Helping Students Deal With Bullying

[Tez3]

But none of that has anything to do with my post, Tez.

It has actually but I guess you don't see it.

Either something I'm saying is not getting through to you, or something you're saying is not getting through to me. But judging from past experiences on this site, we'll just go around and around for another 7 pages, so i'm just going to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Sigh. I'm off for counselling, I have a very fine malt waiting.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It has actually but I guess you don't see it.

But it doesn't. I said some people have abnormal reactions. You posted about bad counseling services, people who have normal reactions, etc. My point was a simple one: some people actually do need counseling, even for normal events, because it's their reaction that they need help with, not the event.

 

[Tez3]

But it doesn't. I said some people have abnormal reactions. You posted about bad counseling services, people who have normal reactions, etc. My point was a simple one: some people actually do need counseling, even for normal events, because it's their reaction that they need help with, not the event.

Argh. I said that the counselling services would have people think they need counselling for normal reactions. Yes, people who have abnormal reactions ( though the criteria for that could depend on where you live, for instance in some countries you are expected to be weeping and wailing, fainting etc when someone dies, in others that would be considered excessive) but the counselling services, the media etc want you to think that any reaction needs counselling. Hence my posts about the pets bereavement service and it's pre bereavement counselling for you before your pet dies! it's been sold as a necessity for everyday life, people have normal reactions but are being told they aren't normal and need treatment. I am perfectly capable of understanding there is a place for counselling but my point before you posted was that it is being mis-sold. Then you posted telling me that people who have 'abnormal' reactions need counselling! I would take it as read that abnormal reactions to 'normal' events need help, I wouldn't assume anyone was stupid enough to have to be told that. My point though remains the same, there are a lot of counselling 'services' as well as the media who want you to believe every circumstance needs counselling regardless of your reactions. My main annoyance is that the reactions if you like aren't taken into consideration. There's plenty of proof if you want to use google fu. Someone dies, you need counselling, homework stressing your child counselling, your pet is going to die some time, counselling. No mention of what should alert you to needing counselling just the event happening, nothing else.

 

[Dirty Dog]

This is entirely untrue. I have seen plenty of psychologists/psychiatrists whom have done evaluations and determined that someone does not have a disorder. While I do not do the same lengthy evaluation process as a psychologist might (I am a psychotherapist), I have an intake process, and have informed people in the past that I do not think they need therapy. There is very specific criteria for each disorder, and if you do not meet that criteria, you do not have that disorder. If they, personally, believe that they will benefit from it, I will let them begin the process then a few weeks in ask them how they are benefitting. If it seems like they are, I will continue, if not I will inform them of that. The ethical thing, and what professionals are supposed to be doing, is informing someone if they do not have a disorder. If someone is not taking these steps, that is an issue with the professional, not the referring entity.

The one exception is probation/parole/etc. court system who is mandating someone to therapy and/or substance abuse treatment. Even then, I have called whomever is doing the mandate and informed them I do not think the person needs therapy/treatment. Most of my colleagues have done the same at some point.

It would be nice if you'd addressed what I said, instead of this red herring.
Individuals assessing people can and do decide that there's no need/no benefit to therapy. That has nothing to do with what I said.
It's absolutely true that the standardized testing has no combination of answers that results in a score of "normal."

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

It would be nice if you'd addressed what I said, instead of this red herring.
Individuals assessing people can and do decide that there's no need/no benefit to therapy. That has nothing to do with what I said.
It's absolutely true that the standardized testing has no combination of answers that results in a score of "normal."

You stated that there is a built in assumption that everyone has a psychiatric disorder. That's the part that's not true. Not everyone has a psychiatric disorder, and most of the tests do have the ability to state someone does not have a disorder. Again, if someone does not meet the criteria for a specific disorder, they do not have that disorder, and no one should be diagnosing them otherwise.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You stated that there is a built in assumption that everyone has a psychiatric disorder. That's the part that's not true. Not everyone has a psychiatric disorder, and most of the tests do have the ability to state someone does not have a disorder. Again, if someone does not meet the criteria for a specific disorder, they do not have that disorder, and no one should be diagnosing them otherwise.

