Critical Review of Psychologist Nigel Latta

Introduction

Message to Parents in Australia and New Zealand

Concern for Suicidal Teens

Social Natural Selection

How to Punish a Teen: Emotional Punishment or Emotional Abuse?

Robotic Disengagement

Does Punishment Always Work in the Long Term?

Using Punishment in Adult Relationships

Using Punishment With School-Age Peers

Politically Incorrect or Just Plain Incorrect?, by Byron Clark

Who is Nigel Latta..., by Byron Clark

Things I like about Nigel

My Correspondence with Nigel

Humor

Personal Thoughts

EQI.org Home Page

Other EQI.org Topics:

Emotional Intelligence | Empathy
Emotional Abuse | Understanding
Emotional Literacy | Feeling Words
Respect | Parenting | Caring
Listening | Invalidation | Hugs
Depression |Education
Personal Growth

Search EQI.org | Support EQI.org

Nigel Latta is a popular psychologist in New Zealand. I am very concerned about what is saying to parents. He makes a lot of jokes at the expense of children and teenagers. He seems to place very little value on their feelings, and in one book he actually encourages parents to show what he calls "robotic disengagement" to the emotions of their own children.

On this page I am collecting my thoughts and feelings, along with many examples of Nigel's work. Because we disagree on so many points, I see this as an opportunity to compare and contrast our approaches to parenting.

S. Hein

I was raised in America, so I have seen the future for New Zealand and Australia, and I don't like the way it looks. Personally, I have suffered greatly from the behavior modification psychology practiced in the American culture. This kind of parenting approach, I fully believe, will take Australia and New Zealand closer, not further, from all that is wrong in America today.

I am not saying parents don't need some way to control their children and teens. Instead, what I believe happened in America is that the legal right to hit children was taken away without giving parents (and teachers) another, better, form of control.

This is a bit like removing the brakes from a car without providing an alternative. There are times when children and teens, like cars, need to be stopped or slowed down. EQI.org offers many practical alternatives to causing children physical or emotional pain as a form of control.

S. Hein

From over 10 years experience with suicidal youth I am quite concerned that if a parent of a suicidal teen were to insist on obedience and use the kind of authoritarian, pain and shame producing emotional punishment suggested in various places throughout Nigel Latta's work, and to adopt his attitudes towards children and teenagers, such as the belief that teenagers are "not right in the head," it could push their son or daughter over the edge.

We see in the case of Megan Meier that teenagers expect and need their parents to provide them with emotional support. In Megan's case, the mother was focused on Megan's disobedience, behavior and language rather than Megan's intense painful feelings. The immediate outcome was that she lost her daughter forever. Megan's last words to her mother were, "You are my mom. You are supposed to be on my side." She then ran upstairs and hanged herself.

Following certain selected pieces of Nigel's advice would almost surely leave a young person feeling less understood, more controlled, more alone, less cared about and more hopeless -- all of which are well known to be common factors in youth suicide. I want to bring attention to those pieces in the hopes that A) Nigel will reconsider the wisdom behind them and B) Well-intentioned parents will take careful note.

Nigel does have a chapter specifically addressing teen self-harm, depression and suicide in at least one of his books, "Fathers Raising Daughters," which is less worrisome, but I am afraid that chapter will remain largely unknown to, and unappreciated by, the average parent.

I am also concerned that Nigel doesn't adequately understand why a teen becomes self-harming, depressed and suicidal in the first place.

* March 21, 2011- I have asked Nigel for permission to reprint that chapter here and am waiting for his reply

One of my concerns is Nigel's joke about "social natural selection." Latta leads into this by saying that all parents "screw it up in one way or another." Then he adds:

"We're parents - that's our job. Just like we have to survive them, our kids have to survive us. If they can make it past us, then they'll probably be fine. Think of it as a form of social 'natural selection'.

Before corresponding with Nigel and finding his writing on self-harm and depression I felt very afraid that Nigel may truly believe in his idea of "social natural selection" even as it applies to youth suicide. I am less afraid of that now, but I am still quite worried about the message it sends to parents. Specifically, I am worried that if an abused, highly sensitive young person were feeling suicidal due to a lack of the empathy, understanding and emotional support needed from their parents, the parent might remember this phrase and use it to somehow justify their lack of concern. Some with chillingly cold hearts might even go as far as actually attributing youth suicide to this idea of "social natural selection."

