In this Slate article this mother is terrified of her adolescent son who is prone to fly into violent rages. Her attempts to deal with him rationally seemingly have little positive effect.
If this boy was put into the care of someone (presumable male) who immediately disciplined him (striking and restraining him) anytime he misstepped behaviorally would he get worse or get better?
I fully realize it is not socially or legally acceptable in modern western societies to do this, but that’s not the question. The question is if he would restrain himself and discipline himself to behave if there were consistently immediate and violent consequences for misbehavior.
What actually happens to adolescents in less developed non-Western societies who behave like this?
I’m not clear on whatever point you are trying to make, the son apparenty has a serious rage control problem, he’s not a normal kid. I intended the OP as a serious question. Assuming a rageaholic adolescent cannot be rationally persuaded to stop their rage fits is the only true solution institutionalization which is where the article writers son appears to be headed?
I suppose is the question is if there were immediate and painful consequences to defiance and violence does the rageaholic learn to get better and discipline themselves, or is it some chemical brain storm completely of out their control and punishment would be useless.
For a reasonably normal but somewhat out-of-control adolescent boy, my WAG is that immediate calm, firm reprimands from a powerful adult male who could model self-control and restraint would help, but physically striking him would make things worse.
For someone like the boy described in the link, I’m not sure what, if anything, would help. He is, as the quote said, mentally ill, and it would take an expert in such mental illness to have any reasonable chance of knowing what to do. The paragraph just after the ones quoted in the OP is particularly scary:
My instinctive reaction this is that the kid should be locked up like a dangerous animal.
I am not sure where this idea comes from that physical punishments are the end-all be-all most effective way to discipline a child who otherwise won’t listen to a word you say. Certainly, with a kid like this, it seems like it would be a good way of ensuring that you get your throat slit while you sleep.
I suppose that to a certain extent, institutionalization resembles the “solution” you are suggesting, in that threats of violence will be met with an immediate response. However, that response will be less about punishment and more about imposing restraints.
There are almost no more “institutions”. There are short term mental health hospitals, but not enough of them. There are group homes, expensive and largely unsecured. Long term locked down residential care is nearly unheard of, especially for children, and there are not enough openings or enough funding to accommodate more people.
I know of no research showing physical discipline to be effective in treating mental illness, no.
What we do is wait until he breaks the law and then we send him to jail. Welcome to compassionate care.
The article sounds like the boy is pretty much undiagnosed, so it would be hard to guess what would resolve the problem. If it is a self-control issue, then immediate corrective action might help. But, the article makes it sound a bit beyond the boy’s conscious control. It would be very scary to have a kid like this.
You’d think someone would come up with a taizer jacket. Basically, like the shock collar for a dog, but with the ability to physically disable a person who is prone to uncontrolled outbursts. I don’t think this is a permanent solution, but it could be a temporary protection until a proper diagnosis is found and effective controls are proven.
A newspaper did an article about all the kids who’d committed murder in a county not far from me. The article was really scary in the total number of kids and the reasons they’d killed the victims involved. But, none of them were untreated mental illness like described in the article. They were all basically spoiled kids who wanted stuff or were mad that an adult had disciplined them.
It took “three burly police officers and a paramedic wrestling my son onto a gurney for an expensive ambulance ride to the local emergency room.” A single adult is likely to lose a physical fight with a mentally ill, raging out of control adolescent.
And this is a thirteen year old. He’s going to get much, much stronger in the next few years.
This kid certainly sounds mentally ill. My very, very armchair take on the situation is that he’s not connection actions with consequences very well (which happens in a variety of illnesses and disabilities), which means he has very little inhibition about indulging his violent tendencies. His lack of ability to connect the dots between his behavior and how he’s being punished also leads to him feeling more out of control and more angry. That’s not his mom or anyone else’s fault - there aren’t really many other options here beyond what they’re already doing. I sympathize with and fear for his mom and siblings, as well as the kid himself. What a terrible way to live. I hope there’s a way they can get him out of the house so he’s not living with smaller kids at least.
Sounds to me the intrepid “Anarchist Soccer-Mom” is doing a bit of sympathy trolling, as everything about her story screams LOOKIT MEEE, LOOKIT MEEE!!!
Her son is doubtless troubled, but she has to also imbue him with a genius level IQ (“He was recently asked to tutor Stephen Hawking on the fine points of Newtonian physics”) as well as superhuman strength, (“He manhandled 11 members of SEAL Team 6 when he didn’t get to watch Face The Nation yesterday.”) in the process taking pains to paint herself as a loving, yet no-nonsense parent at the end of her rope.
