I never knew about this! (I'm guessing it applies to other psychologists as well.)

https://omaha.com/eedition/sunrise/articles/how-to-discipline-children-with-asd/article_db2e30cd-4217-5a32-a71c-c4df7dd50c21.html
(the author is a psychologist)

Q:I am a grandmother with custody of my two grandsons, 6 year old twins. Because of behavior problems at home and school and difficulties relating to other children (they play and communicate with one another just fine), they have been diagnosed with autism. What is your opinion of the diagnosis, and what can I do to help them? Their therapist has told me that usually means of discipline won't work, but has yet to give me something that does.

A: As opposed to a verifiable physical disease such as cancer, all psychiatric (mental health) diagnoses, including autism — or, more accurately, autism spectrum disorder (ASD) — are based not on "hard" data but on third-party description. As such, a diagnosis of ASD is a construct and subject, therefore, to unreliability. One psychologist may render a diagnosis of autism while another may render, for the same child, a diagnosis of, say, childhood bipolar disorder or oppositional defiant disorder.

There are several theories concerning autism that attribute its origin to genetics and other biological factors, but none of them have been proven conclusively. The dispute, mind you, is not over what people are reporting — behavior — but speculative notions regarding etiology, or cause.

For the above reasons, I don't pay much attention to diagnosis. In the first place, in today's health care environment, insurance providers require that mental health professionals assign one or more diagnostic labels to anyone they see. A psychologist won't get reimbursed if he tells an insurance company that he is counseling so-and-so because of "problems in relationships." Reimbursement depends on the psychologist diagnosing so-and-so with a recognized mental illness like depression.

It is not uncommon for twins during early childhood to develop a "secret language" which they only use to communicate with one another. The phenomenon, estimated to occur with nearly half of all twins (including fraternal), is called cryptophasia. With or without cryptophasia, however, idiosyncratic, twin-to-twin behaviors can also develop that may ultimately interfere with normal peer relationships during early and middle childhood. In most cases, these difficulties are eventually "outgrown," but this phenomenon should be taken into account when evaluating young twins who are having difficulty socializing with other children.

If my hunch is correct, then what people are seeing may not be autism (suspending for the moment any question concerning the validity and reliability of the diagnosis). Regardless, the notion that "normal means of discipline don't work with autistic children" is pure balderdash. That says more about the person making that claim than it does your boys. I've worked with a good number of parents of children diagnosed with ASD. These kids are not a different species; they are human. As such, the same principles that govern the successful discipline of any human child, applied properly, will work.

What does NOT work with ASD kids is acting like the diagnosis requires that they be handled with kid gloves. The proper discipline of a child, diagnosis or not, requires adults who are ready to step up to the plate and deliver unequivocal authority.

Kid gloves just won't do.

(end)

And (from 2018 - the relevant comment is at the bottom):

https://www.ajc.com/lifestyles/parenting/year-old-defies-parents-every-opportunity/jSOuuZ0PsSo3WfMo1Lyo0I/

Q: We are having no success getting our 3-year-old (her third birthday is in a couple of weeks) to do what we tell her to do. She defies us at every opportunity, whether it’s just ignoring us or telling us “no” or even physically fighting us. We’ve tried time-out, but she won’t sit, and if one of us tries to hold her in her “happy chair,” she screams and kicks and arches her back and we’re afraid we’ll hurt her if we don’t let her go. We’ve tried taking away privileges, but there really aren’t that many to take away and she doesn’t seem to care anyway. Are there consequences we haven’t thought of that might turn her around?

A: There are probably consequences you haven't thought of, but I'm sorry to inform you that consequences are not the key to the effective discipline of a child. Rewards and punishments work very reliably and predictably with dogs and other animals. They do not work such with human beings. When it comes to the discipline of children, behavior modification has been a complete bust (along with every other psychological parenting theory).

