have Marriage and Family Therapists?

I was asked today by one of my Marriage and Family Therapy (MFT) graduate students the following questions today that touched on the topic of why have the field of MFT when there is overlap with social work (MSWs), psychologists, mental health counselors, etc.: 
"I was wanting to ask you as a Phd person in the field, is there a lot of MFT people doing research?

"The other question I wanted to ask is why is so many of these mental health fields crossing into other areas? As an example: MSW people are doing substance abuse, counselors are doing MFT therapy, MFT people say that most of their practice involves seeing individuals... I am new to this field and am tring to understand why so many labels seem to cross into the same areas of mental health. Can you help me understand?"
 
I've included my response below:

Those are great questions. In terms of research numbers, we are a smaller field, so there is less research out there that is strictly MFT. There are only a few handfuls of doctoral programs in our field, and not every Masters student does original research for her/his thesis, and even fewer go out and get theirs published. There is also, as you have mentioned, a lot of cross-fertilization. It was pointed out to me a few years ago that the largest section in the American Psychological Association (APA) is the family psychology section. There are a lot of psychologists that work with families, and they see their work as on par with (or better than) ours; they usually don't see the need for separate training for MFT work. Needless to say, when you are looking for "MFT" research, it is always good to look beyond just that acronym and see what is out there under "couple counselng," "relationship therapy," "family counseling," etc., because there are people from other fields who also contribute to our work.

There is a definite need for this field, and the training that we receive fills a niche that others do not. I think that the defining differences are systemic thinking and a focus on relationships. I wouldn't say that the majority of my work is with individuals; I see about 20% couples, 50% children with parents (which I call family therapy), and about 30% individuals. There are a lot of cases where someone starts out seeking individual therapy, because they just assume that would be the modality of our work together, and I get them on board with the idea that family and significant others are an important part of their framework for change. For example, if a person is coming in for depression and she is married, I invite her to include her husband. Many other counselors/therapists wouldn't. But I tell her that a person's support network is very important to getting better, and that therapy often goes faster and is often more effective when it utilizes the client's closest relationships.

Our way of conceptualizing problems and solutions is relationally-focused, something that I can't say about the other therapists that I work with at the community mental health agency where I do therapy. I find that clients find the approach very refershing and positive. That touches on another difference with MFTs that isn't universally true, but tends to be true: we tend to be more collaborate, non-pathologizing, and a bit avante-garde in our approach to mental health. For example, we tend to go for alternative approaches rather than the standard approach, to question the status quo, and to want to bring new perspectives to the table. I think we add a lot of spice and flavor wherever we work, and I think the mental health industry serves people better with our option added to the mix on the mental health menu.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My thoughts on Nov 4th.

I wish I could have pulled off an Iowa win for McCain, but I used up all my magical powers on Prop 8 in CA :(

I'm still in mourning--today was the first day since the 5th that I've been able to stand plugging into the political news.

Isn't it amazing that when conservatives lose elections they accept the results (note the calls for unity behind Obama that were made in McCain's concession speech), while when liberals lose elections they stage protests and file lawsuits? I guess I should be surprised that Californians would rather have unelected judges decide the meaning of marriage than have it settled by popular vote. That ballot initiative was won fair and square--in fact it was the record Latino and African-American turnout for Obama that helped pass Prop 8, since those supporters broke in disproportionate numbers in favor of the measure. Contributions by Mormon supporters of the Prop 8 measure have been demonized as bigotry, while openly discriminatory remarks about the LDS (Mormon) Church and its members' right to political speech have taken on an increasingly hostile tone.

Can you imagine the mayhem we'd be experiencing if Republicans were filing lawsuits right now to disqualify illegal votes and pushing for an investigation of the illegal fundraising in Obama's campaign? Can you imagine the uproar if extra votes were being found that were disproportionately Republican in the Minnesota senate race? Can you imagine the accusations of fascism if opponents of Prop 8 who contributed to the No campaign were being singled out publically and "shamed" for their contributions?

McCain and Bush have show their class in the way they have responded to the Obama victory. I hope history remembers.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

We're Moving!

