Status Updates From Kids These Days: Understand...

Some parts are interesting and may use a line or two for an upcoming assignment paper, use for a reference on autism.

Scholarly material so far.

"Sometimes, change can be stimulated using simple, well-known remedies such as focusing on improving diet, sleep, social interaction and exercise". This is exactly what therapists do, and as therapists themselves it should not be something they keep ignoring. Perhaps it's not in bad faith, but this insistence on presenting "well-known remedies" as opposed to "therapeutic interventions" is a disservice to the book.

"Mental health professionals have looked at humans from the neck up and catalogued what is wrong with them in books like the DSM". This insidious tendency to refer to MHP, rather than differentiating between what psychiatrists (doctors who specialise in psychiatry) and therapists (experts in human behaviour who specialise in intervention) do, is getting on my nerves. Therapists DO NOT DIAGNOSE OR MEDICATE ANYONE.

While we're on it, I'd love to know exactly what the authors' work MO is if they really despise behaviourism this much, and do not perform functional analyses. How do they pinpoint what seems to be the consultant's difficulty? How do they decide whether X or W or U are appropriate interventions? Do they bother telling them what they think the issue is and how they mean to address it?

"Are there moments the disruptive student in the classroom is sitting still? Don't let those be incidental." AKA, provide positive reinforcement to strengthen this behavioural contingency. THIS IS BEHAVIOURISM, FOR FUCK'S SAKE.

"We are not very fond of the cognitive-behavioural tsunami. Our approach aims to consider the whole human, not ignoring their diet, sleep, exercise, social life, emotional world..."

One, behaviourism is NOT the same as CB. Two, exactly what do you think is what behaviourism does? It is an intrinsically holistic approach that considers ALL of these variables case by case.

"Many youth we work with are outward-looking and blame external circumstances for their condition. As we've learned (...), change must come from within." While I agree that change needs to be intrinsically motivated, I think that this paragraph misses the chance to have an actual look at the topics or instances that call for outward-looking perspectives and where to draw the line to avoid a lack of accountability.

"Asking someone to take their body out of rest and have an unpleasant experience for the health benefit is going against their evolutionary instinct." What. Just WHAT. As the authors themselves point out earlier in the book, human beings experience a basic need for physical activity that has been philogenetically pased down to us throught the ages. This claim is simply false.

Talking about motivation without so much as mentioning Deci and Ryan is audacious to say the least. What they wrote here would've been a lot more helpful and educational for the reader if they had explained the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, as well as HOW to cultivate the former and why it grants better results than the latter.

I am baffled that they are quoting Bandura and his social learning theory after berating peer connections for half of this book so they could praise the connections with adults instead. SLT highlights the importance of PEER connections when it comes to social learning through modelling!

The phrase "neurotic teen years" is concerning, coming from therapists.

Are we talking about neuroticism as a personality trait, which would then beg the question of whether we are assuming that "neuroticism" is a stable aspect of teenagers? Or "neurotic" as in Freudian "neurosis", ie. disordered psychological functioning?

Weren't these gentlemen advocating AGAINST pathologising age-appropriate behaviours anyway?

"When discussing difficult topics such as race, gender, power and oppression, we need guidelines or at least a respectful environment where we can listen to others and be listened to. The growing trend of censorship, calling out, and cancel culture has led to a fear of simply speaking up and out."

Wondering whether the authors agree that INFORMED opinions and evidence should be a part of said guidelines?

"By coaching young people to be caring with their words, but also to speak their truth, we can create spaces in which we can (...) engage in difficult and meaningful conversations". This is true, but it's also starkingly contradicting with the authors' insistence on suggesting that "identity politics" are harmful, that accommodations under ADA are "coddling students", and that peer orientation is awful.

"Some of our academic and therapy colleagues believe we need to achieve safety for trust and sharing (...) we do not believe safety can ever be guaranteed, and trying to achieve some state where no one will be uncomfortable, in disagreement, or challenged, is not only unrealistic but undesirable for promoting resilience". DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT SAFE ENVIRONMENTS ARE!? CLEARLY NOT!???!?!?

There are so many misconceptions and conceptual errors in this book that I am struggling to push through. One of the most baffling things, however, is the idea that children are missing developmental milestones and that it's got to do with "the representation of males as leaders in the classroom dwindling (...) Women don't see the benefit of rough and tumble play". TALK ABOUT SEXISM.

"Behaviourism excludes feelings" is the most telling thing you could write to make it clear that you don't know what behaviourism actually looks like, oh my god.

20F is diagnosed as autistic, and suddenly the authors are talking about "how disempowering" it is to fall into identity politics and criticising that mental health influencers made Emma unhappier. WTF! Autism isn't a mental illness in that it's not something to be cured, and if Emma started getting personalised ads and posts that just means she was looking for them and the algorithm caught on. Contemplating DNF'ing.