Guest Post by Stina Lindenblatt Edgy Dark YA

Today's post is from Stina, one of my favorite bloggers who has become a friend. Stina and I have corresponded a bit about the topic of "dark" YA, and I asked her to write this post to share her thoughts.

 Stress. Unfortunately it’s an issue not isolated solely to adults. Today, teens face more negative stress than ever before, but they don’t have the same coping skills as adults. This is why edgy dark young adult novels are so beneficial.

So what does edgy dark YA have to do with stress? Plenty. Topics typically dealt with in this type of story include: death, eating disorders, bullying, cutting, rape, drugs. None of these are cute and fuzzy. But the beauty of YA is it doesn’t matter if you write a paranormal or thriller or contemporary story, each genre allows you to approach the topic a different way. This means that even though Laurie Halse Anderson authored a contemporary novel about a girl struggling with anorexia, it doesn’t mean you can’t write a thriller with a girl dealing with the same issue. The stories will be very different, and yours might snare the attention of teens who weren’t interested in Winter Girls.

If you want to write edgy dark YA, figure out why you are passionate about the particular issue you want to approach and what you are hoping to achieve. Let’s take suicide as an example. Thirteen Reasons Why is a brilliant YA contemporary novel that addressed the topic of suicide in two ways. The first one dealt with a boy struggling to understand the motives behind why a girl he was crushing on killed herself. The author, Jay Asher, also wanted to show teens the warning signs to look out for in case someone they know is considering suicide. Thanks to Jay’s passion about the topic, his book has saved lives.

Passion is also important because it helps you create an authentic story. You care so much about the topic, you want the story to succeed. And how do you that? Through research. If you don’t do the research, someone will catch your mistakes. Unfortunately, it won’t be your agent or editor. It will be a teen dealing with the same issue who will notice it. You’ll lose credibility with some of your readers. And loss of credibility is a danger thing.

How do you avoid this problem? Read as much as you can on the topic, and make sure you are studying information from qualified experts, such as child psychologists. You also want to make sure your research is relevant to teens. For example, teens don’t deal with depression the same way adults do. If you can, talk to teens dealing with the issue (either the individual is experiencing it or knows some who is, depending on your story). This will ensure your voice is genuine, your character is authentic, and her experiences are true to her situation. For example, if your character is a cutter, make sure you understand how it feels (or doesn’t feel) when she takes the blade to her skin. When done correctly, your character won’t sound like a clinical case study.

By bringing the psychological issues that affect teens’ lives (directly or indirectly) to light, you can give hope to those who felt there was none, empowerment to those who felt there was no other choice but the path they took, and increase awareness and understanding to those sitting on the sidelines, uncertain if something is wrong. You can change a teen’s life, hopefully for the better. You might even save a life. Now what could be better than that?

I agree with everything Stina says here--especially about figuring out WHY you want to write about a particular topic, and then doing the research to make sure you are respecting those who've been through these things by portraying their experiences accurately and sensitively.

Do you read dark YA? If so, why? Do you write it? Was it a conscious decision or just what came to you? How do you make sure what you're writing is true to life?

And of course, check out Lydia Kang's Medical Monday and Laura Diamond's Mental Health Monday!

Fighting phobia formation by blocking scary memories from forming

This past weekend, I came across this, an article on the Science website about NYU researchers' efforts to extinguish fearful aspects of memories during the "reconsolidation" phase of the memory-recall process. Here's how it worked:

The scientists started by creating a scary memory of a blue square. They flashed blue or yellow squares on a computer screen and gave subjects a slight shock on the wrist when only the blue square appeared. After this training session, just flashing the blue square without a shock put people on edge, which the researchers measured by recording tiny currents that pass through their skin. One day later, the scientists performed extinction training by flashing the blue square repeatedly without any shocks. To trigger reconsolidation, one-third of the subjects got a reminder--a quick flash of the blue square--10 minutes before extinction training. (Reconsolidation normally starts about 3 minutes after a memory gets recalled.) Another third received a reminder 6 hours beforehand--which meant that the extinction training began well past the time when reconsolidation ended--and the final third weren't reminded at all.