So, is the concept one of exclusion? There’s no specific set of answers for “normal”, because that’s the conclusion if their answers don’t match a diagnosis?

 

[Tez3]

You stated that there is a built in assumption that everyone has a psychiatric disorder. That's the part that's not true. Not everyone has a psychiatric disorder, and most of the tests do have the ability to state someone does not have a disorder. Again, if someone does not meet the criteria for a specific disorder, they do not have that disorder, and no one should be diagnosing them otherwise.

I think you have missed his point and mine for that matter. You are telling us that from a professional's point of view ( and sensible people's for that matter) that not everyone has a psychiatric disorder though usually this is called an 'issue' by non professionals and the assumption by many is that everyone has 'issues' therefore everyone needs counselling. I think we need to differentiate medical professionals ie psychiatrists and psychologists from those who are non medical/trained or just a bit trained counsellors and therapists.

The assumption is as I said in my original post about the military psychiatric nurse was that it was considered by the people he worked with that everyone had 'issues' that needed to be 'sorted', that everyone had disorders or mental illnesses but they had issues for which therapy or counselling was appropriate. If you said you were fine you'd be told that you were in denial.

You are talking about mental illnesses and things like personality disorders but these counselling sites as well as the media etc are making it out that if you are unhappy in your job you can have counselling, if someone says boo to you, you can have counselling not treatment for a disorder but counselling for everything in your life that most people consider just getting on with things and coping perfectly well. In the military they are playing safe and these 'issues' are getting referred to healthcare professionals because it looks bad to the public if one of these issues turns out to be suicidal tendencies. However many of the medics do fall into the trap of thinking issues need treatment.

There is a huge counselling industry, one that's starting to emerge in the UK which is worrying. Every time now something happens there's phone lines popping up for counselling. After the bombing at the concert in Manchester there were places offering counselling for children, not for the ones who were there (who have received appropriate care) but children who were totally unaffected by it everywhere. Once you start telling children they are traumatised when things like this happen they will believe it and therein lies a lot of trouble for the future.

 

[lklawson]

This isn't true. The victim usually gets beaten up in addition for the punishment for fighting. If a child is going to be punished for fighting then he /she might as well win the fight. No need to have a double loss.

Of course it's true. The victim of the bully is often punished by school authorities with suspension, expulsion, or worse, equally with the assailant.

No idea why you decided to go with "and he gets beaten up too."

 

[oftheherd1]

Right now, the military has egregiously failed to refer soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who need help historically. more than that, discouraged them from seeking help... that they are being very careful. And good for them. This idea that stiff upper lip and a stout heart is all it Takes, is very ignorant. As I said, it’s like a 30year outdated mindset.

And I’ve said many times, most people could benefit from counseling. Which is not the same as therapy, and not just for people who are mentally ill. And the sooner we can remove the stigma of it. The better off we will all be as a country, it’s like massage. Not everyone gets it, but you don’t need to be injured to benefit from it, And like a good massage therapist, a good counselor will help you figure out if you need more help than they can offer.

I don't have the training to disagree, but can you tell me how we got along without the counseling and therapy in years past? Or maybe we didn't. I think we certainly failed a lot of servicemen. But then most don't go through what some servicemen do.

 

[oftheherd1]

Of course it's true. The victim of the bully is often punished by school authorities with suspension, expulsion, or worse, equally with the assailant.

No idea why you decided to go with "and he gets beaten up too."

Retaliation for turning the bully in?

 

[lklawson]

Retaliation for turning the bully in?

When I've seen it happen, the victim didn't turn anyone in. It appears that JowGaWolf was saying the victim not only gets punished by the school authorities but the bully attacking him and beating him up in the first place, which lead to the official punishment, is also a "punishment." That just doesn't make any sense.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[JowGaWolf]

Of course it's true. The victim of the bully is often punished by school authorities with suspension, expulsion, or worse, equally with the assailant.

