The New Weekly Allowance

By Jessica Fox, LCPC

I love this article Modern Allowance Tribune Story on giving your kids an allowance. One of my clients referenced this article in a session so I decided to check it out, and boy was I glad I did. It’s not a mind-blowing, completely unique concept or anything., but rather, a sort of “duh” moment; why didn’t we think of this before?

I am no economic expert by any means. I am not well versed in the stock market and could probably only last 10 minutes in a conversation about the government’s plan to stimulate the economy. I’m a therapist, I could talk about anxiety and depression for hours…..However, as a therapist that works with parents, I found this article incredibly useful. It connects the concepts of finance with social responsibility. Two ideas that unfortunately have been strangers for some time now.

The article discusses a few different ways to distribute allowance to children. Many families are now adopting a plan that imitates the 401k system where they match what their children save. Other families are trying to teach kids about social responsibility, pushing them to place one third of their allowance into an envelope for charity. It is so important that we model and educate children about being giving. Many researchers have described today’s youth as “entitled.” I hear it all of the time in my practice, parents complaining that their children just seem ungrateful and entitled. It’s not all their faults. We need to do a better job at making charity a part of our lives and sharing this knowledge with our kids. Make it an expectation. You will teach your children two essential lessons about budgeting and valuing every dollar and the responsibility we all have to help those less fortunate.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: Now What? (Guest Blogger Jaclyn Pistorio)

These days it seems most talk about Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is in regards to men and women in the military. While this diagnosis is quite common in this population, it is also common among the general population. Though not as frequently discussed, men, women, and children without any military experience may also be diagnosed with PTSD. Many have heard of this disorder but, what exactly is it?

Essentially, individuals with this diagnosis have experienced one or several events that they interpreted as traumatic. As a result of this experience(s), these individuals may have trouble sleeping, develop nightmares, experience flashbacks (quick memories, smells, sounds, etc. that remind them of the traumatic event), and have difficulty concentrating. Additionally, these individuals may avoid the place the event occurred at and they also may avoid speaking to others about the traumatic event(s). Of course, there are many more symptoms a person may experience as a result of experiencing a traumatic event but, these are some of the more common symptoms. What is deemed a traumatic event? While natural disasters, witnessing a crime, rape, verbal/physical/sexual abuse, and various accidents are common causes of PTSD, any event(s) that an individual is unable to cope with by himself or herself may be seen as traumatic.

So what do you do with this information? Unfortunately, not many mental health professionals have had sufficient (or any) training in working with individuals who have experienced the above symptoms and may even meet the criteria for PTSD. You may be reading this thinking, “Hey, that sounds like me” or “This sounds like someone I know.” I’m here to give you some helpful suggestions that will help you and your loved ones on the road to recovery and a more fulfilling life!

• Do your research! Believe it or not, but not all therapists are qualified to work with individuals who have experienced trauma. Also, visit the National Center for PTSD’s website: http://www.ptsd.va.gov for more information about PTSD symptoms, up-to-date research, and resources.

• Essential to any individual’s recovery from a debilitating disorder is support. If you feel you may have PTSD, seek out additional support. If you know someone who may have PTSD, show some support! Become involved in their recovery, make yourself available to talk as often as you can, and consider family therapy if it is appropriate.

• Almost all individuals with a diagnosis of PTSD also have co-occurring diagnoses (or eventually develop them). Some common co-occurring problems include: Alcohol Abuse, Depression, Anxiety, Anger, and Substance Abuse to name a few. It is important to seek assistance as soon as possible to minimize the impact of the trauma and begin the healing process.

As a psychotherapist specializing in traumatic stress, I understand that all this information may be overwhelming and you may still be confused if you or a loved one may suffer from PTSD. You may get lost sifting through the millions of publications on PTSD; you are not alone. Contacting a physician or psychotherapist is the first step down the path to recovery and, if necessary, I hope you will take it!