The key to effective discipline is a proper parental attitude. Breaking it down, it’s one-third proper body language (as opposed to what the parent-babblers advise, stand up straight and tall when addressing a child), one-third proper speech (when giving instructions, use the fewest words possible and preface them with authoritative phrases such as “It’s now time for you to….” and “You need to….”), and one-third refusing to engage in non-productive back-and-forth (arguments).

To be more specific with regards to the latter, do not explain your reason for giving a child an instruction. The lack of explanation provokes the universal invitation to battle: “Why?” There is one proper response to that invitation: “Because I said so.” That very time-honored phrase is nothing more than an affirmation of the legitimacy of the parent’s authority. After delivering that affirmation, walk away. Do not hover over a child, waiting for her to begin complying. That is sure to draw resistance. If one is in a situation where walking away is impossible, then turn away and pay attention to something else.

My finding is that the proper parental attitude described above, which identifies the parent as the Alpha in the relationship, minimizes discipline problems. They quickly become small potatoes. Consequences may sometimes be necessary, but two facts are pertinent to this discussion:

1. Without an authoritative attitude on the part of the parent in question, no consequence will work for long.

2. With that authoritative attitude, consequences are rarely necessary.

In the life of nearly every child who is a major behavior problem in the home there is at least one adult who has no problems with the child at all. That is proof that the problem is not located “inside” the child in the form of biochemical imbalances and other equally spurious fictions. It also proves that the child is not the problem.

So, to parents like yourselves, I advise: Find that person and watch him or her. You’ll save yourself a lot of money that you might eventually spend on therapy.

(end)

