When I was labeled a ‘troubled’ teen, I obliged • Hacker News Board

Re: When I was labeled a ‘troubled’ teen, I obliged

#211

Post by unityByFreedom » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 3:37 PM UTC

treis wrote: post #203

thrashh wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I’ve learned at this point is that almost l no kid or adult is actually irrational. If someone seems irrational, it’s because their shoes are so different from any that you’ve been in. You simply have never experienced anything like their life (because if you did, you’d be like them). And you can’t actually ask someone to explain their own behavior because everyone only lives one life and they rarely know i…

>If someone seems irrational, it’s because their shoes are so different from any that you’ve been in. You simply have never experienced anything like their life (because if you did, you’d be like them). I disagree with this. As an example, a video came out the other day of a Chicago Transit Authority employee getting into an altercation with some guy. "Some guy" pushed him to the ground and walked away. The employee…

I think the parent commenter is suggesting that employee may have experienced some past trauma before that event. None of that excuses the behavior, nor does it excuse them from the consequences. Also, I would not call it "rational". I think that comment is just saying the hate could come from some past incident, and that it can be helpful for society to know the roots of violent behavior.

Re: When I was labeled a ‘troubled’ teen, I obliged

#212

Post by taurath » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 3:41 PM UTC

slibhb wrote: post #198

taurath wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Parents are much less sacrosanct in the US/UK than anywhere else. By what measure? Cultural relevance or actual legal authority? > No one actually knows how to raise children. We have a much better idea now about how to meet the developmental needs of children than ever before, I think almost anyone would argue. We have studies on the outcomes of things like corporal punishment. We have the ACE study and it’s effec…

> By what measure? Cultural relevance or actual legal authority? Both. Wales made corporeal punishment illegal recently. That would be unthinkable in most of the world. In most Asian cultures, children have a lifelong obligation to their parents. In the US, once you're an adult, you're on your own and it's not uncommon to have limited contact with your parents. > We have a much better idea now about how to meet the d…

> Both. Wales made corporeal punishment illegal recently. That would be unthinkable in most of the world. In most Asian cultures, children have a lifelong obligation to their parents. In the US, once you're an adult, you're on your own and it's not uncommon to have limited contact with your parents.

Isn’t this the parents rather than the kids? Parents who expect their children to take care of them even in Asia may tend to treat their children better.

> We might know more than we used to but we know very little. I suspect the vast majority of these studies have no predictive power.

Look up the outcomes of the ACE study, it’s one of the most predictive statistical studies ever created when it comes to many outcomes, including premature death, substance abuse, imprisonment and even bodily health outcomes. It’s extremely important.

> And the same is true for me: the fact that my parents were/are wonderful and my father hit me occasionally explains my views here.

Studies have shown that hitting children either is neutral or harmful. That it was neutral doesn’t mean on measure it’s not tending towards harmful. The more a child is hit the more developmental problems arise. Nearly any cohort controlling for other factors, striking a child has worse outcomes. There is data to back this up.

> But we're in danger of demonizing discipline and reasonable physical punishment.

Let’s not conflate the two. A time out is not the same as teaching a child they will be hit if they don’t obey. Parental authority is not infallible.

> My experience is that discipline and love aren't opposites, they should coexist and when you don't have one, you're going to have trouble.

I agree with this point and am not arguing for no discipline. The context of this thread is being labeled a troubled teen and being forced to go to a “discipline” prison.

Re: When I was labeled a ‘troubled’ teen, I obliged

#213

Post by kingcharles » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 3:46 PM UTC

hef19898 wrote: post #97

kingcharles wrote: post #80

Is anyone else disturbed at the sheer number of people in this thread alone who are coming out about being forcibly sent to one of these camps? And I'm thinking that statistically HN's demographic probably swings more towards nerdy, well-behaved white boys from two-parent families who are middle-class or above. Not necessarily who I would have thought would have been at harm from this scam. So, if the demographic I b…

Now that I come think of it, wouldn't that demographic actually be the target one? I mean you need to be affluent to send a kid to such a place. You, as in the parents, are under some social pressure to retain your social standing, you even have some lofty goals for your kids. You might be working, and travelling, a lot, so you're not around that much. After all, we are talking about private programs here. The poorer…

You might be right on all those points. If you look at interactions with the justice system it is skewed towards poorer demographics, but as you say, those are not the target of the scam as they lack the significant funds required to pay.

And in poor communities it is expected that your kids will get into trouble, sometimes even celebrated or encouraged by the parents (especially if gang membership is involved), so I can see that the middle-class or above are the ones that would be easily shamed into signing up.