   
Shauri and I are packing boxes tonight. We have had our house on the market for 6+ months, and decided to try renting it instead, and instantly got several bites. We had no idea the rental market was on the rise, but that would make sense with foreclosures higher. Anyway, we are moving tomorrow to Burlington, IA, where we'll be in a smaller home (1 fewer bedrooms, smaller bathroom, no basement, but ther is a storm cellar full of spiders!) and only 2 miles from my work (rather than 40mi). We're pretty excited.
 
At the same time, I'm also moving my office. My work has given me one about twice the size of my current one, and we'll be moving some of our furniture and a bookcase into it this weekend also. First I have to repaint it--someone with bad taste dabbed bright blue paint all over the walls in an absurd pattern.
 
As I was cleaning out the room, I came across the folder of my work public relations lady. Although it had a few clients' service plans in the beginning, the rest of the folder were campaigning materials for getting out the vote for Hillary on Iowa Caucus night. Suddenly a lot of things began to make sense. Remember my blog posts on National Children's Mental Health Awareness Week? Well those were an expanded version of a newsletter article that this same PR lady asked me to write. When I submitted it, she wrote back a stern warning that "This does not fit with the company mission" and that we needed to avoid "controversial topics." Since when was looking out for the mental health of children controversial? But now her response makes more sense--my criticism of DHS/CPS and child care must have hit a political nerve for her.
 
In this organization for political speech from the left to go forward unchecked, yet when it comes from the right, it is "controversial." People yuck it up about voting for Obama, how backward conservatives are, etc. in staff meetings as if they assumed we were all unanimous in our beliefs. In our lobby, Planned Parenthood materials are displayed prominently on the wall and on the magazine table, and a lady just told me a couple of hours ago that she was going to have Planned Parenthood at a women's support group (there were only 2 attending, so hopefully there wasn't much damage done). If I were to put out materials from Birthright, I wonder how long that would last? Or I wonder if the Boy Scouts of America would be welcome at a kids' support group?
 
It's been frustrating this election season to see the blatant bias; I think it is getting to me. That reminds me. Two days ago, I saw one of Orson Scott Cards columns titled, "Will the Last Honest Reported Turn the Lights On?" linked on the Drudge Report. I read it, and the next day noticed that Rush Limbaugh had picked up on it and had read it in its entirety on the air, and had also put the link on his website. Meridian Magazine, where the column appeared, was a bit overloaded that day. :) I tried to go back there and read it again, and it was very sloooow. So if you want to read it, head over to http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-10-05-1.html where you can read his other essays also. He's a Democrat btw, but an honest one.
 
When I was at Meridian Magazine two days ago, I saw a banner ad for beautifullymodest.com . Shauri and I had a fun time looking at the site last night, and were impressed by the opportunity they provide high school-aged girls to help design dresses and basically receive a fashion design internship. If I were a young lady who was into fashion, I would be all over that! Too bad there's nothing similar for guys, but really who is going to have an especially for guys modest clothing store?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Painfully Inadequate

A couple weeks ago a good friend of mine suggested that I comment on the oil executives' testimony before the Senate. The best tidbit from that exchange, by far, was Senator Maxine Waters' admission that as a liberal, her ultimate goal would be to socialize/nationalize the oil industry--a complete government takeover. You can go here for more on that:

I've been working on a lot of other stuff lately--my personal and family life has been a mess. So, sorry to drop the ball on that. But I would like to point everyone to a great piece by Thomas Sowell on how painfully inadequate our two candidates are.
The point he makes about nuclear war is what got my attention. I take it very personally as one who has lived through nuclear war.
 
Haha, got your attention. No, I really haven't, but I have believed several dozen times that I was going through a nuclear war, and awakened to discover it was not real. I don't have a count of how many times I have seen mushroom clouds. I can tell you that the last time I had one of these dreams, I was trying to get to a safe place. I was in the Salt Lake Valley, where I grew up. My family was in a shelter, and I had gone to get some extra supplies, like water or something. There was a countdown--some enemy had threatened to nuke our cities, and had given us until a certain hour to comply with their demands. Our government was going to call their bluff. We all hoped that it wasn't real, that the enemy had been exaggerating or just lying when they said that they had the capability of nuking X number of our cities. Well, the hour arrived, and I was taking a gamble that the nukes really wouldn't go off. I was crossing a park, and way off in the distance, to the north, where downtown Salt Lake is, there was a big flash, and I turned to see the mushroom cloud rising. The nearest shelter was a maintenance shed in the park. Fortunately it wasn't locked. I opened the door and saw a big bucket. I grabbed it and filled it with the spigot attached to the shed--just so I could have some water, because I didn't know how long I'd be in there, and then got inside, and shut the door. I just hoped my family would be alright. 
 