When the scientists tested the subjects' response to the blue square a day later, those who received the 10-minute reminder showed no fear, while the other two groups were still freaked out by the shape. Even 1 year later, those subjects who underwent extinction training during reconsolidation still showed no response to the blue squares, while their counterparts retained the fear memory, the scientists report online today in Nature. "Because extinction training happened during [reconsolidation], we think that ... the nature of the memory changed," Phelps says.

Imagine how helpful it would be if you could make it so that a location where you experienced a panic attack does not make you fearful or want to avoid it moving forward. Heck, my career would probably be completely different (and probably more lucrative) if I hadn't had to endure periods of being unable to commute by train or highway. The potential benefits of this research in fighting agoraphobia are exciting.

COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY FOR DAILY LIFE Information processing by human mind

COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY FOR DAILY LIFE: Information processing by human mind: Human  mind works by the process of computation. Computation is a process following a well-de...

Book Review A Disease Called Childhood by Marilyn Wedge

The theme of this blog, as well as of my last book, How Dysfunctional Families Spur Mental Disorders, is that family systems issues have been disappearing from psychiatry in favor of a disease model for everything because of a combination of greedy pharmaceutical and managed care insurance companies, naïve and corrupt experts, twisted science, and desperate parents who want to believe that their children have a brain disease in order to avoid an overwhelming sense of guilt.

I gave a positive review to Marilyn Wedge's previous book, Pills are Not for Preschoolers, which took pediatricians and child psychiatrists to task for medicating children with dubious diagnoses without even evaluating their home situation to see if the children are acting out in relationship to family dysfunction, family discord, overall environmental chaos, or poor and inconsistent discipline.

In her new book, the author specifically tackles the diagnosis of ADHD, a frequent topic of this blog. She goes over a lot of the history and twisted "science," caused by the confluence of the above factors, that has led to a drastic increase in this diagnosis, along with the concomitant increase in the use of the methamphetamine clone Adderall and other stimulants.

In doing so, she covers much of the same ground as my book and this blog, discussing the influence of Big Pharma, corrupt academics who have their papers ghostwritten by drug company hacks, poor study designs, inadequate evaluation of a child's home situation by practitioners, and the appeal of a "brain disease" label for their child's misbehavior to parents - so they don't have to look at their own behavior as the reason for their acting-out children.

So you think I would be happy to recommend this book as well. Unfortunately, I cannot, for two reasons. First, she comes dangerously close to tarring all pharmacotherapy and all psychiatric diagnoses, especially as they are described in the DSM, with the same brush. Second, she does not apply the same criticisms she applies to research on ADHD and stimulants to research on such side issues as food additives or violence on television.

While I indeed agree and have argued in this blog that some diagnoses in the DSM are completely bogus, diagnoses such as schizophrenia, true bipolar disorder, autism, and melancholic depression are real brain diseases that are well described in the DSM. Many misdiagnoses in practice are not caused by the use of invalid diagnostic criteria, but are due instead to the criteria not being applied correctly - if they are applied at all.

Contrary to popular belief, the DSM is not just a symptom checklist. The book clearly states that, in order to meet diagnostic criteria, symptoms have to have certain specific qualities and must occur in certain environmental contexts. Furthermore, the DSM describes in detail associated features that support the diagnosis, the prevalence of the disorder, the development and course of the disorder, risk and prognostic factors, culture-related diagnostic issues, disorders that tend to co-occur with a given diagnosis, and other similar disorders that need to be ruled out (the differential diagnosis).

A correct diagnosis has to be consistent with all of these factors as well as having the required number of symptoms. As the author herself notes on page 30, many practitioners these days base their diagnoses "...on no more than a twenty minute evaluation using a checklist of symptoms." That sort of "evaluation" precludes accuracy.