Re: When I was labeled a ‘troubled’ teen, I obliged

#214

Post by charlieflowers » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 3:51 PM UTC

taurath wrote: post #187

slibhb wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’ll even give that in some cases there is just some condition that makes a kid incredibly out of despite actual loving supporting parents, but I would wager you can find environmental causes in most cases. It seems wrong to single out environmental causes as dominant. There are parents with multiple children who all did fine except one. Anyway, we know it's a complicated mix of genetics and environment and either…

> Parents are much less sacrosanct in the US/UK than anywhere else. By what measure? Cultural relevance or actual legal authority? > No one actually knows how to raise children. We have a much better idea now about how to meet the developmental needs of children than ever before, I think almost anyone would argue. We have studies on the outcomes of things like corporal punishment. We have the ACE study and it’s effec…

> We have studies on the outcomes of things like corporal punishment

Really, though, if you understand what a study is, and the principles it must live up to to avoid inaccurate conclusions, wouldn’t you have to say that the effects of corporal punishment is almost impossible to study?

To do it right they’d need to get rick and mortys help to bounce between dimensions.

(I am sorry you suffered abuse, and I too wish more could be done to stop it).

Re: When I was labeled a ‘troubled’ teen, I obliged

#215

Post by brimble » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 3:54 PM UTC

unityByFreedom wrote: post #209

brimble wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With one of our three kids, everything from those nicey-nice parenting books works perfectly, and always has. It goes exactly how the books say it will. It's wonderful, and so damn easy. Not so much with the other two.

Sounds like you have a typical family where each kid has found a way to get your attention. Positive Discipline suggests you likely dote on the one who is well behaved, while the other two primarily receive attention in the form of "why can't you be more like Matt?" Or, when they do improve, they don't get any attention for it because it's not up to what Matt could or would do. How accurate does that sound for your f…

The one who's easy is the youngest. I assure you the first born got a lot more positive 1-on-1 attention.

[EDIT] Also:

> The starting suggestion positive discipline might have is to block out some one-on-one time in the week, one parent with one misbehaving kid, even if it's just for an hour each. Then you are fulfilling their need for a connection in a positive way. You may see each other in a different light and even discover new strengths and contributions to the family. The idea is their need to get your attention by misbehaving will decrease over time.

Yes, we've been doing that for years, of course. It is partially effective, at very, very high levels of time committed. Effective enough we can tell when we've not been doing enough. I'd say it closes the gap between the easiest kid and the most difficult by maybe 20% on a perfect week.

Re: When I was labeled a ‘troubled’ teen, I obliged

#216

Post by Clubber » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 3:57 PM UTC

hef19898 wrote: post #204

Clubber wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Just because it hits home, genetic prevalence of cancer is something completely different from behavior and how people work in a society. >You know who else tried to predict future compatibility of certain people based on genetics? Both can be predicted genetically. You insinuated predicting outcomes in genetics was bad somehow because Hitler did it. It wasn't a great argument, you should just own up to it. ≥Don't e…

For risking a pointless dispute on forum, I'll comment one more time. No, I didn't make a Hitler comparison. Owning up to it? Sure, look up the history eugenics, its use through history and you'll find that the Nazi's use of it was the worst but by no means the only or first occasion where this approach (it doesn't matter that we can analyze genomes now) utterly failed. And no, future compatibility with society canno…

>No, I didn't make a Hitler comparison.

Why did you even bring it up then? Nobody from my comment down was talking about eugenics that I can see, until you introduced it to the discussion. It's like you are arguing against an imaginary person in your head.

This is the comment you replied to with your eugenics/not-Hitler argument:

>I wish this were always the case but statistically this would be a miracle. There is a non zero number of humans born that no matter what we do they will not work with the society that works for the rest of us.

>That’s the root of this issue. How do you help the ones that can be helped, and what do you do with those that can’t be helped. I imagine we’ll need a much more sophisticated understanding of genetics before we can answer that.

What does eugenics have to do with that comment?

>future compatibility with society cannot be judged on genetics

Nobody said this but you.

>Using proven things like cancer to justify BS theories like "eugenics" is, IMHO, unacceptable.

Nobody said this either. Who are you even arguing with?

>Because you don't have to be "troubled" (how I hate that attribute...) to drive drunk and kill a family of 4 (or whatever number you can think of). One bad decision is enough.

No, but I would argue people with "troubled" childhoods have a much higher propensity to cause societal damage like killing a family of 4 in a drunken joyride.

Re: When I was labeled a ‘troubled’ teen, I obliged

#217

Post by Clubber » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 4:14 PM UTC

denton-scratch wrote: post #206

rajin444 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We are as much a product of our genes as we are of our environment Don’t our genes dictate how we respond to our environment?

