are social skills playgroups

[Anonymous]

OP- I hope you read what I am going to say. And if you don't, maybe that is good as well, because it means you have left this behind you. I think everyone's frustration (including yours) boils down to a difference between intent and impact. Your intentions are well meaning for the most part. (Although you have made some uncalled for swipes at people, and that is not nice.) But the impact of your posts is alienating and troublesome for people.

In my opinion, your inability to listen to and reflect on the impact people are expressing is a problem, and suggests something you might need to think about.

You are clearly at Greenspan fan(actic.) You are perceived as someone who absolutely believes in one scholar, and suggest that others who don't are short changing themselves and their children. You repeately suggest that we revisit his articles. OP, some people may not share the same faith in this individual, and that is okay. YOU aren't okay with it, and I think this baffles people.

You repeatedly say that people are bringing your child into this. They aren't. One comment was made that your child might have issues. No one ever said (as you quote), that your child is "messed up." YOU know your child. We don't. So don't dwell on this. Let it go.

You say you want dialogue and debate, but what we see is behavior on your part that is almost evangelical for your savior. It is wasted energy to convince people of ideas that people might have already considered and rejected. To suggest that they are wrong is not in the spirt of dialogue. It is off putting and disrespective of people that hold views different than your own.

At the end of the day, you are devoting lots of time and energy to this, and it is probably sapping energy you might need for your family. It might be helpful for you to take a step back, and instead of dismissing everyone as out to get you, think about what you might be doing that is eliciting such a visceral response. This introspection might be helpful beyond your contributions in this forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP- I hope you read what I am going to say. And if you don't, maybe that is good as well, because it means you have left this behind you. I think everyone's frustration (including yours) boils down to a difference between intent and impact. Your intentions are well meaning for the most part. (Although you have made some uncalled for swipes at people, and that is not nice.) But the impact of your posts is alienating and troublesome for people. Please read the political forum to see a prime example of posters expressing views regardless of whether it alienates some or even many readers. Most of DCUM is like this.
In my opinion, your inability to listen to and reflect on the impact people are expressing is a problem, and suggests something you might need to think about. Lets look at what this is all about. I say Greenspan thinks social skills groups, most of them, are no good. Bunch of people disagree. Okay so they disagree. That's okay by me. But then they get nasty, starting getting in personal digs. I object to the personal digs. Trust me that there are plenty of people who are reading the articles I published and are probably thinking Greenspan makes a lot of sense.
You are clearly at Greenspan fan(actic.) You are perceived as someone who absolutely believes in one scholar, and suggest that others who don't are short changing themselves and their children. You repeately suggest that we revisit his articles. OP, some people may not share the same faith in this individual, and that is okay. YOU aren't okay with it, and I think this baffles people. It doesn't bother me a bit if you even despise Greenspan's treatment program. Why should it? I think you're on the wrong track but it's really no skin off my nose if you hate or like Greenspan's views. But if you wish to debate me, do so on the merits of this topic. Whether I'm a pleasant person to sit next to on an airplane, whether you assume my son has serious challenges, whether I'm a Greenspan fanatic as you say I am, whether I'm a thread hijacker, thread infector...are all wasteful comments that are just silly and unnecessary, have nothing to do with the topic, and take precious time away from your family too. AND they also detract away from debating an important issue here.