No idea why you decided to go with "and he gets beaten up too."

You misunderstood me. Either that or I messed up in the communication somewhere. The victim usually doesn't fight back because it's against the school rules which means the victim gets beaten up by the bully. The schools are too scared to declare who is at fault so the victim gets punished along with the bully. So if the victim is going to get punished anyway, then they might as well not get their butt kicked for the sake of trying to follow the school rule.

This is the scenario that often plays out in Georgia. There have already been news reports and parent / teacher discussions about this policy.

 

[lklawson]

You misunderstood me. Either that or I messed up in the communication somewhere. The victim usually doesn't fight back because it's against the school rules which means the victim gets beaten up by the bully. The schools are too scared to declare who is at fault so the victim gets punished along with the bully. So if the victim is going to get punished anyway, then they might as well not get their butt kicked for the sake of trying to follow the school rule.

This is the scenario that often plays out in Georgia. There have already been news reports and parent / teacher discussions about this policy.

OK. I guess I did misunderstand what you were writing.

 

[Tez3]

I don't have the training to disagree, but can you tell me how we got along without the counseling and therapy in years past? Or maybe we didn't. I think we certainly failed a lot of servicemen. But then most don't go through what some servicemen do.

I don't think we so much failed the military but even now it's hard to get them to admit their could be problems. They don't have 'weakness', this goes back to at least the First World War where men with 'shell shock' were marked down as lacking moral fibre and were basically cowards who refused to do their duty. I believe Patton also believed this was the case, soldiers didn't crack up, they were weak or cowards so it you suffered you kept it to yourself. things are getting better but it's still taken authorities a long time to admit soldiers have mental health problems due to their experiences.

I think the attitude of soldiers being 'weak' also often carries over into attitudes on bullying, that only 'weak' people are bullied. I've heard many people say they were bullied at school but it never hurt them. it made them tougher. Many don't consider a lot of things that go on actually bullying, it gets called 'banter' in the military and in workplaces. You will often hear 'oh can't you take a joke' after some incident or other. Often children are told to 'toughen up' or to 'stop being a wimp'. We need to look at the attitudes that allow bullying not just in schools but in workplaces and on social media.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

So, is the concept one of exclusion? There’s no specific set of answers for “normal”, because that’s the conclusion if their answers don’t match a diagnosis?

To clarify, and this is way off topic at this point, but I personally wouldn't use the word normal, or tell them they're normal or abnormal, instead I would use healthy. It might be easier to explain using a medical example.

Earlier this month, I went to get my heart checked out. Turns out my heart is abnormal. By that, I have a low heart rate, lower than the norm, and my heart pumps a lot of blood with each pump. This is absolutely healthy, from what I was told, but if someone asked me if my heart was normal I would say no.

So for mental health: Let's take Tez's example of a pet dying. If I had a dog, and he died, I would probably be devastated. I would cope by talking with my fiancée, and spend a lot of time training at my dojo. Is this normal? My bet would be no, most people probably talk to their friends or significant other, but not a lot of people would handle it by getting thrown around/throwing other people around. If you think about it, it's downright weird that that's what I enjoy and is what gets me out of a funk. Is it healthy? I think so, and I certainly wouldn't need counseling because of it, even though I'm not 'normal'.

Again though, entirely off topic by this point, those words are just one of the things that I care far more than I should about their definitions/differences, like some people on here (not saying names) with what 'self defence' is.

 

[oftheherd1]

I don't think we so much failed the military but even now it's hard to get them to admit their could be problems. They don't have 'weakness', this goes back to at least the First World War where men with 'shell shock' were marked down as lacking moral fibre and were basically cowards who refused to do their duty. I believe Patton also believed this was the case, soldiers didn't crack up, they were weak or cowards so it you suffered you kept it to yourself. things are getting better but it's still taken authorities a long time to admit soldiers have mental health problems due to their experiences.

