Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thinking the unthinkable

anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 462 posts

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#21

Post by mscarborough »

LatterJohn wrote: post #14
jerrya wrote: post #2

I think this woman's blog post is interesting, for all the obvious reasons as well as the consideration that Aspergers and other forms of autism are associated with Silicon Valley children.

As someone from her sons perspective. Unfortunately, she doesn't deal with her son the way he needs to be dealt with. Stick him in-front a computer, surround him with electronics(DO NOT TAKE THEM AWAY, USE THEM AS THERAPY) and feed him. Nothing else... This is how your autist/aspy child becomes a brilliant geek. If you even attempt to program them in the NORMAL way, they will do nothing but, reject, and yes, call you…

Instituting a mild punishment to a child "WILL GET YOU KILLED"? Really?

This parent is not "insane" for trying to help her own kid, even if that might mean an institution.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#22

Post by jff »

LatterJohn wrote: post #14
jerrya wrote: post #2

I think this woman's blog post is interesting, for all the obvious reasons as well as the consideration that Aspergers and other forms of autism are associated with Silicon Valley children.

As someone from her sons perspective. Unfortunately, she doesn't deal with her son the way he needs to be dealt with. Stick him in-front a computer, surround him with electronics(DO NOT TAKE THEM AWAY, USE THEM AS THERAPY) and feed him. Nothing else... This is how your autist/aspy child becomes a brilliant geek. If you even attempt to program them in the NORMAL way, they will do nothing but, reject, and yes, call you…

This is a terrible idea. I'm sure it's an attractive idea, the childhood you wished you had, but really it sounds like a good way to let your child sink deeper into isolation.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#23

Post by joonix »

brianchu wrote: post #19
joonix wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may be politically incorrect to say right now, but I think the genes associated with mental illnesses that have a tendency to lead to violence will be phased out by a future generation sometime within this century and the next. We'll soon enough try gun control. That won't stop mass killings. Then we'll try increased mental healthcare access. That won't do much because we'll struggle with the Constitutionality o…

I don't think there is anything wrong with the idea that one day people will try to optimize their genes, even if it's only self-selecting. Yet: 1) Hereditary factors can only explain a small part of the picture. Eliminating hereditary factors that predispose people to developing mental illnesses would only eliminate a fraction of the problem. Environmental factors play a huge role. 2) The point at which what you des…

But the CT shooter was never in trouble with the law and wasn't known to have any violent tendencies. And most people are not like the OP blogger: they aren't going to turn in their child to the authorities.

A schizophrenic may not ever have violent tendencies. Then, one day a voice tells them to kill everyone.

Meanwhile, someone without a mental illness has a moment of rage and threatens to kill a guy at a bar. Do we lock him up and drug him too?

What were the environmental factors behind Lanza and Holmes (Aurora)? Both came from upper-middle class backgrounds. Both grew up in idyllic environments with "normal" parents with careers and health insurance.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#24

Post by fernly »

joonix wrote: post #12
forrestthewoods wrote: post #7

Post like this terrify me. What if there isn't anything that can be done? It seems like there are some people that are just born broken or at some point they break. Men who experience schizophrenia it often stars in their late teens or early 20s, and late 20s/early 30s for women [1]. I had a friend in high school who was completely normal in every way. During his first year in college he literally just went crazy. It…

This may be politically incorrect to say right now, but I think the genes associated with mental illnesses that have a tendency to lead to violence will be phased out by a future generation sometime within this century and the next. We'll soon enough try gun control. That won't stop mass killings. Then we'll try increased mental healthcare access. That won't do much because we'll struggle with the Constitutionality o…

You haven't thought it through. Try to visualize how such a program would be implemented. You run into intractable problems. One: who defines what traits are undesirable? (Do you imagine this would ever be uncontroversial? Aggression, for example, is needed -- sometimes.) Two: who determines how future behavior is linked to genes; and how is it ever proved that future behavior is only and certainly genetically-based and in no part linked to upbringing? Three: what if a genetic pattern associated with unwanted behavior turns out to be linked with another trait that is desirable (e.g. the subject of this story is both violent and highly intelligent; what if both traits come from the same genes?). Four: by what means do you coerce parents into not breeding? Is deliberate breeding a crime? Punishable by what? Five: what do you do about accidental children? Execute them? And so on. No democracy would ever install such a scheme.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#25

Post by javajosh »

jaggederest wrote: post #6
javajosh wrote: post #5

Does anyone know a) how often this sort of pattern presented itself historically, and b) what people did back in the good old days? For example, what would a small rural town have done to support someone like Michael? Would they have treated him somehow? Would they have assumed he was possessed by a demon and tried an exorcism? Or would they have found a way to get rid of him in a hunting accident, and had a dirty li…

> Of course, since his outbursts are so episodic, My suspicion is that they very specifically aren't episodic - lots of kids with this style of behavior problem are excellent manipulators. You can't discount the possibility that he's behaving well and poorly in order to extract what he wants out of other people.

That doesn't sound consistent with the article at all. I mean, the kid seems to have uncontrolled outbursts which don't sound manipulative to me. I mean, he didn't want to go to the mental hospital but he repeated the behavior he knew would get him there. Perhaps it was a gamble to see if his mom would keep her word, but the way the article is written, it doesn't sound like that.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#26

Post by jdale27 »

LatterJohn wrote: post #14
jerrya wrote: post #2

I think this woman's blog post is interesting, for all the obvious reasons as well as the consideration that Aspergers and other forms of autism are associated with Silicon Valley children.