The very title of her blog is offensive, as she is clearly NOT Adam Lanza’s mother, and her attention whoring at a time like this is unseemly in the extreme.
Oh my. How awful for his mom and siblings. And awful for this kid (who certainly seems to have some flavor of mental illness) - he surely isn’t happy.
That’s an intriguing idea, really. This is probably a really terrible analogy, but I know someone who had a dog that would “go off” unpredictably on house guests. Was perfectly fine outside of the house. It didn’t bite, rather it nipped and barked and got generally hysterical - probably a fear/anxiety/stress reaction. I helped a trainer friend of mine work with the dog in their home using a shock collar. It took many sessions, but the dog is now calm and reliable in the house, without the shock collar. It just needed to be “reconditioned.” FWIW, the owners had tried many things, and at least a year of positive reinforcement-type training, without results; this was a last resort before having the dog either euthanized, or relegated to being an isolated yard dog.
But of course this boy is a much more complex being, with a much more complex life, than a dog. If he is capable of accessing an internal locus of control, then it may be possible that a strict, authoritarian male who could administer swift and clear punishment every single time he acted out could “retrain” him. But I don’t see how that would be possible, in a practical sense. And the kid would have to be taught how to be empathic and realise bigger consequences for his actions (beyond merely bad acts = punishment) to end up being a functional, fully cooperative member of society.
I fear that it will take more than just the right type of discipline to fix this kid.
I watched the documentary series “Child of Rage” a few years ago. The kid in question is now an adult and works as a nurse. I don’t think punitive measures were used on her.
IMHO I believe that force can only bury the problem for a time, but that rage would still be there and he would either explode in a much more violent way or place his rage on others, perhaps his children, which they would just continue the cycle. So no, nothing but love can ever conquer fits of rage, using force just makes it appear so while the violence just comes out in other ways and through other people.
I can only speak from my perspective, which was as a sweet, gentle, non-violent child who sought to please - Regular beatings did nothing but turn me bitter, resentful, angry and full of hate. I learned how to block myself from feeling pain, and to stuff my feelings well enough to ensure no pleasure was ever gained by seeing me cry. Those were the things I absorbed, which were fuck-all about discipline.
Remembering how I felt leads me to believe that beatings administered to a kid already prone to anger and violent outburst would be like pouring gasoline on the fire.
So in short he’s crazy (we don’t use that word enough anymore) and should be locked up.
Right ok, solved and moving on…
Doesn’t matter and not really interested in a solution that caters to him - effectively he broke the law.
IF his defense can claim insanity or mental instability, then fine, commit him to an asylum.
I didn’t see it as trolling as much as her trying to show how horrible and complex the situation is. Someone who is smart and bad is a lot scarier than someone who is dumb and bad. Threats may work on someone who is dumb.
Focusing on his intelligence also makes the boy look more sympathetic, perhaps. High intelligence is a redeeming attribute. If he were stupid, maybe it would be easier just to lock him up.
At least she didn’t say anything about how loving and sweet he normally is.
Surely bad-ass kids aren’t a new phenomena. Were kids like this sent off to reform school back in the day? Or were they usually institutionalized?
I did wonder whether there was any connection between the mother being a self-proclaimed anarchist and the kid being out of control, FWIW.
I don’t understand your point: why should she have left this aspect out of her description of her son
She never claimed he had superhuman strength (“I’m still stronger than he is, but I won’t be for much longer”), but she did point out how difficult it is to subdue a kid, especially without hurting him, when he’s in full-on rage mode.
Which title would that be? As it originally appeared, the title of the blog post was “Thinking the Unthinkable.” As for the title of the republished article, “I am Adam Lanza’s mother,” do you really not understand the concepts of metaphor and figures of speech? That title was presumably taken (quite possibly by some editor) from this paragraph:
In the wake of a tragedy like this one, people are naturally asking “How could Adam Lanza have done what he did?” and “How do we keep these sorts of incidents from happening again?” Under the circumstances, I think it was entirely appropriate for her to contribute what she did to the discussion.
See, that’s the great thing about America; Not only can I go down to the corner sporting goods store on a Sunday afternoon and walk out 20 minutes later with a high powered rifle that would provide me the firepower to massacre a small Guatemalan village with, I can also freely state my opinions about a narcissistic mommy-blogger’s poorly written tripe even if a stranger from Illinois disagrees with them…