I share this not because I think it was prophetic, but because that's what I picture the reality might be like if Iran gets a hold of nuclear weapons. Because like Thomas Sowell said, if Iran gets them, then we might as well say that the terrorists have them. And then the prediction made in one of last year's best films, "Children of Men"--that terrorists nuked New York when trying to blackmail the US--will be too real of a possibility. I have no doubt they want to do that, and that they would if they could.
 
There have been many times in the past 7 years when terrorists wanted to do something horrific, and were planning to, but somehow they were thwarted and were stopped. We haven't had another 9/11 (or worse), but it isn't because the terrorists aren't interested. We are working against them. And God seems to have helped a lot. I'm grateful for that. Like the British airlines plot that would have happened, if just a few other things had gone in their favor, but didn't. I see that as divine intervention. And I pray that he continues to intervene. I also pray that we won't be stupid this fall and elect someone who will hand our heads over to our enemies. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Children and Attachment: What Can We Do to Help?

Don’t Mess With Texas

May is Mental Health Month, and it started with National Children’s Mental Health Awareness Week, which was the first full week in May. Last week in this blog, I discussed two common mental health diagnoses among children (ADHD and ODD) to illustrate how some mental health problems can be caused mostly or partially by genetic factors.

There are also psychiatric problems that are almost purely caused by things that happen to you—what could be called situational or environmental mental health problems. For example, there are a lot of kids who would be pretty normal if they hadn’t had a forced separation from their parents at an early age, or if they hadn’t been abused, or if they hadn’t gone through some other major trauma.

I will focus this week’s blog on attachment-related mental health problems to illustrate mental health problems that are almost entirely environmentally caused. I say “almost,” because there is variation depending on temperament, intelligence, and other biologically-related factors. For example, two children could both be abandoned on the street, and one might have the resilience to be able to bounce back from this trauma. But most children would be deeply affected by it.

We look at the situation that is unfolding in Texas with the polygamist sect and we know that those 400-plus children are experiencing trauma—they are being yanked out of a familiar, loving, stable environment, and being put in foster homes away from their families, into a cultural environment that they have been raised to avoid, into an environment that would seem scary and dangerous to them.

Many of the boys, for example, are being put in a boys’ ranch type of setting, where they will be living side-by-side with kids who have stolen, run away from home, assaulted others, used drugs, etc. They will be exposed to swearing, TV, music, immodest clothing, and other influences that they believe to be harmful. Who could possibly argue that this would be a setting that would not cause these boys psychological harm? Especially when they have been taught that they needed to keep themselves separate from the outside world? They have been raised to avoid “the sins of this generation,” in the words of one father from the group. Now they are being dumped right into the middle of them.

The infants and children in the group were taken away from their mothers in the middle of the night. We can never go back and undo that damage. They were kept from their mothers when many of them were likely still nursing, possibly causing some of them to be weaned against their parents’ will. Days went by with those babies crying for their mothers, when the mothers could not reach them. The children have not been allowed to be alone with their mothers or fathers, to prevent “witness tampering.”

The children will be placed into a system that is not prepared for this heavy influx of children. Children will be separated from their siblings because the foster system isn’t designed to accommodate large families. Many will be placed far from home as the system stretches to find enough foster facilities. They will have emotional scars from this ordeal; they will be changed forever.

While some children in the group may be protected from underage marriage by the forced separation from parents, every child has been punished because the state didn’t have the patience to respectfully and peacefully ask for the information it needed in order to determine which children were in danger. Certainly the babies were not in imminent danger of underage marriage! The youngest among the children will likely be the ones most affected by the ordeal.

This unbelievable situation reminds us of the insane justification that a major in the U.S. military used in the Vietnam War for the destruction of the Ben Tre village: "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it." The atrocity that is happening in Texas should create an outcry across this nation among all people who are concerned about families and children’s emotional health.

Does Attachment Matter?