Social Media--Savior or Self-Indulgent? (Guest Blogger Jessica Fox)

Last week's Today Show told a story about a mother who used Facebook to post photos of her son's rash. After going to the doctor and getting a strep test, the rash persisted, leaving her understandably worried. This woman's friends and family instantly posted support and suggestions that she go to the hospital; a few who were doctors even thought it may be a rare disease called Kawasaki's. It turned out they were correct; the search engine that has gotten so much negative coverage helped saved her son's life:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43757155/ns/health-slate_com/

This story got me thinking about the light and dark sides of Facebook and other social media sites. So often in my private practice, I encounter situations where Facebook has caused tweens and teens to feel isolated, ostracized, and completely stressed out from the pressure to keep up with photos, status updates and friends. I have seen parents ban Facebook altogether, worrying that their child is obsessed! There are also parents who have banned Facebook because their children are using it inappropriately with provocative photos or vulgar messages. So, my overall feeling has been that many adolescents are not truly ready for a responsibility like Facebook.

However, let's be honest: Facebook and other social media sites are here to stay, so when and how do we teach our children to use it wisely? How can they learn if they are banned completely? It will probably only increase the lure of the forbidden fruit. Are we doing them a disservice by robbing them of the opportunity to connect with others? These are difficult questions and ones that most parents in this country should be asking themselves.

As a psychotherapist, I find much of my work--and perhaps my biggest challenge--is being a liaison between parents and teenagers. It is a critical part of my practice because of the huge disconnect that often exists between generations. My advice to parents regarding Facebook is this: allow your child to open a Facebook account as a privilege, not as a human right. I won't suggest an age, because this level of maturity should be determined by you, the parent. Your child should be able to earn this privilege by showing good decision-making skills, a sense of self-worth, responsibility, and the ability to resist peer pressure. When that child of yours does have an account, it is up to you to monitor it and make sure that your child is upholding his or her end of the bargain. No inappropriate photographs or language, no identifiable information, a limited amount of usage on the website, and a healthy usage of it. You should have your child's password and set limits.

If your child misuses Facebook, then of course there should be a consequence; the most natural and logical consequence is a break from Facebook altogether. For how long? Well it is up to you to decide how your child needs to built trust in order to regain the privilege. I encourage you to write out a road map with concrete examples. Sometimes saying "you have to earn back my trust" is too abstract for adolescents. It would be beneficial to give them examples of what "earning my trust back" would look like.

Sometime I get scared when I think about what adolescents will be using for social media in 15 years, and I'm sure I'm not alone. All the more reason to equip our children with the tools necessary to navigate the murky cyberwaters, as a model for navigating all of life's difficult terrain.

Another Study From Captain Obvious: Sexual Abuse Damages the Soul

An interesting new English study of sexual abuse victims has concluded that there is a very strong causal relationship between sexual abuse and future psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia.

Interestingly, the researchers found that the more profound the abuse suffered, the more profound was the emotional problem and level of psychosis. The researchers also correlated sexual abuse with future struggles with depression and anxiety.

Most people with at least half a brain would say, “Well, duh.”

But wait, didn’t we learn somewhere that psychiatry had determined, definitively, that schizophrenia and other mental disorders were “brain-based” (the term “brain-based” being code for “caused by a genetically inherited birth defect in the brain”). At least this is what the vast majority of psychiatrists preach; this is also what their public advocacy group, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, teaches.

The average Joe doesn’t realize that there has been a minority of mental health clinicians who have known for decades that the broken brain theory of mental illness is hogwash. It is heartening to know that at least some professionals are catching on.

It’s about time they caught up. Maybe now they can stop blaming brains and start placing responsibility where it belongs—psychospiritual overwhelm (or emotional trauma). Whatever you want to call it, the vast majority of “mental illness” isn’t really an illness at all; it is a normal, predictable response to an emotional, cognitive, and spiritual trauma that overwhelms a person’s ability to cope. It’s nurture, not nature.