She holds the DSM to task for not basing its diagnoses on causes but merely on descriptions of disorders. That is true. However, this ignores the fact that the vast majority of psychiatric conditions have no specific causes, but only risk factors. No matter what biological, psychological, or socio-cultural risk factor you look at for a given diagnosis, some patients will have a lot of it but no disorder, while others will have very little of it but will have the disorder.

She also ignores the fact that the brain is so complicated that we don't even know where nerve tracts begin and end. So just because we do not know the precise cause of something like schizophrenia, that does not prove that it is not a brain disease. That's like saying we didn't know that the bubonic plague was a disease until after germs were discovered.

The author does not specifically say that adult schizophrenia is more of a cultural construction than a real disease - as is, we agree, actually the case with the vast majority of cases diagnosed with ADHD - although she does say that this is a distinct possibility with child schizophrenia. Nonetheless, she does use words like "madness" and "insanity" and describes them as being culturally defined, which might be seen as implying that this idea does, in fact, apply to schizophrenia.

Schizophrenia, despite the cherry picked and fact-challenged theories of author Robert Whitaker, has been described in pretty much the same way in almost all cultures from all over the world - and for hundreds of years. It is clearly and unequivocally not merely a cultural construction.

The author even tries to make the case that psychosis might possibly be a cultural construction rather than disease by bringing up the issue of drapetomania, something that has lately become a favorite of anti-psychiatry zealots. This was a proposed mental illness that was applied to American slaves prior to the US Civil War when they tried to escape captivity. 

Three seconds of deliberation would lead anyone with half a brain to conclude that this "diagnosis" was made solely for the benefit of racist slaveholders so they could rationalize treating Blacks as subhuman, and had nothing to do with any legitimate psychiatric diagnostic issues whatsoever. 

Making even the implication that drapetomania is somehow analogous to schizophrenia is the worst kind of straw man argument. Maybe I'll go find a straw man and beat him up - perhaps the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz, who was obviously a real person.

This is a serious issue because the public thinking that chronic, severe and persistent mental illnesses are just manifestations of culture gone awry is the reason there are a whole lot of people living on skid row in cardboard boxes and languishing in jails because they committed nuisance crimes upon the instruction of the voices in their heads.

In some passages in her book, the author subtly goes back and forth between adult disorders and childhood disorders in the DSM, which are often very different breeds of cat. It is extremely rare, for instance, that a teenager will actually meet the full DSM criteria for major depressive disorder when those criteria are correctly applied. It is no surprise, then, that they don't have a whole lot of response to antidepressant drugs.

The author presents the case of a patient she calls "Jeanette" and says she "undoubtedly would fit" the criteria for clinical depression, and who of course had not responded to antidepressants. Well, maybe she fits the criteria, but it sounds like the author does not know. Did she or didn't she? I would bet not.

Then there are the side issues of the effects of diet and TV/video game violence, in which the author's standards for good research go out the window. For example, she mentions uncritically one researcher at the Mayo clinic who "speculates" about the reasons why gluten intolerance may have increased in the last few decades. Even mentioning this without any disclaimers makes a mockery of her legitimate criticisms of ADHD "research."

Focusing on these side issues diverts attention away from the main issue - family behavior - every bit as much as pretending that all behavior problems are evidence of a brain disease. Doing so takes parents of the hook, which according to the rest of the book, is highly counterproductive.

With studies about food dyes causing attention problems, according to most observers, at best they provide limited and somewhat questionable evidence that some synthetic colors and sodium benzoate may have a small effect on activity and attention in some children. And when that happens, it might be because of other medical reactions to specific foods. When someone feels sick, they don't pay attention so well. So maybe it's a metaphorical tummy ache and not the food dyes per se which are causing problems.

The real reason some kids may seem to improve dramatically with dietary changes is that the parents have finally begun to set limits on their children about what they can and cannot eat, instead of letting them pig out on anything they want to. Again, eating a lot of junk food can make you feel poorly, and that would have nothing to do with particular foods being a proximal "cause" of ADHD-like behavior. The author herself correctly points out that lack of structure and discipline can lead children to become "infant kings" who throw tantrums when they don't get their way.