In my work as a mental health professional, the majority of cases that I see have at least some genetic piece to their cause—such as ADHD, most cases of depression and anxiety, and so forth. Probably the most common mental health problems that I see that are entirely avoidable are attachment problems. What is attachment? Attachment is precisely the kind of issue that the ordeal in Texas is all about.

Attachment is a bond that people form in their closest relationships. When the first bond—usually between a baby and Mom (but this could be any primary caretaker)—is allowed to be strong and steady, the child develops an internal sense of security about herself and the world—she trusts that people will be there for her when she needs help, and that the world is a fairly safe place. While this bond is forming, the infant is appropriately dependent. A parent who accepts this dependence as normal and natural (instead of rejecting it) helps the child to form a secure bond. If the bond is allowed to form properly, the securely attached child will develop into a child who can be appropriately independent as later ages: a child who feels safer exploring and engaging the world, who is more socially outgoing, and who develops into a happier and better-adjusted child.

When that initial bond is not strong—when it is disrupted in some way, the child often develops an insecure picture of herself and her place in the world—she becomes anxious about whether caretakers will be there for her, or avoids relationships because she has learned that people can’t be trusted. She may develop into a child who is clingy, who manipulates or feels she has to be in control, who uses tantrums to get her way, or who is shy and doesn’t do well with change. In these cases, we don’t say that the child “isn’t attached” or “failed to attach.” Rather, we say the child is insecurely attached, and once the problem is identified, we help the child to develop greater attachment security by helping the child heal and develop a stronger bond with her caregiver(s).

Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) is the extreme form of attachment problems and is relatively uncommon, but lesser varieties are more common—some studies estimate that about 30 percent of children are insecurely attached to some degree. Sometimes it is barely noticeable or only shows up in a few situations; other times it may seem like “everyone in the grocery store” can tell what the problem is! Among children with other mental health problems, we often see some evidence of attachment difficulties, especially where there has been trauma, abuse, or family disruption. Severe attachment problems can be mistaken for ADHD, ODD, bipolar, and some other disorders when a professional has not been trained to discern the difference.

“Too Attached”?

When I look at attitudes in our society about attachment, I feel deeply concerned that the rate of these problems will only continue to increase in our society. For example, the apparent ignorance of child protective services (CPS) in Texas about the effects of their actions on attachment. There seems to be a widespread assumption in society, and I hear this even among professionals, that separation from a parent at an early age is harmless, and can even be beneficial—that it can help a child grow.

I know one woman whose ex-husband wants to have their toddler daughter half the time, but during most of that time the little girl would not even be in his care. Instead, the daughter would either be in daycare or with the father’s girlfriend. When the mother voiced concern about this arrangement, a Department of Human Services (DHS) worker told the concerned mother that “daycare will be good for her,” and that the daughter needed to learn “how the world works.” How could anyone with a basic understanding of child development and attachment possibly believe that attachment disruptions with unfamiliar caretakers would be beneficial to a child?

This mother was also told that regular separation would be for the best, because her toddler daughter is “too dependent” on her—the daughter cries when separated from her mother, and there are (supposedly) too many hugs and kisses that the mother and daughter exchange when they are reunited! The ex-husband sees these as evidence that the daughter is “spoiled,” and has vowed that he’s going to “break her.” Again, these comments show a gross misunderstanding of child development and attachment. At such an early age, it is normal for a child to be distressed by separations from the caregiver and to seek a caregiver for comfort. Certainly a child can be “broken” of these natural separation responses, but is that the only thing that will be broken?

The toddler who is nonchalant or uncaring about separations is often praised as a “good child” because he’s so easy to drop off at daycare. But is this really a good thing when our children are easy to leave?

Sometimes these children are vulnerable to developing dismissive attitudes about attachment as an adult. For example, they can grow up with intimacy issues and have difficulty expressing emotions. Think about a child who is left to cry himself to sleep, or who is forced to endure prolonged separations from his parent before he is emotionally ready for it. When a child learns early in life that his dependence on a caregiver is a source of pain, and his feelings and needs will go unacknowledged and unheeded, he shuts off access to a vulnerable part of himself. He learns not to trust others with those feelings. He learns not to express his emotional needs.

