This is an extremely biased article, coming from an extremely biased source - a source which says that its writers come from left and right, though after scanning through the Twitter feeds of most of its writers, it’s clear it’s ultra conservative.
The article itself and seemingly the book seem like Jordan Peterson manifest. The book is not by a therapeutic professional, but by a WSJ op-ed writer, who’s last book was written against “the transgender craze seducing our daughters.”
As a parent I’m keenly interested in the topic of adolescent therapy, and reasonable critique about therapy should be happening. Unfortunately this is not a reasonable critique.
Leaving aside the source of the article and the background of the author, can you point to the issues with the argument of the book? What makes the critique unreasonable in your view?
But why would I leave behind the bias of the source, the article author, and the book author? The article alone has a ton of clickbait red flags. It uses hyperbolic phrases like “devastating picture” and “takes a sledgehammer” and “school regimes.”
The only data source mentioned in the article is one that indicates that people are more unhappy now than ever. The argument here is that the reason for this is…therapy?
So what is there to take issue with? It’s just opinions, and given the framing of both the article and the book itself - why should I entertain it more than I already have? Give me a data based critique and I’m happy to engage because I believe there is a valid critique of modern therapy.
edit: This is a more nuanced and informed critique on the state of modern therapy, and while it doesn't directly address adolescents, they do discuss that group in relation to perpetual therapy: https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2024/02/how-we-...
When an author has argued in bad faith and with questionable sourcing, as Shrier did when writing about trans kids, that's sufficient to doubt her when it comes to her new work.
Jesse Singal is another biased reporter on trans issues. Maybe cis people should trust trans people to know what we need rather than undermining us from an outsider perspective that has no understanding.
You're defending these two people, so I'll ask... do you believe trans people exist? if so, do you believe we should be allowed to determine our own needs and care?
A good and important thesis, but the content is from a source frequently biased and bittered by political ideology. I personally wouldn't want to read something I know is coming from that place of mind if I could find other sources on the same topic, making the same argument ("same" in the binary sense).
I agree and disagree with this article. There is still good therapists, and everyone can benefit from therapy. However, I do think there has been a horrible increase in parents and professionals, shielding children from all negativity. When children grow up in perpetual so-called "safe spaces," where they're not allowed to see or encounter anything hurtful, they really suffer later. Therapy should be about resiliency, not just assuaging worries.
"And while I agree with Shrier that the statistics on skyrocketing rates of diagnoses for kids are sobering and deserve a hard look, the idea that therapy is where it all went wrong is where things get a little slippery. It takes Shrier until Page 70 to acknowledge that the vast majority of American children are not, in fact, in therapy, in the “one-on-one, weekly-ish conversation with a professional” sense. They are, instead, receiving some elements of it through social-emotional learning curricula in schools."
Yes, I am aware. But presumably the similarly skyrocketing rates for autism aren't due to therapy (or vaccines, or...) but probably just normal phenomena that hasn't been carefully measured before.
Yes, I agree with both your comments. I agree that diagnoses and therapy aren't the problem, and I like your hysteria comment.
I realize now I was completely focused on the portion of the excerpt that "It takes Shrier until Page 70 to acknowledge that the vast majority of American children are not, in fact, in therapy" even though the premise of the book seems to be that kids are messed up, and it's from therapy.
And yeah, not carefully measured before and IMHO add some amount of: families used to deny issues, cover things up, send kids away, etc.
Best wishes to you and your family with everything!
Are we all not bias in some way. Anymore, just an opinion counts for that.
In a conversation with a father that allowed his daughter to choose her pronoun I mentioned that is as dangerous as a parent that allows their child to eat only cake for dinner - he instantly labeled me as a conservative.
In a conversation with a stranger about a friend that cannot hold a job I mentioned how I wish there was some sort of UBI program that would allow him to at least live a basic life - he instantly labeled me as a liberal.
Are not our opinions now considered biased just based on our opinion... so we just should not have an opinion.
This is not science, and as an opinion piece it's going to dissuade people from seeking mental healthcare.