As further evidence of this point, a recent study found that 15 percent of parents in one sample said that their two-year-olds are coffee drinkers! Again, coffee is probably not good for toddlers, but it is the lack of discipline and attention by the parents that is the much bigger problem.

As to television and video games, the issue is similar. Many parents these days are allowing their kids to stay up all hours of the night looking at screens. The combination of sleep deprivation and lack of discipline is more than enough to account for the behavior problems consistent with what passes as ADHD these days. The content of the programming is only relevant in one way: the level of stimulation. 

The author points out that one study pointed out that children watching Spongebob Squarepants on television did worse immediately afterwards on attention and memory testing than if they watched PBS. Well, that is very most likely a temporary effect of the cartoon being much more exciting than the other show. That doesn't mean than watching Spongebob is inherently bad for kids. 

In fact, as I described in a previous post, much of the research on violence on television measures thoughts and impulses immediately following the show, and there is not a shred of evidence that kids who watch these shows become psychopaths just from watching them. I mean, while I was reading A Tale of Two Cities I thought more about the French Revolution afterwards. That did not cause me to then rush out and get a degree in history with a concentration on France in the 19th century.

I do have to give the author of this book kudos, however, for taking her life in her hands by recommending that children be allowed to walk to school.

Addict Cleans Up THEN is Shunned by Family

An interesting letter appeared in the advice column Dear Abby on 11/30/14:

DEAR ABBY: I am a former drama queen and addict now enjoying long-term sobriety, or trying to. What's missing in my life is my family. Since returning from rehab, I have been "going it alone" -- and I'm not sure why. My kids are the only grandchildren in the family. I work and go to school. I am pleasant. There have been some rough spots I have had to deal with, and when I have needed to, I have called my mom or sister, but they don't call me or visit. They have expressed no love for me through all of this. When I call, I feel like I'm intruding. Aren't I entitled to their love and caring? I feel abandoned. It's hard doing things on my own. My family lives close by, so distance isn't the issue. What am I missing? I want my kids and me to have a family, but when I try to reach out, I end up hurt by their lack of interest. Should I just get on with my life? I have been going through this for years. -- MOVING ON IN FLORIDA

DEAR MOVING ON: It's possible that the "drama" and turmoil you put your family through while in the throes of your addiction is the reason your mother and sister avoid you. They may be reluctant to take a chance again. Because they have made it plain that they aren't interested in a closer relationship with you and your children, you should absolutely get on with your life.

Abby's response was predictable. There were also several comments on the website from the public about the letter, and the commenters were more or less unanimous: the letter writer had probably "burned her bridges," the family probably got sick of giving her one chance after another and were burned out, etc. etc. 

After all, as another commenter opined, "Addicts hurt a lot of people and cause a lot of problems." The family's response is due to their need for "self preservation." The writer probably used to call them "only when she needed something."

These responses were in fact so predictable that the letter writer herself undoubtedly knew what she was going to get. She was setting herself up, and making herself look bad while all the while criticizing her poor family. The criticisms of the family did not go over well at all with Abby's readers. With her criticism the writer was in fact garnering sympathy for her family, rather than making them look bad. She had to know that would happen.

The burning bridges thing probably contains an element of truth. But more likely a half truth.

How did this former drama queen/addict turn out the way she did in the first place? Wasn't she in fact raised by the very family that is now shunning her? How many chances did they give her before giving up on her? When she was actively using did they get involved with her over and over again?  Enable her? Try to "rescue" her?

Notice that she identifies herself as a former drama queen. Where did that label come from? Is that what everyone in her family would call her over and over again until it became a role she would play in order to confirm their opinion of her? 

Was she in fact the only one in the family who had been expressing feelings that everyone else was stuffing? Was she the identified patient, as  family systems therapists call such folks, who gets all the blame for a problem shared by the entire family?