What kind of a husband and father would such a boy grow up to become? An adult who is dismissing of his own attachment needs will be more likely to be dismissing of his children’s attachment needs also…and the cycle continues for another generation.

So if it’s not ideal for a child to be calm and uncaring when dropped off, what is the normal response? A securely attached toddler would be upset by the separation, but would eventually calm down—being consolable or soothable is also a sign of secure attachment. And if the caregiver comes back when the child is still upset, we could expect to see the child to feel reassured and consoled when reunited with her caregiver. Having this stable bond with her caretaker is essential for the child’s long-term mental health.

Unfortunately, in so many situations, nurturing this bond is not put as the first priority.

I have heard parents say that they avoid “giving in” to providing a nurturing response to their child because they don’t want their child to become “too attached.” They want to be able to lay the child down for a nap or drop the child off at daycare and not be bothered by any fussing. Ironically, it is the child whose attachment needs are adequately met in infancy that is the least needy later in life—the early investment pays huge dividends later on!

It Starts with Birth

So what are a child’s needs? Let’s look at early infancy. There are food, shelter, warmth, sleep, cleanliness; these are physical needs that we all (hopefully) recognize. So if you meet all of these, and nothing else, will the child thrive? Absolutely not.

In the decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union, for example, we heard horror stories of infants in Eastern Europe that were left in cribs for hours in orphanages, unattended because there were not enough staff to pick them up and give them emotional nurturing. The result was thousands of children with severe attachment problems. They would not respond to a smile. They avoided touch and were stiff when held. They bit and scratched themselves. They seemed to shut out the world. When they grew older, they seemed to have no social conscience.

In the U.S. we usually don’t see children that have gone through this degree of attachment trauma. Instead, we are more likely to see children who were treated like a burden or afterthought, who were yelled at, who were not picked up enough when they cried, who were allowed to cry themselves to sleep as infants. We see children who received little or poor amounts of touch and eye contact from their caregiver during feedings, who were placed in playpens, cribs, car seats, or strollers for long hours when awake instead of being held, played with, sang to and talked to.

We see children who are attached to a binky or blanket and are inconsolable when it is missing, who are babysat by TV programs or movies, and children who maybe only see their parent(s) for a few hours each day. We see children whose paid caretaker has been changed multiple times in the first three years of life, who have had multiple attachment disruptions. In short, we seem to be raising an entire generation of children where attachment problems will be commonplace.

The Ties that Bind

We live a society that is increasingly dismissive of children’s attachment needs, that assumes everything will be okay when children are put last. So many of us today were raised in less than stable environments, and we may think that this is normal, and then underestimate our children’s needs for our attention and nurturing. Among the nations of the world, parents in the U.S. spend less time on average with their children than any other nation, including the old Soviet Union. We spend long hours at work, and when we come home, our children may seem like strangers.

Is it any wonder that our children are reaping a windfall of rising mental health problems? Our choices about the time we spend with our children—and the quality of our interactions with them—have direct consequences on their emotions and behavior. Today we see an increase in aggression and defiance, in distractibility and impulsivity, in anxiety and depression, in addictive behavior and anti-social behavior. Is this avoidable? Some of it isn’t—some of it is genetic. Some of it is genetic but wouldn’t be triggered if our kids didn’t have such stressful, problematic lives, bad diets, environmental toxins, inadequate discipline, poor sleep patterns, and attachment disruptions. These and other factors may trigger inherited genetic weaknesses for mental health problems. Unfortunately, some of our kids’ problems can be caused by things that are entirely avoidable.

The New Normal?

A recently released studyby the National Institutes of Health (NIH, published in the March/April 2007 issue of Child Development) found that the more time children spent in daycare before kindergarten, the more likely they were to show aggression and defiance at age 10. These behaviors included demanding attention; arguing; bragging and boasting; cruelty, bullying or meanness to others; destroying things belonging to others; disobedience at school; getting into fights; lying or cheating; and screaming.

The researchers pointed out that those behaviors they saw were within the normal range and were not considered clinically disordered. Jay Belsky, one of the authors of the study, stated that children who have been in daycare probably aren’t abnormal enough that he could pick them out of a classroom just by observing them. Indeed, once children get into public schools, their behaviors tend to rub off onto peers, making it more difficult to tell the difference.