Just wait: psychiatry will “discover” some way to explain away the common sense nurture explanation. With their whacked-out logic, they’ll start telling the public that children born with the predisposition toward schizophrenia somehow invite sexual abuse more often than others. Yeah, that’ll be really helpful. Or psychiatry’s favorite nonsensical refrain, “The abuse uncovered the underlying mental illness.” How these people get advanced degrees is one of the great mysteries of the world…

The truth is that the fountainhead of psychiatry stems from the cockamamie theory that presumes emotional problems are caused by faulty wires or biochemical imbalances. Gratefully, more and more people are turning to common sense, rather than pseudoscience. Hopefully, more scientists will produce science that both reflects and utilizes common sense from this study. Then we can really start helping the hurting.

Until then, they will be drugged into brain-damaged submission, without hope of a cure, wondering how the professionals who were supposed to help them turned out to be almost as cruel as their original abusers.

An Open Letter to Stephen Hawking

I wanted to say a few words to you regarding your recent publicized comments on God and the afterlife. I understand that these comments do not reflect a recent revelation, but reveal a view that you have consistently held throughout your career.

In The Guardian, you said, "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."

Let me say at the onset that you have every right to your belief—your faith in no god is a fundamental right that I would never dream of stealing. Let me also say that I appreciate the lack of hostility in your assertion, which is a welcome contrast to the more vehement opponents of theism, such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.

I am no theoretical physicist. I do not claim to comprehend quantum physics on an academic level. However, I do believe that I have a basic hold on the essentials of logic and reason; I also have a layman’s understanding of Newtonian physics and quantum theory and therefore can make some reasonable statements about your assertions.

No matter what you or Dawkins or Hitchens assert, no scientific theory can sustain irrationality or illogic. Mystery, oxymoron, and apparent contradictions can be explained and corrected. True contradictions, however, breach the boundary between possible and impossible. You have made that leap.

It is simply illogical to assert that something can spring from nothing. Spontaneous creation ex nihilo is nothing less than impossible—both practically and theoretically. Even quantum physics does not allow for matter that has never existed to spring out of nothingness.

Nothingness. Think about that for a moment. Nothing does not simply mean nothing in that particular segment of the natural universe. Nothing prior to something means that there was no matter, no forces (including gravity), no movement, no time, no action, no inaction…nothing existed in the natural world. Nothing could have spontaneously created itself, because that would require it to exist before it existed. This breaks the Law of Noncontradiction, the indisputable law which guides and rules all scientific inquiry. Asserting such a thing is not good science, even in the mysterious realm of quantum physics. It is not even pseudo-scientific. It is pure, unadulterated nonsense.

Sometimes the simplest assertion from the most unlikely source expresses the profoundest truth: “Nothing comes from nothing; nothing ever could.”

I’m not so sure your comparison of Heaven to that of a fairy tale is helpful to your overall claim. At least in fairy tales, the laws of logic rule. Sure, a frog can turn into a prince, but at least the frog does not spontaneously create itself. The former is logical, albeit impossible; the latter is illogical.

You said in a 2010 interview that "there is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win, because it works." It is surprising to me that a man who is so clearly intelligent and knowledgeable in one arena can say something so profoundly ignorant (or disingenuous). If religious belief were merely based on authority outside of observation and reason, then it would indeed be foolish. But what makes more sense: something coming from nothing or something coming from something outside of itself? The latter, of course.

Reason not only suggests, but dictates that the universe was not self-created. This does not necessarily mean the God of the Bible; there are other, sufficient reasons for that hypothesis. But the God of the Bible begins with reason, continues with reason, adds significant observations, and then, when these two become sufficient, the Bible’s explanation for the universe becomes authoritative. You’ve got it backwards. Perhaps you have been taught incorrectly.

Christians believe that Heaven exists not because it is a fairy tale narrative of the “opiate of the masses”, but in spite of this opiate. Atheists like Freud were quick to presume that theists are simply too afraid of their own mortality and, to soothe their existential crisis, believe in “pie in the sky, by and by…” He was too weak to realize that atheism is functionally the “cocaine of the masses”, aiding a stubborn ego to ignore their responsibility to someone higher than they.
That science trumps religion because it is presumed to explain things is the fairy tale. To believe that all matter sprang into existence out of nothing requires a far greater leap of faith than theism. It’s simply too far-fetched.

