"Child of rage" documentary

[Betty Blue]

This woman put murderers and prostitutes in the same sentence, then proceeded to list Edgar Allen Poe along side Saddam Hussein.

What this says to me that her grasp of ethics is still weird and way out of proportion to reality even if she's managed to internalize good and bad.

I understand what you are saying marm i just think it's out of context slightly to be making such a judgement. If you look closely, and remember it's a quote so we might be missing punctuation, and definately accuentutation and intonation, well anyway it's here...

"Then you’re moving along into your psychopaths and sociopaths. And you’ve got Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer. And like Edgar Allen Poe, Saddam Hussein…"

There is a full stop after Dahmer... she mentions Bundy and Dahmer in realtion to psychopaths and sociopaths imo.
Then she goes on to mention Edgar Allen, uses a comma and then Sadam but it's unfinished so how can we know what she moves onto unless we actually watch the vid? She could continue with "...was a poet"... the point being we do not have this info. She could just as easily have said "unlike" and it was confused with "and like"... or as you have mentioned she really could be confused re:ethics. The child in the vid did not seem that way to me though.


EDIT: I also found this...

http://www.arc-aflc.com/Chosen Child Conference/Chosen Child Conference.htm

Aparently she is now a neonatal nurse, of course this link just tells us (suggests) what her job is and nothing about who she is.

 

[Betty Blue]

Actually i have been looking into Nancy Thomas and attachment therapy, i really don't like it...AT ALL, it seems pretty fundamentalist Christian they advocate things like holding therapy. Oh Gosh, it seems more like another form of abuse.

Hmmm, am remembering something about this, this may have come up in a thread before.

 

[011235813]

Can I just say that this little girl was sent to Connell Watkins for the attachment therapy that supposedly cured her, if only partially?

The same Connell Watkins who later KILLED Candace Newmaker in an attempt to administer attachment therapy?

Attachment therapy is pretty much regarded with universal suspicion and dislike. One of the few people who received it and speak of it positively as adults is Beth Thomas. Her mother also apparently markets parenting methods that involve "isolation, deprivation, humiliation, and being non-communicative with the child" as a cure for not only Reactive Attachment Disorder "(actually Attachment Therapy’s unrecognized diagnosis Attachment Disorder), but also for Asperger’s, Tourette’s Syndrome, and those who have been “ritualistically abused” by satanic cults."

ASPERGER'S AND TOURETTE'S ARE NOT THE SAME AS SATANIC ABUSE. I don't know if that's actually what she says and does, but Beth's sense of priorities seems skewed and she could very well have picked that up from her mom. They work as a team.

Lots of fishy things here. I feel horribly for her and the pain she endured as a baby, but there's a lot here that seems dissonant to me. It also scares me that she's is now a pediatric nurse. I immediately thought of Dexter and that one sociopathic nurse he discovered administering overdoses to her patients (I don't just believe Beth does the same thing but that's where my mind went.)

 

[Betty Blue]

Can I just say that this little girl was sent to Connell Watkins for the attachment therapy that supposedly cured her, if only partially?

The same Connell Watkins who later KILLED Candace Newmaker in an attempt to administer attachment therapy?

Attachment therapy is pretty much regarded with universal suspicion and dislike. The only person who received it and speaks of it positively as an adult is Beth Thomas.

Lots of fishy things here. I feel horribly for her and the pain she endured as a baby, but there's a lot here that seems dissonant to me. It also scares me that she's is now a pediatric nurse. I immediately thought of Dexter and that one sociopathic nurse he discovered administering overdoses to her patients (I don't believe Beth does the same thing but that's where my mind went.)

Exactly where i was headding, dots be connecting. So the fishy thing is then... who is Beth really if this therapy has only ever caused more suffering? Is she hiding behind a mask of even more pain or has she managed to adapt on her own through the maddness.

 

[011235813]

Exactly where i was headding, dots be connecting. So the fishy thing is then... who is Beth really if this therapy has only ever caused more suffering? Is she hiding behind a mask of even more pain or has she managed to adapt on her own through the maddness.

Honestly, she has the ability to do a lot more harm using this method and in her current position. I think it must be triggering, at least, if not more pernicious than that.

 

[Ivy]

I'm skeptical that the quotes on the site linked are accurate or complete. That site has a bias against the kind of therapy she was given as a child and now promotes as an adult. The first clue was how they refer to her as a "survivor" of attachment therapy. That is not a value-neutral term. I'd have to view the DVD myself to judge whether she's quoted accurately or not.

Having said that, I'm also skeptical about the kind of therapy she was given as a child. Her mother is not a licensed therapist. This "attachment therapy" uses many of the same terms and labels that mainstream psychotherapy uses so it's easy to mistake it for an accepted tool of mainstream psychotherapy, but it's not. These are the people who hold and squeeze children against their will and do "rebirthing" procedures that involve wrapping them tightly in blankets, including their faces and heads, which has killed at least one child that I know of.