The study also found a benefit of daycare: slightly increased reading and vocabulary skills. Does this make up for the negative effects? Few of the parents I see in therapy would seem to want to have a child who is more aggressive and defiant, and who also knows how to use her mouth better. Especially if the words coming out of it are too mature for her age and not ones her parents want her learning.

With the widespread use of daycare in today’s society, are we willing to accept these behavior trends as the “new normal”? Do we need to find better ways of shielding children from these effects and getting help to the ones who have already been affected? Daycare is only one factor affecting children’s mental health; there are many other factors—for example the amounts of sleep children receive each night and parents’ effective use of authority, and how parents and teachers respond to a diagnosis. Giving children the best possible chance at a life relatively free of mental health symptoms is a complex undertaking.

As we celebrate Mental Health Month in May, let us use this opportunity to take a look at the kind of outcomes our society is creating for children. We need an increased awareness of the causes of children’s mental health problems, and which of them are avoidable. We need a greater awareness of the treatment options available. We need an increased commitment to giving our kids the nurturing, the environment, the tools, and the support to reaching their fullest possible potential.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Children's Mental Health: ADHD and ODD

The #1 Child Mental Health Disorder

As part of National Children’s Mental Health Awareness Week (May 4-10, 2008), we need to get out the word about the risk factors and causes of mental illness. Yesterday I wrote about sleep problems, which tend to occur at a very high rate among children with mental health problems. A resource that I often refer to for these is Solving Your Child’s Sleep Problems, by Richard Ferber. It has recently been revised, and there are other more up-to-date books also available.

 

When children have mental health problems, it is important to understand that some are not the fault of outside factors, such as sleep difficulties (though these can always make things worse!). There are disorders that are genetic—you simply have them because you were born with the genes for them. Even among these, genes alone don’t determine how you will fare with mental illness.

 

A boy with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), for example, which is the most commonly diagnosed children’s mental health problem, may fare very differently depending on how his parents and teachers respond to him. If he has highly involved parents and teachers who educate themselves about ADHD, help him learn skills to manage his ADHD, get him into treatment that includes more than just medication, and work with him on managing his symptoms, he will fare far better than a child whose parents and teachers don’t want to be bothered with it and just want a pill to make it go away.

 

Why do I say “he” when talking about ADHD? Girls also have ADHD, yet the disorder tends to be noticed in boys more often than it’s noticed in girls. Even though boys and girls may have similar raw rates of the genetic causes of ADHD (we don’t know enough to say if they do or don’t), the response they get from their environment is often very different.

 

For ODD, Genes Alone Aren’t Enough

There are also some psychiatric problems that a child can have a genetic tendency toward, but may not be triggered unless the child has a great deal of stress or some other life event that causes it to show up. For example, some kids have a family history of bipolar, depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, or some other problem. They may have inherited a genetic tendency for getting a mental health disorder. But it may not show up as long as the kids have stable, low-stress lifestyles.

 

For example, most kids with Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD, which includes rebellion and problems with authority), have a strong-willed personality. But this factor alone doesn’t cause ODD—you need to also have the right mix of environmental factors to develop it—genetics alone isn’t enough to set it off. Triggers can include an absent or emotionally distant parent, parents who tend toward power struggles themselves, inconsistent parenting, problems with peers, and substance abuse.

 

Because ODD is a relational and not a purely individual problem, I usually recommend family therapy that includes teaching the parent(s) new skills and behaviors. This doesn’t mean that parents are blamed for the problem; of course the child needs to change. The adults in the child’s life are also an important part of that change. Even when parents aren’t part of the problem, they are in the best position to be a part of the solution.

 

Comorbidity—How Can ADHD Increase the Risk of ODD?

In my clinical work as a therapist of children, I have seen each of these disorders, ADHD and ODD, occur separately. But I am surprised at how often they occur together. This may say something about the strain on parents that comes with having a more difficult child—ADHD can be hard for some parents to understand. I have a book on my shelf called It’s Nobody’s Fault: New Hope and Help for Difficult Children and Their Parents, by Harold Koplewicz. This is just one of many books available to help parents of a child with a this disruptive behavior disorder. I see parents who insist that their child is just lazy, that he needs to have more discipline, that if he would just try he would be able to do everything that other children do. Undoubtedly these expectations, when they are unreasonable, put strain on the parent-child relationship, and set him up for developing ODD.