And most importantly, did they abandon her only after she cleaned up?

Inquiring minds want to know the answers to these questions before passing judgment.

This is a counter intuitive way to look at this. I understand that. But when the whole story comes out from patients in therapy, the answers to my questions are often yeses. Respected interpersonal theorist Lorna Smith Benjamin describes an analogous dynamic in which she lists two of the four characteristics she has observed in families that produce offspring with borderline personality disorder (BPD) - who often share many characteristics with both drama queens and addicts:

1. Parental love and concern is elicited only by misery, sickness and debilitation

2. Family chaos - The borderline individual is subtly blamed for problems or expected to exert control over them.

(The other two characteristics:  3. Episodes of traumatic abandonment are interspersed with periods of traumatic over-involvement, and 4. Efforts by the person with borderline disorder to establish autonomy are interpreted by the family as indicated disloyalty).

What may be happening in the case of the letter writer is that her family needs a black sheep, and she was elected to play the part. Because she finally stopped playing the part, they then shun her. In this situation, they would be in effect be punishing her for not being who they need her to be. However, they would also be helping her out in a strange way - by protecting her from their own pernicious presence. As Dr. Benjamin has also said, pathological behavior can be a gift of love.

This could be the real answer to the letter writer's question.

Breaking the Argument Habit with Your Adolescent by Shari Steelsmith

Tip—If you don’t have to be right, you don’t have to argue.

Last week we discussed some of the typical dynamics between parents and children when they argue. Typically, what happens is a youngster will make a complaint (“There’s never anything to eat around here” or, “Vacuum? I just did that last week!”) or make a provocative statement (“Racism is no big deal.”). Parents will then engage and argue about the merits of the teen’s position. Instead of listening calmly and responding, “Wow. Why didn’t I think of that? You’re right, Mom. Thanks for explaining it so well to me,” the adolescent usually just argues more passionately for her own position.

Tools—Louise Tracy, middle school counselor and parent of six, offers some wise guidance for avoiding arguments in her book, Grounded for Life?! Stop Blowing Your Fuse and Start Communicating with Your Teenager. Instead of automatically arguing with your youngster when she complains or announces she won’t do something, try these techniques instead.

• Respond to complaints in low-key monosyllables. When your child makes outrageous comments, answer with an inquisitive, “Oh?” Or, “Hmm,” “Ah,” or “Huh.” When you hear your son complain, “Why’d you have to put in a lawn anyway? Mowing every week is pointless,” you can respond with a gently inquisitive, “Oh?” The point is to make your response neutral, while indicating listening, not judging. This sort of listening reassures your teen that, 1. You’re listening, and 2. You care about his concerns. It also invites a child to elaborate rather than defend his position. This teen might go on to reveal that his allergies flare up badly when he does yard work, rather than argue the merits of maintaining a lawn or the fairness of the chore.
• Start your response with “Yes.” Your child is expecting you to argue with her. Passionate complaints and outrageous statements are a bit like throwing down a challenge. Don’t pick it up. Instead, find some way to agree with part of her position. If she says, “We have the ugliest car in town!” Say, “Yes, it is getting old.” If he says, “I don’t need to do my English homework. I’ve read everything in the library worth reading already,” you can answer, “Yes, you do read a lot.” Listen to your youngster’s position. Re-state it back to them in a non-judgmental way. If you don’t argue, then he or she is free to go on to problem solve.
• Don’t take a position on anything the first time it comes up for discussion. Instead, comment on your child’s knowledge, thinking, and concern about a subject. For example, your child says, “That’s just so stupid that marijuana is illegal. What were they thinking?” Instead of diving in with your opinions (and worries), inquire gently, “Why do you say that?” He might surprise you with some thoughts about the state budget and taxes that could be charged on legalized marijuana sales. You could then comment, “Wow. You’ve really thought about this issue.” You can save your viewpoint for the second or third (calm) discussion on the topic. By this time your teen will trust that you have a certain amount of respect for his opinions and will be in a more open frame of mind to hear your thoughts on the issue.
• If you don’t have to be right, you don’t have to argue. Avoid opposing a subject the first time it is presented. Listen for points of agreement. If you don’t have to be right, there doesn’t have to be an argument.