Edit: senza tema posted while I was composing this and said all of the things that trouble me about this. The attachment therapy that this girl went through is very aggressive and puts the therapist in complete control of the child. I would not be extremely surprised if this has become a semi-acceptable way for her to continue the cycle of abuse that she was subjected to as a child, by physically dominating and emotionally breaking children who are brought to her mom's center for "treatment."

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Exactly where i was headding, dots be connecting. So the fishy thing is then... who is Beth really if this therapy has only ever caused more suffering? Is she hiding behind a mask of even more pain or has she managed to adapt on her own through the maddness.

As much as I'm opposed to this sort of therapy, it seems unreasonable to say it only ever causes suffering and then infer something from that. There are so many possibilities here.

 

[011235813]

I also just wanted to say that very end of the video is so rehearsed, the way she changes her answer to "Who did you hurt the most?" to "myself". They'd obviously been coaching that answer for a while. She's learned to speak their language. Does she actually believe it? I don't know.

I'm inclined to think not.

 

[Betty Blue]

As much as I'm opposed to this sort of therapy, it seems unreasonable to say it only ever causes suffering and then infer something from that. There are so many possibilities here.

Not when Beth is the only adult who has received the therapy to advocate it. I think that speaks volumes. I inferred two possibilities anyway one at either end of a spectrum, of course theres the whole middle part (or even more extremes) to explore if you chose to.

 

[Betty Blue]

I also just wanted to say that very end of the video is so rehearsed, the way she changes her answer to "Who did you hurt the most?" to herself. They'd obviously been coaching that answer for a while. She's learned to speak their language. Does she actually believe it? I don't know.

I'm inclined to think not.

I'm with you on that, the bird thing though, that sticks with me. I had the feeling that this was a severely damaged child who could benefit from therapy. Weather she received 'good' (appropriate/beneficial) therapy or weather she was abused more i just don't know. I wonder who the male therapist who's voice we hear in the vid is?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Not when Beth is the only adult who has received the therapy to advocate it. I think that speaks volumes. I inferred two possibilities anyway one at either end of a spectrum, of course theres the whole middle part (or even more extremes) to explore if you chose to.

Sure. But I can think of other times an adult advocated something that actually helped them, while ignoring that is has helped virtually no one else. There are bound to be rare successes with anything, and it's very human to promote a personal experience like that in spite of general evidence.

I also just wanted to say that very end of the video is so rehearsed, the way she changes her answer to "Who did you hurt the most?" to herself. They'd obviously been coaching that answer for a while. She's learned to speak their language. Does she actually believe it? I don't know.

I'm inclined to think not.

I noticed that, too. It was very obvious that she was repeating something. What impact it actually had on her as a person is hard to asy. I suppose it's partly a question of what you consider success.

Take this hypothetical scenario: What if beth's psychology today is totally sociopathic, but she has been conditioned in ways that result in her being nor more harmful on average than an average human being. Would that be success?

 

[Betty Blue]

Sure. But I can think of other times an adult advocated something that actually helped them, while ignoring that is has helped virtually no one else. There are bound to be rare successes with anything, and it's very human to promote a personal experience like in spite of general evidence.

Yes ok, i see your point, an individual may prefer and thrive on being 'opressed' though the vast majority will not. And who are we (being anyone else) to say that they should not be opressed if it has helped them individually? has it though? Look at the list of types of therapies and how they are implemented... do you really think anyone can benefit from that?

 

[011235813]

I noticed that, too. It was very obvious that she was repeating something. What impact it actually had on her as a person is hard to asy. I suppose it's partly a question of what you consider success.

Take this hypothetical scenario: What if beth's psychology today is totally sociopathic, but she has been conditioned in ways that result in her being nor more harmful on average than an average human being. Would that be success?

Yes, that would be a success, just like this self-confessed sociopath is a success. Kind of.

Like [MENTION=4489]zago[/MENTION] said, they've just learned another way to fool the suckers who believe in reform and blend in. Blending in is good but I wouldn't repose too much trust in it.

 

[Totenkindly]

Yes, that would be a success, just like this self-confessed sociopath is a success. Kind of.

This kind of thing seems inconsistent to me.

If someone has the capacity for self-reflection and can empathize well enough to write a meaningful article about it, then what is preventing them from engaging others in a more empathetic fashion, except selfishness?

My understand of mental illness is that perceptions are off to the degree that they're locked in a particular framework and can't really think outside of it; yet this articule is written by someone who very much can do so.

Are they really "sociopathic" clinically? Or just maladjusted? Or having trust issues? Or what exactly? At what point did mental illness become a justification for what amounts to actual choices on how to relate? Why isn't this called "assholery" as we would call it in anyone else, rather than "a mental illness"? It seems to do an injustice to those with an actual disorder. (I've had friends who have dealt with family members with real attachment disorders and it's not a pretty thing and can lead to institutionalizing at times.)