> I never knew about this! (I'm guessing it applies to other
> psychologists as well.)
>
> https://omaha.com/eedition/sunrise/articles/how-to-discipline-
> children-with-asd/article_db2e30cd-4217-5a32-a71c-c4df7dd50c21.html
> (the author is a psychologist)
>
> Q:I am a grandmother with custody of my two grandsons, 6 year old
> twins. Because of behavior problems at home and school and
> difficulties relating to other children (they play and communicate
> with one another just fine), they have been diagnosed with autism.
> What is your opinion of the diagnosis, and what can I do to help
> them? Their therapist has told me that usually means of discipline
> won't work, but has yet to give me something that does.
>
> A: As opposed to a verifiable physical disease such as cancer, all
> psychiatric (mental health) diagnoses, including autism � or, more
> accurately, autism spectrum disorder (ASD) � are based not on
> "hard" data but on third-party description. As such, a diagnosis
> of ASD is a construct and subject, therefore, to unreliability.
> One psychologist may render a diagnosis of autism while another
> may render, for the same child, a diagnosis of, say, childhood
> bipolar disorder or oppositional defiant disorder.
>
> There are several theories concerning autism that attribute its
> origin to genetics and other biological factors, but none of them
> have been proven conclusively. The dispute, mind you, is not over
> what people are reporting � behavior � but speculative notions
> regarding etiology, or cause.
>
> For the above reasons, I don't pay much attention to diagnosis. In
> the first place, in today's health care environment, insurance
> providers require that mental health professionals assign one or
> more diagnostic labels to anyone they see. A psychologist won't
> get reimbursed if he tells an insurance company that he is
> counseling so-and-so because of "problems in relationships."
> Reimbursement depends on the psychologist diagnosing so-and-so
> with a recognized mental illness like depression.
>
> It is not uncommon for twins during early childhood to develop a
> "secret language" which they only use to communicate with one
> another. The phenomenon, estimated to occur with nearly half of
> all twins (including fraternal), is called cryptophasia. With or
> without cryptophasia, however, idiosyncratic, twin-to-twin
> behaviors can also develop that may ultimately interfere with
> normal peer relationships during early and middle childhood. In
> most cases, these difficulties are eventually "outgrown," but this
> phenomenon should be taken into account when evaluating young
> twins who are having difficulty socializing with other children.
>
> If my hunch is correct, then what people are seeing may not be
> autism (suspending for the moment any question concerning the
> validity and reliability of the diagnosis). Regardless, the notion
> that "normal means of discipline don't work with autistic
> children" is pure balderdash. That says more about the person
> making that claim than it does your boys. I've worked with a good
> number of parents of children diagnosed with ASD. These kids are
> not a different species; they are human. As such, the same
> principles that govern the successful discipline of any human
> child, applied properly, will work.
>
> What does NOT work with ASD kids is acting like the diagnosis
> requires that they be handled with kid gloves. The proper
> discipline of a child, diagnosis or not, requires adults who are
> ready to step up to the plate and deliver unequivocal authority.
>
> Kid gloves just won't do.
>
> (end)
>
> And (from 2018 - the relevant comment is at the bottom):
>
> https://www.ajc.com/lifestyles/parenting/year-old-defies-parents-
> every-opportunity/jSOuuZ0PsSo3WfMo1Lyo0I/
>
> Q: We are having no success getting our 3-year-old (her third
> birthday is in a couple of weeks) to do what we tell her to do.
> She defies us at every opportunity, whether it�s just ignoring us
> or telling us �no� or even physically fighting us. We�ve tried
> time- out, but she won�t sit, and if one of us tries to hold her
> in her �happy chair,� she screams and kicks and arches her back
> and we�re afraid we�ll hurt her if we don�t let her go. We�ve
> tried taking away privileges, but there really aren�t that many to
> take away and she doesn�t seem to care anyway. Are there
> consequences we haven�t thought of that might turn her around?
>
> A: There are probably consequences you haven't thought of, but I'm
> sorry to inform you that consequences are not the key to the
> effective discipline of a child. Rewards and punishments work very
> reliably and predictably with dogs and other animals. They do not
> work such with human beings. When it comes to the discipline of
> children, behavior modification has been a complete bust (along
> with every other psychological parenting theory).
>
> The key to effective discipline is a proper parental attitude.
> Breaking it down, it�s one-third proper body language (as opposed
> to what the parent-babblers advise, stand up straight and tall
> when addressing a child), one-third proper speech (when giving
> instructions, use the fewest words possible and preface them with
> authoritative phrases such as �It�s now time for you to�.� and
> �You need to�.�), and one-third refusing to engage in
> non-productive back- and-forth (arguments).
>
> To be more specific with regards to the latter, do not explain
> your reason for giving a child an instruction. The lack of
> explanation provokes the universal invitation to battle: �Why?�
> There is one proper response to that invitation: �Because I said
> so.� That very time-honored phrase is nothing more than an
> affirmation of the legitimacy of the parent�s authority. After
> delivering that affirmation, walk away. Do not hover over a child,
> waiting for her to begin complying. That is sure to draw
> resistance. If one is in a situation where walking away is
> impossible, then turn away and pay attention to something else.
>
> My finding is that the proper parental attitude described above,
> which identifies the parent as the Alpha in the relationship,
> minimizes discipline problems. They quickly become small potatoes.
> Consequences may sometimes be necessary, but two facts are
> pertinent to this discussion:
>
> 1. Without an authoritative attitude on the part of the parent in
> question, no consequence will work for long.
>
> 2. With that authoritative attitude, consequences are rarely
> necessary.
>
> In the life of nearly every child who is a major behavior problem
> in the home there is at least one adult who has no problems with
> the child at all. That is proof that the problem is not located
> �inside� the child in the form of biochemical imbalances and other
> equally spurious fictions. It also proves that the child is not
> the problem.
>
> So, to parents like yourselves, I advise: Find that person and
> watch him or her. You�ll save yourself a lot of money that you
> might eventually spend on therapy.
>
> (end)
>

>From my own experience as a troubled teen, I knew all about what no-
nothing jerks most psychologists are. It took four of them to fail
with me at that time. It was the fifth one who finally reached me with
sense - and used the exact method described above, threatening me with
being placed in an institution which held problem kids like me.
Because of his unwavering attitude of enforcement, I knew he meant it.
The fact of my having been in another "institution" for four years of
my youth, I knew damn well I never wanted to return to that. That
experience was a great portion of the reason for my present problems.
The above story enforces the belief I've always had that this one guy
who knew his job is the reason for the decent life I've had for over
eight decades. Great post.