You repeatedly say that people are bringing your child into this. They aren't. One comment was made that your child might have issues. No one ever said (as you quote), that your child is "messed up." YOU know your child. We don't. So don't dwell on this. Let it go. No - what was said was that my child must have serious challenges if I'm so hyped up about this. [b]So tell me - What does my child have to do with the issue of whether social skills playgroups are good? It was meant to be a dig, just like the fanatic comment was, just as the one about me needing psychiatric treatment was, just as the 'I'd hate to sit next to you on an airplane' was...Wasteful, negative, unnecessary comments that take precious time away from discussing a very good topic. I've been ignoring many of these stupid unintelligent comments in what could be an otherwise intelligent and informative debate, but because this one mentioned my child in a negative way, I really got pissed off. You say you want dialogue and debate, but what we see is behavior on your part that is almost evangelical for your savior. It is wasted energy to convince people of ideas that people might have already considered and rejected. To suggest that they are wrong is not in the spirt of dialogue. It is off putting and disrespective of people that hold views different than your own. But you said Greenspan was wrong. You said I was wrong too. So how is that in the spirit of dialogue? Many took low blows at me, personal attacks, mean spirited comments. How is that in the spirit of dialogue?If I say others are wrong to hold their view I am disrupting the spirit of dialogue. Sorry, this is a laughable argument.
At the end of the day, you are devoting lots of time and energy to this, and it is probably sapping energy you might need for your family. It might be helpful for you to take a step back, and instead of dismissing everyone as out to get you, think about what you might be doing that is eliciting such a visceral response. This introspection might be helpful beyond your contributions in this forum.

Actually my family knows about this and each time I mention DCUM my DH chuckles. It is fast losing respect because of posters who get really ugly when they simply can't argue on the merits any longer.

[Anonymous]

No, this forum is corrupted by people like you. PLEASE consider the feedback you are receiving. You have posted enough for people to investigate further on Dr. Greenspan's therapy and literature.

If you are confident and happy in your choices, great. Wonderful in fact. But realize that like other discussions, you derail and get defensive. Nobody wins.

[Anonymous]

I give up. It's worth no more of my limited time and energy to try and engage WWSIA. I should have stopped feeding the troll long ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I give up. It's worth no more of my limited time and energy to try and engage WWSIA. I should have stopped feeding the troll long ago.

PP, understandable that you have given up here. But I am very curious about the acryonym "WWSIA." I am assuming the A stands for "absolutes." What do the other letters mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a new poster on this thread.

I don't really understand why so many people are harping on the Greenspan booster. OK, she comes across as very in your face and sure of herself, and that can be annoying. But the OP asked if social skills groups were any good/effective (I can't remember the exact words) , and the poster has some pretty useful opinions and information, IMO. If I had been the OP I would have found her comments and links informative. Maybe I wouldn't have agreed with them (I actually do find them useful and interesting but that is beside the point.) But the poster you are criticizing has a right to post her opinions on this topic.

I think we all agree that she certainly has the right to post her opinions. Have you read the entire thread? She becomes abusive and mean-spirited. I also think people are responding to her thread in the Website Feedback forum and other threads she has contributed to.

Yes, I've read the entire thread. I gotta tell you, I post and read a lot on internet discussion forums, and she really doesn't seem all that abusive and mean spirited. She's opinionated, sure, but I judge posters by the quality of their information, not their social niceties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a new poster on this thread.

I don't really understand why so many people are harping on the Greenspan booster. OK, she comes across as very in your face and sure of herself, and that can be annoying. But the OP asked if social skills groups were any good/effective (I can't remember the exact words) , and the poster has some pretty useful opinions and information, IMO. If I had been the OP I would have found her comments and links informative. Maybe I wouldn't have agreed with them (I actually do find them useful and interesting but that is beside the point.) But the poster you are criticizing has a right to post her opinions on this topic.

I think we all agree that she certainly has the right to post her opinions. Have you read the entire thread? She becomes abusive and mean-spirited. I also think people are responding to her thread in the Website Feedback forum and other threads she has contributed to.

Yes, I've read the entire thread. I gotta tell you, I post and read a lot on internet discussion forums, and she really doesn't seem all that abusive and mean spirited. She's opinionated, sure, but I judge posters by the quality of their information, not their social niceties.

When people engage her about the "quality of her information," she becomes unhinged. I don't care about social niceties as much as I care about honest, deliberate discussion. OP is incapbale of this.

[Anonymous]

NP here. She comes across completely insane. When she looks at her socially challenged child, is she so divorced from reality that she doesn't see her own face looking back at her?!

It's like a Hitchcock film.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. She comes across completely insane. When she looks at her socially challenged child, is she so divorced from reality that she doesn't see her own face looking back at her?!