There is not one bit of data in both the piece and the book. Without actual science you cannot improve the methods, or even know if the thesis is actually correct.
It's most likely false, because mental healthcare is both expensive and scarcely available. So it cannot be responsible by sheer numbers.
> There is not one bit of data in both the piece and the book. Without actual science you cannot improve the methods, or even know if the thesis is actually correct.
This looks like data (quoted in a different review):
> Researchers are beginning to notice that this same dynamic applies to other techniques for improving mental well-being. “More Treatment but No Less Depression: The Treatment Prevalence Paradox,” the title of a study of mental health and treatment in Western countries, captures the contradiction of the current situation.
24 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 65.1 ms ] threadThe article itself and seemingly the book seem like Jordan Peterson manifest. The book is not by a therapeutic professional, but by a WSJ op-ed writer, who’s last book was written against “the transgender craze seducing our daughters.”
As a parent I’m keenly interested in the topic of adolescent therapy, and reasonable critique about therapy should be happening. Unfortunately this is not a reasonable critique.
The only data source mentioned in the article is one that indicates that people are more unhappy now than ever. The argument here is that the reason for this is…therapy?
So what is there to take issue with? It’s just opinions, and given the framing of both the article and the book itself - why should I entertain it more than I already have? Give me a data based critique and I’m happy to engage because I believe there is a valid critique of modern therapy.
edit: This is a more nuanced and informed critique on the state of modern therapy, and while it doesn't directly address adolescents, they do discuss that group in relation to perpetual therapy: https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2024/02/how-we-...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/2020...
Turban is infamous for being biased to the point of malpractice. Check out Jesse Singal's critiques of his research, for example.
You're defending these two people, so I'll ask... do you believe trans people exist? if so, do you believe we should be allowed to determine our own needs and care?
https://unherd.com/2021/11/rationalists-are-wrong-about-tele...
[1] - https://open.spotify.com/episode/5dyeoq59cAIlP1FpOcEW2F?si=4...
There seems to be some kind of hysteria about kids therapy these days. Don't fall for it.
"And while I agree with Shrier that the statistics on skyrocketing rates of diagnoses for kids are sobering and deserve a hard look, the idea that therapy is where it all went wrong is where things get a little slippery. It takes Shrier until Page 70 to acknowledge that the vast majority of American children are not, in fact, in therapy, in the “one-on-one, weekly-ish conversation with a professional” sense. They are, instead, receiving some elements of it through social-emotional learning curricula in schools."
IMHO.
I realize now I was completely focused on the portion of the excerpt that "It takes Shrier until Page 70 to acknowledge that the vast majority of American children are not, in fact, in therapy" even though the premise of the book seems to be that kids are messed up, and it's from therapy.
And yeah, not carefully measured before and IMHO add some amount of: families used to deny issues, cover things up, send kids away, etc.
Best wishes to you and your family with everything!
In a conversation with a father that allowed his daughter to choose her pronoun I mentioned that is as dangerous as a parent that allows their child to eat only cake for dinner - he instantly labeled me as a conservative.
In a conversation with a stranger about a friend that cannot hold a job I mentioned how I wish there was some sort of UBI program that would allow him to at least live a basic life - he instantly labeled me as a liberal.
Are not our opinions now considered biased just based on our opinion... so we just should not have an opinion.
Now ask yourself, in this day and age, is it appropriate to call homosexuality "dangerous"? So why are you calling gender dysphoria dangerous?
There is not one bit of data in both the piece and the book. Without actual science you cannot improve the methods, or even know if the thesis is actually correct.
It's most likely false, because mental healthcare is both expensive and scarcely available. So it cannot be responsible by sheer numbers.
This looks like data (quoted in a different review):
https://www.city-journal.org/article/review-of-bad-therapy-w...:
> Researchers are beginning to notice that this same dynamic applies to other techniques for improving mental well-being. “More Treatment but No Less Depression: The Treatment Prevalence Paradox,” the title of a study of mental health and treatment in Western countries, captures the contradiction of the current situation.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34959153/