Psychologists say HP is wonderful!

[Milz]

No: HPFGUIDX 18371

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tandy, Heidi" <heidi.h.tandy.c92 at a...> 
wrote:
> An article at
> http://www.salon.com/books/wire/2001/05/08/potter_shrinks/index.html
> discusses how good the books are for children.
> At the American Psychiatric Association's four-day annual meeting, 
there was
> a symposium about the books where the consensus was that it was 
useful for
> child psychologists to connect with their younger patients - 
however, one
> connecticut doctor said he has worked with some children who've 
became
> obsessed with Harry Potter and take the books as proof that they 
don't have
> to obey adults. 
> Methinks that said children may be predisposed to such things and if 
HP
> wasn't around, they would've used Bart Simpson or something instead. 
The
> same doctor said the girl was much improved now that she's reading 
Nancy
> Drew. 
> 
> um.
> 
> um.
> 
> Now I have to admit that I haven't read any nancy drew books since I 
was
> about 11, although a college classmate of mine has written a few of 
them,
> but am I right when I say that (a) Nancy is about 17, not 11 thru 
14, and
> (b) Nancy, similarly to Harry, does all her sleuthing without the 
presence
> or assistance of adults, and frequently nearly gets killed or 
captured by
> Bad People?


I read the Salon article an find it really interesting. The 
psychiatrist who deals primarily with adult patients believed that 
Harry encouraged children to disobey adults, based upon his few 
experiences with child patients. Whereas the child psychiatrists saw 
Harry as good role-model. The adult psychiatrist sees Harry's actions 
from a different patient perspective, since adult psychiatrists 
usually deal with the results of childhood traumas/influences, 
sometimes a good 20-40 years worth of childhood-based 
influences/traumas (long-term affects). OTOH, the child psychiatrists 
don't have that perspective, because they don't see that additive 
result 20+ years of childhood traumas/influences (relatively 
short-term affects). Two different clinical perspectives resulting in 
two different observations and conclusions. That's very interesting. 

> Putting aside the whole "magic" issue for a moment, how is a 
seventeen year
> old crime solver who pretty much does what she wants a better person 
for a
> troubled child to model herself on than Harry is?

I'm not a psychiatrist, but I have worked with the mentally ill 
adults and troubled children and adolescents. A catch word in 
psychoanalysis is "insight". Basically, until a troubled person can 
gain the "insight" to realize/accept his behavior is wrong/harmful 
(like if a kid is violent...hits people whenever he becomes angry), 
that person won't think what he's doing is wrong and 
modifying/eliminating that behavior will be very difficult. It's 
the job (supposedly) of the mental health professional to help 
that person to gain that insight and correct that behavior. 

Kids aren't stupid and they can reason that since Harry has a crummy 
family (the Dursleys) he doesn't have to obey any adult or authority 
figure and as long as everything turns out okay in the end, Harry 
won't get into any trouble. That's not really gaining insight into 
their problems, but more of making an excuse for it. Gaining insight 
would be that much of Harry's adventures could be averted if he were 
to actually trust adults enough to confide in them and to believe what 
they tell him because not all adults are like the Dursleys. From my 
understanding, that particular psychiatrist saw children not gaining 
insight from Harry, but using Harry as an excuse to justify their own 
actions. That could be quite alarming to a parent or to a therapist. 
That's why I think parents have the obligation to discuss the books 
(any book for that matter) with their children, so that the child can 
identify Harry's mistakes and possibly avoid them.

I never read Nancy Drew, so I can't really comment if Nancy had a 
problem with trusting authority figures (parents, police, etc.).

:-)Milz