> Don’t our genes dictate how we respond to our environment? "Dictate" is much too strong. Genetics and environment interact in complex ways, that aren't well understood. I detest the idea that some people are just bad, and were always going to be bad. It seems to be an idea that attracts religious fundamentalists. I struggle with the idea that literally all psychological problems are the result of trauma; but I do t…

>I detest the idea that some people are just bad, and were always going to be bad.

I think some people (children really) have a propensity to be bad, but it can be corrected. When and how it's corrected has a lot to do with success. It has to be worked on early and properly, or it could make the problem worse. Like you I'm not comfortable with the idea that any child is irredeemable.

>I struggle with the idea that literally all psychological problems are the result of trauma; but I do think most of them are.

I agree, much of it is trauma, but some of it isn't. I think drug and alcohol dependence seems to be passed down quite a bit, which is also a significant source of detrimental behavior. I have it in my family but it seems to have dodged me.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4056340/

>Abundant evidence indicates that alcoholism is a complex genetic disease, with variations in a large number of genes affecting risk.

Re: When I was labeled a ‘troubled’ teen, I obliged

#218

Post by bradlys » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 4:19 PM UTC

dahfizz wrote: post #149

hef19898 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why I downvoted? Because, to me, the linked approach is the first (well, actually already a couple of miles) step towards tough love programs. It goes against everything good parenting is. Because at its core, much like tough love, the goal is to create "conforming" children that aren't causing any trouble. The goal of parenting, so, should be to offer a safe environment for kids to become who they are and want to to…

> The goal of parenting, so, should be to offer a safe environment for kids to become who they are and want to to become no matter what that is. Even if what they want is to become a drug addict felon? A mentally ill teenager does not know what is best for them. The parents job is to help their kids grow into happy, healthy members of society. The existence of rules does not preclude kids developing their own persona…

Straw man. Practically no one wants to become that. They end up becoming that because of their environment.

Source: know a lot of drug addict felons. Grew up with a lot. None wanted to be that.

Re: When I was labeled a ‘troubled’ teen, I obliged

#219

Post by taurath » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 4:40 PM UTC

unityByFreedom wrote: post #190

taurath wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This all pretends like there’s somehow no causality to many of these kids being “difficult”. I’ll even give that in some cases there is just some condition that makes a kid incredibly out of control despite actual loving supporting parents, but I would wager you can find environmental causes in most cases. My experience with friends who have gone to places like this is that the kids by and large were under extreme em…

> This all pretends like there’s somehow no causality to many of these kids being “difficult”. I didn't get that from the above comment. They were just asking people to listen to the stories individually, and to consider that culture can influence the choices parents make. Parents' choices can be misguided, and as you say, they need guidance too. > My experience with friends who have gone to places like this is that…

> I didn't get that from the above comment. They were just asking people to listen to the stories individually, and to consider that culture can influence the choices parents make. Parents' choices can be misguided, and as you say, they need guidance too.

I suppose I felt like it paints a fairly rosy picture of the "trouble teen" industry. "Resorts" with ski passes and mountain biking would seem to be the exception (and an extremely well heeled one at that) rather than the norm. I feel like in some ways the narratives that conservative "tough love" industries foist on parents is that their childrens emotions are unmanageable intrinsically rather than a relatively predictable outcome from parents who themselves were raised in a cycle of abusive and nullifying behavior.

That said there is a percentage of the bell curve of "troubled teens" who really did have a better than average upbringing in terms of getting physical and emotional needs met. The problem is that for many parents there's a self-perception that that number approaches 100%, when in fact its quite clear from the children's own experience that they were experiencing extreme levels of neglect. There's a vast gulf between the self perception of incompetent/traumatized parents and the actual needs of children, and I wanted to highlight that.

Re: When I was labeled a ‘troubled’ teen, I obliged

#220

Post by taurath » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 4:45 PM UTC

charlieflowers wrote: post #214

taurath wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Parents are much less sacrosanct in the US/UK than anywhere else. By what measure? Cultural relevance or actual legal authority? > No one actually knows how to raise children. We have a much better idea now about how to meet the developmental needs of children than ever before, I think almost anyone would argue. We have studies on the outcomes of things like corporal punishment. We have the ACE study and it’s effec…

> We have studies on the outcomes of things like corporal punishment Really, though, if you understand what a study is, and the principles it must live up to to avoid inaccurate conclusions, wouldn’t you have to say that the effects of corporal punishment is almost impossible to study? To do it right they’d need to get rick and mortys help to bounce between dimensions. (I am sorry you suffered abuse, and I too wish m…

I'm not saying anything is infallible, but the vast majority of what we know around corporal punishment is that it is ultimately harmful for everything other than obedience. It elicits aggressive behaviors in the children.

A metaanalysis that addresses some of what you're saying: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3447048/