I'm just not really convinced this writer is a mentally-ill sociopath; they just seem to do jerky things and are self-absorbed. Wearing a cool label seems like just another status symbol.

 

[011235813]

Pathological selfishness probably is sociopathy. I don't think it's "just selfish" if it's pathological.

Also, I'm pretty sure that woman was diagnosed as such.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

This kind of thing seems inconsistent to me.

If someone has the capacity for self-reflection and can empathize well enough to write a meaningful article about it, then what is preventing them from engaging others in a more empathetic fashion, except selfishness?

My understand of mental illness is that perceptions are off to the degree that they're locked in a particular framework and can't really think outside of it; yet this articule is written by someone who very much can do so.

Are they really "sociopathic" clinically? Or just maladjusted? Or having trust issues? Or what exactly? At what point did mental illness become a justification for what amounts to actual choices on how to relate? Why isn't this called "assholery" as we would call it in anyone else, rather than "a mental illness"? It seems to do an injustice to those with an actual disorder. (I've had friends who have dealt with family members with real attachment disorders and it's not a pretty thing and can lead to institutionalizing at times.)

I'm just not really convinced this writer is a mentally-ill sociopath; they just seem to do jerky things and are self-absorbed. Wearing a cool label seems like just another status symbol.

I did find it a little weird because personality disorders are supposed to be characterized by difficulty recognizing them in oneself.

 

[Totenkindly]

I did find it a little weird because personality disorders are supposed to be characterizde by difficulty recognizing them in oneself.

Then again, Psychology Today isn't exactly a peer-reviewed medical journal.

Pathological selfishness probably is sociopathy. I don't think it's "just selfish" if it's pathological.

At what point is a behavior you can recognize under your control, vs a mental illness that you cannot control? Pathologically "anything" means you don't even recognize you do it, you do it habitually. But this person seems to be very aware of it. Does that make it an illness?

Also, I'm pretty sure that woman was diagnosed as such.

I don't really give a crap about that, because people can pretty much shop around to get what diagnosis they want if they go to the right doctor. I'd have to know the reputation of the doctor, for it to matter.

I'm saying the presentation doesn't seem to fit the literature. Why?

I should go watch Bundy again. I still remember that snow job he gave James Dobson the night before his execution, blaming his crimes on porn.

 

[011235813]

I'm saying the presentation doesn't seem to fit the literature. Why?

Maybe it's a ruse to attract a large pool of suckers and mess with them.

.

 

[Thalassa]

I understand what you are saying marm i just think it's out of context slightly to be making such a judgement. If you look closely, and remember it's a quote so we might be missing punctuation, and definately accuentutation and intonation, well anyway it's here...

"Then you’re moving along into your psychopaths and sociopaths. And you’ve got Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer. And like Edgar Allen Poe, Saddam Hussein…"

There is a full stop after Dahmer... she mentions Bundy and Dahmer in realtion to psychopaths and sociopaths imo.
Then she goes on to mention Edgar Allen, uses a comma and then Sadam but it's unfinished so how can we know what she moves onto unless we actually watch the vid? She could continue with "...was a poet"... the point being we do not have this info. She could just as easily have said "unlike" and it was confused with "and like"... or as you have mentioned she really could be confused re:ethics. The child in the vid did not seem that way to me though.


EDIT: I also found this...

http://www.arc-aflc.com/Chosen Child Conference/Chosen Child Conference.htm

Aparently she is now a neonatal nurse, of course this link just tells us (suggests) what her job is and nothing about who she is.

But it's not out of context at all. That was her quote. She trailed off at the end. She's describing so-called "sociopaths" and mentioned Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, then said Edgar Alllen Poe (??) and Saddam Hussein. That was her list of sociopaths. The sentence was not cut off. That's a typical thing (ellipsis) used when a speaking person trails off without explanation at the end of a sentence. She said Saddam Hussein after Poe, so she was not going to say "a poet."

Any sane or reputable journalist would explain a quote like that, if it had continued. Please.

Also, I don't think comparing prostitutes to murderers is sane in any way, explaining that "prostitutes control by their victimhood like murderers control by their aggression" is so absurd of a comparison it would almost be like saying "Your argument is invalid because this cat is soup."

Her sense of morals are not rational, meaning she's not using her own Feeling function. This would be things a child might say if they were trying to mimic an adult.


The fact that you also cannot see that the child has the eyes of a sociopath in the video also alarms me. You should be careful around strangers.

 

[Thalassa]

I'm with you on that, the bird thing though, that sticks with me. I had the feeling that this was a severely damaged child who could benefit from therapy. Weather she received 'good' (appropriate/beneficial) therapy or weather she was abused more i just don't know. I wonder who the male therapist who's voice we hear in the vid is?

I wonder that too and why she was given a male therapist after being molested as a baby.