My belief in Heaven is based on evidence, beginning with logic and reason. Your belief in creation ex nihilo is based on a very vibrant, but illogical faith. I pray that you will examine reason and evidence, instead of the dogma of the closed, natural world.

Sincerely,

Dr. Dathan A. Paterno

Wake Up, Dr. Keith!

Dear Dr. Keith,

Let me start by saying that I like you. I'm not talking about a man-crush or anything, but I have watched you over the years and I have often appreciated your common-sense commentary on matters of mental health and politics. In many areas, you seem to get it.

But you done me wrong today, Keith.

You wrote an article published on FoxNews today entitled, Body & Mind: Could Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder Start as Attention Deficit Disorder? It starts out pretty well, with a contrast between the two disorders and how they are generally treated with different medications.

But then you suggested that for several of your patients, you believe that ADHD symptoms have been so severe that the person compensates for them by developing obsessive and compulsive traits. WRONG.

One thing that shocks me is that you either ignore or neglect to mention that the very treatments for ADHD (i.e., stimulants) CAUSE and/or worsen OCD-like symptoms. One of the things any good psychiatrist or pediatrician should look for when using Ritalin, Concerta, Vyvanse, Adderall and other psychostimulants is the presence of repetitive, meaningless thoughts and behaviors.

This "rare side effect" is neither rare nor a side effect. It is one of the ways stimulants work to make children otherwise bored able to do repetitive work in school and at home. OCD-like symptoms are extremely common (up to 50%) in persons who take stimulants. So if a psychiatrist finds that their patient diagnosed with ADHD is experiencing these symptoms, they have not discovered an underlying disorder; they have CREATED a new mental disorder in their patient! The cure for the vasty majority of patients, then, isn't MORE stimulant; it is LESS stimulant.

I am dismayed that you did not mention this in your article, Dr. Keith. I expect better from a trained psychiatrist and I hope better from a media figure whom I usually like and respect. Please, don't ignore iatrogenic (problems caused by treatment) effects...

Yours,

Dr. Dathan Paterno
Licensed Clinical Psychologist

Interspecies Filial Disorder

Let's play "What Would a Psychiatrist Do?" But first, a true story.

Three-year-old Roscoe, an orangutan, lost his parents. To no one's surprise, he became so depressed that he wouldn't respond to any medical treatments. He evidenced all the classic symptoms of depression: low energy, no longer caring about things that had onced sparked his passion, poor concentration, moving slowly, dysphoria, and poor appetite. The veterinarians didn't think it was a stretch to presume that he was quite sad and that he would soon die from it.

The zoo keepers came up with an ingenious plan. They found an old sick dog on the grounds in the park at the zoo where the orangutan lived and took the dog to the animal treatment center. The dog arrived at the same time the orangutan was there being treated. What they found astonished them.

Almost instantly, the two animals were drawn to one another. They began playing together, showing affection for each other, and even grooming each other. Before long, Roscoe's energy came back, she began eating, playing, and behaving, well, like a healthy orangutan.

The two lost souls have been inseparable ever since. Each always tries his best to be a good companion to his new found friend. They are together 24 hours a day in all their activities. It's like Ernie and Bert.

What can explain this? It's quite simple, really. The orangutan found a new reason to live. Yes, both animals' existential crises had been solved.

Now, what would have happened had this been a human being and instead of zookeepers, the child had been in the care of a psychiatrist? You know exactly what would happen. The psychiatrist would have looked at the list of symptoms, then the resistance to other "treatments" (as if grief were a disease that needed treatment), and then prescribed drugs to the child.

Sound ridiculous? Welcome to psychiatry. If depression is a mental disorder--due to a broken brain --then psychiatry makes some sense. But depression is not a mental disorder; it is part of the human condition. Apparently, it is also part of the primate condition; we feel sad when we lose deep connection. Blessedly, we can feel better by reclaiming or building new, intimate connections.

Depression is normal and even healthy for most people. It tells us something is wrong with our lives--not our brains. If we pay attention to the gaping holes in our lives, we can not only avoid staying mired in depression, but we can prevent most of the more severe depressive episodes in our society.

Peace and joy.