As someone from her sons perspective. Unfortunately, she doesn't deal with her son the way he needs to be dealt with. Stick him in-front a computer, surround him with electronics(DO NOT TAKE THEM AWAY, USE THEM AS THERAPY) and feed him. Nothing else... This is how your autist/aspy child becomes a brilliant geek. If you even attempt to program them in the NORMAL way, they will do nothing but, reject, and yes, call you…

Maybe, he'll be the next Steve or Bill. Perhaps, he'll be the next Gary Mckinnon.

Or the next Hans Reiser.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#27

Post by stretchwithme »

HorizonXP wrote: post #8

Mental health care isn't that easy to obtain north of the border either, here in Canada. I had to wait nearly 1.5 years to get the help I needed. I've dealt with issues for over 25 years, and only recently have I identified them. I still struggle with them. During the last 1.5 years, I nearly failed out of my Master's program. Here's hoping I can finish it.

I have two family members that were bipolar. One lived in the US and was diagnosed and treated for decades. She received free care due to Medicaid and Medicare. She was always poor.

Was it the best care? Perhaps not, but at least she could always get it when she acknowledged she needed it.

The other lived in the UK and went undiagnosed for decades. When he finally met his mom and realized he was also bipolar, he had to push the health service doctors hard to accept his diagnosis and finally treat him. He was successful engineer and even owned his own company.

It seems universal care sacrifices everybody's quality. Personally, I think 2 sensible people could sit down and design a better system than either approach.

Good luck with finishing your degree.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#28

Post by potatolicious »

LatterJohn wrote: post #14
jerrya wrote: post #2

I think this woman's blog post is interesting, for all the obvious reasons as well as the consideration that Aspergers and other forms of autism are associated with Silicon Valley children.

As someone from her sons perspective. Unfortunately, she doesn't deal with her son the way he needs to be dealt with. Stick him in-front a computer, surround him with electronics(DO NOT TAKE THEM AWAY, USE THEM AS THERAPY) and feed him. Nothing else... This is how your autist/aspy child becomes a brilliant geek. If you even attempt to program them in the NORMAL way, they will do nothing but, reject, and yes, call you…

> "Maybe, he'll be the next Steve or Bill. Perhaps, he'll be the next Gary Mckinnon."

Or maybe something will trigger him at age 20 and he makes good on his threats.

> "This mom seems to be (insanely)attempting to program a NOT-Normal-Child into a Normal-Child."

Because the "not normal" side of the child is violent, cunningly manipulative, and possibly homicidal. There is a line at which we draw acceptable behavior - homicidal and violent intent seems pretty liberal.

This is not a typical aspie we're talking about. When a child has demonstrable, repeated, unpredictable, and extremely violent tendencies we can't just lock them in a room with a terminal and hope everything turns out ok.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#29

Post by joonix »

fernly wrote: post #24
joonix wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may be politically incorrect to say right now, but I think the genes associated with mental illnesses that have a tendency to lead to violence will be phased out by a future generation sometime within this century and the next. We'll soon enough try gun control. That won't stop mass killings. Then we'll try increased mental healthcare access. That won't do much because we'll struggle with the Constitutionality o…

You haven't thought it through. Try to visualize how such a program would be implemented. You run into intractable problems. One: who defines what traits are undesirable? (Do you imagine this would ever be uncontroversial? Aggression, for example, is needed -- sometimes.) Two: who determines how future behavior is linked to genes; and how is it ever proved that future behavior is only and certainly genetically-based…

You're not understanding me correctly. I'm not saying it will be a government mandate or coercion of any kind. I'm saying cultural attitudes will change on their own as "genetic awareness" becomes more mainstream.

I'm making predictions about the future here and you are looking through modern day eyes. Twenty years ago people would be appalled to see the kind of things we openly share on Facebook with our friends today. In the future people may have no qualms about sharing their genetic profiles. There very well may be an eHarmony type service that matches based on potential offspring rather than answers to a questionnaire.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#30

Post by javajosh »

fernly wrote: post #24
joonix wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may be politically incorrect to say right now, but I think the genes associated with mental illnesses that have a tendency to lead to violence will be phased out by a future generation sometime within this century and the next. We'll soon enough try gun control. That won't stop mass killings. Then we'll try increased mental healthcare access. That won't do much because we'll struggle with the Constitutionality o…

You haven't thought it through. Try to visualize how such a program would be implemented. You run into intractable problems. One: who defines what traits are undesirable? (Do you imagine this would ever be uncontroversial? Aggression, for example, is needed -- sometimes.) Two: who determines how future behavior is linked to genes; and how is it ever proved that future behavior is only and certainly genetically-based…

This is a very confused comment. Parents make these kinds of choices all the time, albeit on much coarser grounds (bring the down syndrome baby to term, or not?). If we started doing finer-grained genetic screening, clearly the choice would be the parents, and the question of "accidental children" doesn't even make sense: by default, the kids we make will be 'accidental' just more thoroughly, optionally, screened.
Post reply on HN