You’ll find more practical tips you can use right now in Grounded for Life?! Stop Blowing Your Fuse and Start Communicating with Your Teenager by Louise Felton Tracy, M.S.

Dr Allen Interviewed by a Website about Family Systems Issues

The website AskimoTV posted four short interviews with Dr. Allen about Family Systems issues, including issues about the theory and therapeutic techniques.  They can be found at:


http://www.askimotv.com/pages/PlayVideo.aspx?vid=2304
http://www.askimotv.com/pages/PlayVideo.aspx?vid=2305
http://www.askimotv.com/pages/PlayVideo.aspx?vid=2307
http://www.askimotv.com/pages/PlayVideo.aspx?vid=2310

SECRETS OF MEMORY Part VI False memory implanted by public notions

The tabloid press and the electronic media indulging sensationalism frequently report cases of seemingly sane individuals who recall being abducted by aliens and taken aboard unidentified flying objects (UFOs). From a scientific viewpoint, such reports are difficult to accept as anything other than false because they are so bizarre and implausible. How, then, they might be explained?  Psychologist Nicholas P. Spanos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Spanos  has given a reasonable explanation.  According to Spanos such recollections are delusional false memories instilled into the mind of an individual through sociocultural mechanisms. Such memories are called delusional false memories. Delusional memory is implanted by suggestions coming from the sensational stories covered in the tabloids; bizarre stories reported on televisions; and statements made by friends and family.  

False memories of Betty Hill

Betty Hill was an avid believer in UFOs before the night that she and her husband, Barney, claimed to have seen a strange light following, their car. Betty’s sister suggested that she and her husband may have been “irradiated” by the light. Betty began to have nightmares in which she and Barney were abducted by aliens who took them on board a UFO, communicated with them telepathically, performed medical tests, and showed Betty a star map.

A psychotherapist who treated Betty for her nightmares used hypnosis to elicit detailed reports of these events from both her and Barney, who had heard these accounts from his wife numerous times. The psychotherapist concluded that the reports were delusional false memories shared by the couple. Such false memories are similar to false memories called confabulations which are usually created by the individuals with loss of memory due to brain injuries. In the case of individuals with delusional false memories, the power of their belief system constructs the delusional memories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction  

Memories of the previous birth

Belief in reincarnation rationalizes memories of previous births. Reincarnation is different from resurrection. In reincarnation the soul or spirit, after the death of the body, is believed to return to live in a new human body, or, in some traditions, either as a human being, animal or plant. This doctrine is a central tenet within the majority of Indian religious traditions, such as Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism; the Buddhist concept of rebirth is also often referred to as reincarnation. The idea was also fundamental to some Greek philosophers as well as other religions, such as Druidism. It is also found in many small-scale societies around the world, in places such as Siberia, West Africa, North America, and Australia. Resurrection of the Dead is a belief found in a number of eschatology, most commonly in Christian, Islamic, Jewish and Zoroastrian. In general, the phrase refers to a specific event in the future; multiple prophesies in the histories of these religions assert that the dead will be brought back to life at some point in the future. Most eschatology believe in a universal resurrection of all of the dead, while a minority, such as the Christadelphians believe that only a select will be resurrected.

The story of Shanty Devi

In the 1930s the case of a 9-year-old girl Shanty Devi of Delhi was given wide publicity as a proof for reincarnation. The girl claimed to be a member of the Choubey family of Mathura in her past life. Mathura, a town 145 kilometers from Delhi was never visited by the girl or her parents. It is claimed by the believing ‘specialists in reincarnation’ that the girl explained many details of the town Mathura the Chouban family.  http://www.prebirthexperience.com/The%20Life%20Beyond.htm