It's like a Hitchcock film.

Someone suggested she print this thread and share it with Dr. Greenspan. Yes, she has issues.

[Anonymous]

The "thread hijacker" is not the OP! And I think you people are all being unnecessarily mean to her. Go back to the beginning and it was others who bashed her first. She is defending herself.

Sheesh.

Nastiness rules again on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When people engage her about the "quality of her information," she becomes unhinged. I don't care about social niceties as much as I care about honest, deliberate discussion. OP is incapbale of this.

I totally agree. Do you like how she's now saying a lot of groups, including Parenting Playgroups, use floortime (with a lower case f, not the upper case F of Greenspan's Floortime) techniques when earlier she harped that they used rote memorization? If she had started out acknowledging that rather than bashing everything but Greenspan, I don't think reactions would have been so visceral. What happened to the Woman Who Speaks In Absolutes (WWSIA)? She also can't interpret validity statements. Even information she posted indicates that there is insufficient research available to determine if what was found effective in a small group of autistic subjects is applicable to larger, more diverse groups and that more research needs to be conducted by groups other than the Greenspans. Her main focus has been that Greenspan says most social skills groups that use rote memorization is ineffective - which means some are effective and, more importantly, he was talking about groups for ASD kids, not the less afflicted. That leaves a lot of good groups out there for a lot of people. She's totally unhinged and I do feel sorry for her family.

[Anonymous]

If the hijacker thinks she's being abused, she should check out this http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/120/79291.page or maybe she's already a part of it. Some of it sounds familiar but that just might be the insanity coming through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When people engage her about the "quality of her information," she becomes unhinged. I don't care about social niceties as much as I care about honest, deliberate discussion. OP is incapbale of this.

I totally agree. Do you like how she's now saying a lot of groups, including Parenting Playgroups, use floortime (with a lower case f, not the upper case F of Greenspan's Floortime) techniques when earlier she harped that they used rote memorization? If she had started out acknowledging that rather than bashing everything but Greenspan, I don't think reactions would have been so visceral. What happened to the Woman Who Speaks In Absolutes (WWSIA)? She also can't interpret validity statements. Even information she posted indicates that there is insufficient research available to determine if what was found effective in a small group of autistic subjects is applicable to larger, more diverse groups and that more research needs to be conducted by groups other than the Greenspans. Her main focus has been that Greenspan says most social skills groups that use rote memorization is ineffective - which means some are effective and, more importantly, he was talking about groups for ASD kids, not the less afflicted. That leaves a lot of good groups out there for a lot of people. She's totally unhinged and I do feel sorry for her family.

First of all, I am not the OP. Second, instead of ranting, why not simply ASK ME to clarify. You are misunderstanding what I said, once again. What I said was that Parenting Playgroups uses floortime. I didn't think twice about whether I used a capital 'f' or not so it wasn't meant to distinguish between THE Greenspan floortime and other floortime. You're looking to jab me with anything you can find, thats all.
Now, please read this carefully, okay? Parenting Playgroups uses floortime. Lots of places do. But where did they get the idea to use floortime? Greenspan created floortime. So thats who they borrowed it from. But the problem is that Greenspan's floortime can only be taught well if you attend his floortime training through DIR Support Services in Bethesda. Parenting Playgroups or the other places that use floortime would have had to attend training in order to learn Greenspan's floortime. I can assure you it is different. I'm thrilled that people incorporate floortime though, even though it's not accurately copied. Like I've said before,SOME floortime is better than NO floortime or even poorly copied floortime. Now please pay attention to this particular part - Parenting Playgroup teaches floortime or talks about floortime in the parenting lectures. IT DOES NOT INCORPORATE ANY FLOORTIME IN THE SOCIAL SKILLS GROUP. THEIR SOCIAL SKILLS GROUP RELIES ON A FAIR AMOUNT OF DISCRETE BEHAVIOR TRAINING AND ROTE MEMORIZATION. That is their social skills group failure.