While Nigel is obviously making a joke, it is a rather bad one when thought of in terms of youth suicide. Certainly, it is no laughing matter.

To his credit, Nigel does understand this and he makes no jokes at all in his writing specifically about suicide. Yet I believe that encouraging this kind of thinking in other writing, even as a joke, is dangerous if not irresponsible on the part of a psychologist. I also believe Nigel would personally feel very bad if he learned that a teen did kill themselves after a parent misunderstood and misapplied his advice and his humor. I also feel sure that he would not tell such a parent that they should just chalk up the death to social natural selection. But if he wouldn't joke about that, then why joke about any pain experienced by the children and teens?

In any case, this idea of social natural selection reminds me of a conversation I had with a businessman from Norway. When we discussed youth suicide, it was clear he really believed that if some young people kill themselves, it is just part of the price we have to pay for living in a society where we have rules, authority, etc. He said society works for most people. But this would be of little consolation to a parent who just lost their son or daughter needlessly.

In contrast to a view that some young people are simply dispensable, and this is part of nature's way of ensuring the survival of the fittest, the EQI.org site is dedicated to advocacy for highly sensitive, and often highly emotionally intelligent youth.

I personally feel a chilling sense of certainty that as I write these words, some sensitive, but non-conforming soul, one with great potential, is now being raised by parents who show a twisted form of "robotic disengagement rather than empathy, understanding and compassion, and that this young person, whose parents may sincerely but incorrectly believe they are doing the right thing, will indeed *not* survive their parents' treatment.

S. Hein
March 15, 2011
Wanaka, New Zealand

Nigel calls this a "key ingredient for success"

He says, "We can learn much from killer robots. Principally the one big thing is robotic disengagement." Then he continues, "When the robots eventually take over the planet... and kill us all..you can bet they won't feel bad about it."

He adds that when the humans manage to destroy a few of the robots while battling them, the robots "won't feel bad about that either." He said "robots will approach the problem logically." This reminds me of the quote, "You can't heal an emotional wound with logic."

He goes on to say that "Teenagers are always looking for a way to knock you off balance and getting you all wound up is one way to do it. They will argue just for the hell of it sometimes and the more you argue the more chance they have of getting what they want...

If you simply apply the LOCD in a removed and dispassionate way, there is nothing for them to argue with.

From Before Your Teenagers Drive You Crazy p.184-185

--

This reminds me of a corporate employee robotically telling an irate customer. "I am just following company procedure" something which will definitely not help the customer feel better or develop good will or repeat business. Personally I want more humane treatment in the world, not more robotic treatment. As Nigel suggests, robots make good soldiers and murderers because they lack empathy, but is that a what we really want more of in the world? This also brings to mind Obama's quote about the "empathy deficit."

Here is an interesting, related quote to consider

An ambitious psychology student can achieve outstanding academic success despite exhibiting a degree of empathy deficit slightly below the threshold for a formal clinical diagnosis of "high functioning autism." It should come as no surprise that such individuals tend to favour cognitive therapy and mechanistic genetic hypotheses, because their cognitive faculties aren't impaired. Source

--

See also this page on Robotic Disengagement and Robotic Indifference

Nigel tries to justify and defend the use of punishment by reminding us that we use punishment in adult relationships. He gives some examples like being punished for speeding. Throughout his work he says repeatedly that punishment is effective in changing behavior.

One question is this: But what would happen if you tried to change your adult partner's behavior using punishment?

Also, using punishment in adult relationships is expensive. It costs society and the taxpayer more than voluntary compliance. If people don't believe in the laws, you need more police, more speed cameras, more security systems etc. You also need more judges, more jails, more wardens more probation officers. And when someone is in jail, they are not contributing to society - they are costing society. If you are tempted to believe that punishment keeps people out of jail, please read this article from the USA which I have called "Does punishment always work in the long term".

So if we could design a system in which people voluntarily follow the rules, it would save a lot of money - not to mention create a lot less resentment of authority.