On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 5:53:31 PM UTC-4, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> >From my own experience as a troubled teen, I knew all about what no-
> nothing jerks most psychologists are. It took four of them to fail
> with me at that time. It was the fifth one who finally reached me with
> sense - and used the exact method described above, threatening me with
> being placed in an institution which held problem kids like me.
> Because of his unwavering attitude of enforcement, I knew he meant it.
> The fact of my having been in another "institution" for four years of
> my youth, I knew damn well I never wanted to return to that. That
> experience was a great portion of the reason for my present problems.
> The above story enforces the belief I've always had that this one guy
> who knew his job is the reason for the decent life I've had for over
> eight decades. Great post.

Glad you liked it.

My (relatively recent) philosophy is "beware of anything that costs money; most of the time, it's a rip-off."

Whether it's overpriced fast food, overpriced health food (sometimes mislabled food), therapy, or religion.

(I believe that if you want to be considered a good member of religion X, all you should have to do is read the book and then be as kind and generous to society as you can, according to those tenets, more or less. That is, you should not have to give money to the LEADERS of that religion - why pay a middleman if you don't have to?)

In the same vein, I've liked Rosemond's authoritative (NOT authoritarian, contrary to what his enemies say) advice, which I've read for almost 30 years, despite not having kids, and I try to pass it on discreetly to parents, without using his name. This is because I don't enjoy his religious or political attitudes, and plenty of other people wouldn't either.

However, that doesn't change the fact that his books (at least half of them have no religion or politics, thankfully) are just common sense. Many might say "well, duh, I'm already smart enough to be the boss of my children instead of the other way around, so why do I need these books?"

The answer is that chances are, as a parent, you're going to be surrounded by parents who DON'T have common sense, so you don't want to get brainwashed, and reminders in books can be a big help.

As in: no, contrary to what the sheep are doing these days, you can't avoid using the word "no" after the child turns two or so - positive distractions only work sometimes, even with toddlers. Besides...violent criminals (aside from the 80% who were abused as kids) are often the ones who grew up never hearing the word "no"!

And if that makes a little kid cry, so WHAT? Kids need to learn to accept disappointment - and other people's rights - as a daily experience. I.e., a crying kid is NOT the sign of a bad parent; it's simply the mark of a typical toddler - or an older spoiled brat who is finally being turned around.

P.S. Two more beliefs of Rosemond's that most(?) parents today likely wouldn't accept are the idea that young people can and should marry when they're barely out of their teens - and his apparent belief that the economy and cost of housing aren't radically different from when he was married at 20, in 1967. That is, plenty of young people today will tell you that they simply cannot afford to marry before they turn 30, if then. Why? They want to be out of debt, they want savings, they want to live in safe neighborhoods, and they certainly don't want to be potentially responsible for their spouses' debts. What's more, marrying someone means being prepared to pay huge medical bills, should one's spouse get hit by a car and never be able to work again.

And while those are good reasons for late marriage, of course, they all lead to an obvious fact that's unpopular with conservatives; people, gay or straight, don't abstain from sex until 30, and those who do are assumed to be asexual or unpopular, even if they're religious. Therefore, a man who is scared of divorce court (who isn't?) and has brains will NOT marry anyone barely over 18 or a 30-year-old virgin.

I.e., both young men and fathers of teen daughters have good economic reasons to stop obsessing over female virginity. (In a father's case, that reason would be not wanting his daughter to marry in haste, repent at leisure, and come back to her parents with a couple of babies, asking for financial help. A sensible father would want her to leave home and support herself for a few years before she marries - and to learn to think hard about her finances before marrying ANYONE.)