You reasoning is off here too. Let me clarify once again. You said, "Her main focus has been that Greenspan says most social skills groups that use rote memorization is ineffective - which means some are effective and, more importantly, he was talking about groups for ASD kids, not the less afflicted. That leaves a lot of good groups out there for a lot of people. She's totally unhinged and I do feel sorry for her family." Lets begin first with the first part of what you just wrote here. When I said, "Greenspan says most social skills groups that use rote memorization are ineffective" what I meant was that social skills groups are not all bad. After all DIR Support Services does provide social skills groups also (DIRSS is sort of an arm of Greenspan's offce). What most social skills groups do, however, that DIRSS makes sure NOT to do, is that they rely on discrete behavior training and rote memorization. What is discrete behavior training and rote memorization? It's "STEP 1 - make eye contact," "STEP 2 - smile," " STEP 3 - say 'hello," "STEP 4 - shake hands or hug." Thats will certainly teach greeting behavior. But it will not allow a child to naturally feel the appropriate feelings associated with a greeting - the warmth in his gut. Feelings must be associated with behavior otherwise behavior can not become generalized. And if behavior isn't attached with feelings, it becomes unnatural, stoic also.

As far as your dig, "I do feel sorry for her family," I will choose to ignore that. I feel lucky to have learned so much and I simply wanted to share what I've learned with you. You don't have to follow what I'm saying. You can actually hate Greenspan's view for all I care. But try if you can to keep my five yr old child and my family out of this discussion. In other words, try to keep this debate intelligent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a new poster on this thread.

I don't really understand why so many people are harping on the Greenspan booster. OK, she comes across as very in your face and sure of herself, and that can be annoying. But the OP asked if social skills groups were any good/effective (I can't remember the exact words) , and the poster has some pretty useful opinions and information, IMO. If I had been the OP I would have found her comments and links informative. Maybe I wouldn't have agreed with them (I actually do find them useful and interesting but that is beside the point.) But the poster you are criticizing has a right to post her opinions on this topic.

I think we all agree that she certainly has the right to post her opinions. Have you read the entire thread? She becomes abusive and mean-spirited. I also think people are responding to her thread in the Website Feedback forum and other threads she has contributed to.

Yes, I've read the entire thread. I gotta tell you, I post and read a lot on internet discussion forums, and she really doesn't seem all that abusive and mean spirited. She's opinionated, sure, but I judge posters by the quality of their information, not their social niceties.

When people engage her about the "quality of her information," she becomes unhinged. I don't care about social niceties as much as I care about honest, deliberate discussion. OP is incapbale of this.

Honestly I think people know that I have provided quite a bit of quality information...studies, quotes from the foremost expert on autism and developmental issues. What have you provided to support you points? Nothing. Where is your quote from my previous posts on this topic of social skills that show I "become unhinged" when people debate me about the 'quality of my information'? Every second post is vicious and lowly because it makes personal attacks. Every now and then, on here as well as the WebFeedback forum, somebody does write in to say it's clear that I'm being lambasted because you folks have 'run out of intellectual steam' and now need to resort to insults and get ugly. I think DCUMers generally recognize what's happening here. You folks are just a vocal minority who probably feel hurt because if what I say is true, or rather if what Greenspan says is true, then it probably makes you feel you haven't been doing the right thing for your kids in terms of helping them with socializing. So you're out for my blood in retaliation. Why feel bad about anything? Even if Greenspan is correct and you haven't been doing the right thing for your kids socially, you didn't know that. Whose going to blame you for not knowing? We all started off not knowing anything and then going through the process of learning. It's all a learning process. I'm not saying you are bad parents. I'm not saying 'I feel sorry for your kids' (though you have certainly said that to me). I'm simply saying that you needn't feel guilty or like a bad parent because you didn't know.

In a few years I think social skills groups will eventually incorporate Greenspan's view, realizing this shortcoming.

[Anonymous]

By the way, I thought you guys created the new social skills forum to get away from me. Why are you still here then?