 

Sometimes these perceptions of laziness or lack of effort can be true—to an extent. But a child with ADHD does have a real problem, and it is a problem that is not of his choosing. Parents and children may need professional help to see what he is more capable of, and what expectations are unreasonable.

 

I have met children whose parents had high expectations, and they were thus able to help their child manage his ADHD, so well that as they grew to adulthood, they were able to function without medication. I have also seen children wilt under the criticism and unrelenting demands of an unsympathetic parent. It is important to have a balance.

 

Rebalancing Parenting

Parents can find a wealth of resources for help with rebellious children. One that I have been very impressed with is Parenting Your Out-of-Control Teenager: 7 Steps to Reestablish Authority and Reclaim Love, by Scott Sells. He has another book for therapists, called Treating the Tough Adolescent. What I appreciate most about his approach, besides the fact that he helps parents get in charge, is that he does this through both the soft and the hard side of parenting. So many parents that I see with a rebellious child want to really crack down on the rules and get control back through the hard side—discipline and consequences. But when this is main or only focus (as is so easy when dealing with ODD, which tends to create angry, exasperated parents), the parent-child relationship tends to suffer. Dr. Sells teaches that the soft side of parenting—building a bond with the child—is necessary if you want the hard side to succeed. He recommends, for example, regular parent-child outings that build the relationship, and the kicker is that these need to be unconditional—they cannot be “lost” through misbehavior. The child needs to know that your love and care for him doesn’t depend on him being “good.” I have used this concept of working on the soft and hard side of parenting together with many other disorders, and found it to be very successful. In fact, I would say that I’ve found the soft side needs to come first, and be given even more attention than the hard side. I’ll give two illustrations why.

 

John Gottman, author of some powerful books on improving marriage (such as the bestseller, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work), has done some of the best research available on couple relationships. By carefully studying the interactions of couples and then tracking whether those marriages ended in divorce, he found that in order for a marriage to be stable, there has to be at least five positive interactions for every one negative one. Positives could be a compliment, a smile, working together, and so forth. Negative could be criticism, rolling your eyes, getting defensive, etc. When the ratio of positive to negatives became less than 5 to 1, he found that marriages tended to become unstable, and eventually lead to divorce.

 

So what does this have to do with parenting? Parents and children can’t divorce, can they? Actually, many of the same dynamics that lead to marriages failing are the same that lead to rebellious and oppositional parent-child relationships. The biggest difference is that the relationship can’t end with a divorce. But the parties can and often do wish they could be rid of each other, and sometimes it does end with either the child running away, the parent sending the child to live with another relative, or the child being placed in a program for troubled kids.

 

It is important also to know a further finding in Gottman’s research on marital stability. Simply having a marriage last is fine, but what about having a happy marriage? He found that couples who had a 10 to 1 ratio of positive to negative interactions tend to have happy, satisfied relationships. Surely there is a lesson here for parenting as well. This conclusion is supported by the research-based parenting education program called “Incredible Years.” It teaches parents that when discipline is the main focus, the parent-child relationship is out of balance: like a pyramid balanced upside down on its tip. To illustrate the proper balance of relationship-nurturing to discipline, they have created a helpful concept called the “Parenting Pyramid.” Here is a link: http://www.incredibleyears.com/resources/parent-program-pyramid.pdf What it illustrates is that the actions on the bottom of the pyramid form the foundation of a parent-child relationship: things like empathy, attention and involvement, play, problem-solving, listening, and normal talking together. These help to increase the child’s problem-solving skills, cooperation, self-esteem, and attachment (bonding with the parent). This is what grows and sustains the relationship!

 

At the top of the pyramid are behaviors that you need to use sparingly or rarely, and the less often you use them, the more effective they will be! These are consequences, such as time out and loss of privileges. Use these to decrease aggression. Many parents use these far more often, for example to increase normal compliance and obedience. The pyramid suggests more appropriate measures for increasing these: setting clear limits, setting household rules, and using consistent follow-through. When these are done in the proper balance, you won’t have so much aggression and need for consequences. For more information on the Incredible Years program, you can find their website at www.incredibleyears.com .

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123Next »