Another problem is "crimes of passion." When someone murders someone else in a momentary fit of insane jealousy, they are not thinking of the possible punishment. So no matter how severe that punishement is, it still does not change their behavior. It would have been better if they had been less emotionally needy, less insecure and more self-confident so they would not be so desperate at the thought of losing someone they so needed in their life.

In other words, what would have prevented the murder is having had their emotional needs met when they were young, not the threat of punishment as an adult.

Let's imagine a child who is punished at home in order to change his behavior. Now please think about what is likely to happen when this same child gets to school and wants to change the behavior of one of his peers. - SH

He usually uses the word punishment, instead of consequences or saying "withdrawing privileges."

He is pretty open about what he does with his own children.

He doesn't make jokes when he writes about self-harm, depression and suicide.

He doesn't bring religion and any gods into his arguments. Nor does he seem to attribute things to "evil."

Nigel contacted me after I posted part of his list of suggestions on how to emotionally punish a teenager, saying my writing about him was defamatory. We then corresponded a few times and I agreed to make some changes in how I worded things.

I had mixed feelings about our correspondence which I won't detail now, but what I do want to say is that I remain somewhat hopeful he will agree to write something for my website, including answering some questions I have for him.

Here is my last email. It has been a few days and I haven't gotten a reply so I am feeling a little afraid I won't hear from him again. But in any case I want to continue working on these pages about his work because there are still many things which concern me and motivate me to write about.

My last email to him said this:

Hi Nigel

I'm glad that you are feeling more ok about what I have written.

I have read your chapter on self-harm, depression etc in your book for
fathers raising daughters. I don't find too much to complain about with it.

In fact, I was just thinking that I might like to copy it in its entirety
for my site and wanted to know how you would feel about that, or about
taking a large chunk of it like 40-50 percent.

As you probably have figured out, I am most concerned with suicidal teens
and I want to help make sure parents know what you say in that chapter.
Just so you know, my partner nearly killed herself when she was a teen,
she still self harms at times, and I have also had many days of suicidal
thoughts.

I was thinking about the word defamatory which comes from the word fame. I
don't really mind if you are famous. I can't really stop that anyhow and
that never was my goal.

I feel more optimistic now that you and I can somehow collaborate. I am
unsure as to what is motivating you these days and that would be helpful
to know. As I said, I'd rather make friends than enemies and one way to
do that is to help someone get what they want. But honestly, I don't know
what you want. It doesn't seem you are just in this for the money. So I
don't know if you want more fame, more money, more respect or just what.

I like to think in terms of unmet emotional needs and I unsure what yours
are, so again, not clear on how to help. I am pretty sure you are not
lacking in the physical/material needs department.

We definitely disagree on many things, but in our disagreement people can
see two different sides of things and make up their own mind, and perhaps
we can both improve what we do and how we do it.

S.

Since Nigel obviously has a good sense of humor, here is some for him :)

A marketing slogan which Nigel and his promoters might like to use

Nigel Latta - A bad parent's best friend!

And here is an endorsement. (This is almost exactly what one parent actually told me!)

I love Nigel Latta because he makes me feel good about being a bad parent!

--

Note that I am not saying Nigel is an *abusive* parent's best friend. But what is the difference between a bad parent and an abusive one? I don't know. Ask Nigel. He is the expert!

And for more parenting humor here is some from Bill Cosby

* More seriously, if you would like to learn about emotional abuse, you can read the EQI.org pages or do a web search yourself of course.

According to the book, "Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, when it was still legal to own slaves in the United States, no contract with a slave was "legally binding; for, according to Southern laws, a slave, being property, can hold no property.

In other words, slaves had no property rights. In one of his books, Nigel Latta reminds parents that their children also have no property rights.

If they don't go [to bed], you can take things away from them. In
fact, you can take everything away. You can strip their room of every
last thing but the mattress, and not give those things back until you
see some sustained compliance.


You have to remember that your child has no form of independent
income, no form of independent transport, and no property rights. They
have only what you give them. If you are determined, you can make that
stubborn little person's life a desolate and boring place to be.

-The Politically Incorrect Parenting Book - Chapter 17
Nigel Latta