I think the attitude of soldiers being 'weak' also often carries over into attitudes on bullying, that only 'weak' people are bullied. I've heard many people say they were bullied at school but it never hurt them. it made them tougher. Many don't consider a lot of things that go on actually bullying, it gets called 'banter' in the military and in workplaces. You will often hear 'oh can't you take a joke' after some incident or other. Often children are told to 'toughen up' or to 'stop being a wimp'. We need to look at the attitudes that allow bullying not just in schools but in workplaces and on social media.

One of the things that happened to soldiers, especially in WWI when artillery was getting much more use, a loud noise's immediate response was to dive to the ground. Those people, whether after WWI or WWII, were said to have shell shock. Sometimes it was said with sympathy, sometimes with derision.

Funny, when I was assigned to Saigon, not many noises bothered me. Nor during the time I was upcountry with the airborne. But the kids in Saigon often had this little toy that they would throw up in the air and it had a tail that ensured it would fall nose first. In the nose was a cap similar to what we used to use in toy guns in the US. It sounded just like the cap from a hand grenade. For somewhere close to the first month in Saigon, when I heard that I would start, begin dropping and looking around for the source of the noise. Luckily I never dropped more than a slight bending of the legs as I looked around, and soon accepted I wasn't being fragged. Now if I hear a loud noise, my brain begins trying to process its cause as I turn my head. I seldom react beyond that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

To clarify, and this is way off topic at this point, but I personally wouldn't use the word normal, or tell them they're normal or abnormal, instead I would use healthy. It might be easier to explain using a medical example.

Earlier this month, I went to get my heart checked out. Turns out my heart is abnormal. By that, I have a low heart rate, lower than the norm, and my heart pumps a lot of blood with each pump. This is absolutely healthy, from what I was told, but if someone asked me if my heart was normal I would say no.

So for mental health: Let's take Tez's example of a pet dying. If I had a dog, and he died, I would probably be devastated. I would cope by talking with my fiancée, and spend a lot of time training at my dojo. Is this normal? My bet would be no, most people probably talk to their friends or significant other, but not a lot of people would handle it by getting thrown around/throwing other people around. If you think about it, it's downright weird that that's what I enjoy and is what gets me out of a funk. Is it healthy? I think so, and I certainly wouldn't need counseling because of it, even though I'm not 'normal'.

Again though, entirely off topic by this point, those words are just one of the things that I care far more than I should about their definitions/differences, like some people on here (not saying names) with what 'self defence' is.

Agreed. I put "normal" in quotes to indicate it wasn't really the right word - "healthy" is much better. I don't know if it's still called this, but when I was studying psychology, the area of dysfunction was "abnormal psychology", and the word "normal" was bandied about more than was...well, healthy.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

One of the things that happened to soldiers, especially in WWI when artillery was getting much more use, a loud noise's immediate response was to dive to the ground. Those people, whether after WWI or WWII, were said to have shell shock. Sometimes it was said with sympathy, sometimes with derision.

Funny, when I was assigned to Saigon, not many noises bothered me. Nor during the time I was upcountry with the airborne. But the kids in Saigon often had this little toy that they would throw up in the air and it had a tail that ensured it would fall nose first. In the nose was a cap similar to what we used to use in toy guns in the US. It sounded just like the cap from a hand grenade. For somewhere close to the first month in Saigon, when I heard that I would start, begin dropping and looking around for the source of the noise. Luckily I never dropped more than a slight bending of the legs as I looked around, and soon accepted I wasn't being fragged. Now if I hear a loud noise, my brain begins trying to process its cause as I turn my head. I seldom react beyond that.

Entirely off topic...growing up, I had one of those toys you are talking about.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Agreed. I put "normal" in quotes to indicate it wasn't really the right word - "healthy" is much better. I don't know if it's still called this, but when I was studying psychology, the area of dysfunction was "abnormal psychology", and the word "normal" was bandied about more than was...well, healthy.

yeah, in undergrad it was still called abnormal psychology, but we would go over the difference, and in my graduate school, I believe we called it psychopathology which to me is a much better term for it.

 

[oftheherd1]

Entirely off topic...growing up, I had one of those toys you are talking about.

Yep, I remember those.