PDF Summary:Bad Therapy, by Abigail Shrier

Can mental health treatments ever be harmful for children? In Bad Therapy, journalist Abigail Shrier argues yes, stating that we’re too quick to medicalize normal childhood struggles in today’s society. She says that while some children genuinely need professional treatment, using therapy and medication when it isn’t necessary prevents young people from developing the skills they need for adulthood. Shrier suggests that instead of rushing to therapy, parents should seek expert intervention less often and give their kids more independence and opportunities to develop resilience.

In this guide, we’ll lay out Shrier’s argument for why mental health treatments aren’t helping young people. We’ll then discuss how well-intentioned interventions by parents, schools, and mental health professionals can damage youth mental health. Lastly, we’ll compare Shrier’s recommendations for raising resilient children with those of psychologists and mental health experts.

(continued)...

In 13 Things Mentally Strong Parents Don’t Do, psychotherapist Amy Morin suggests parents teach children to influence their own emotional state rather than be controlled by it. To do this, first teach children that feelings and actions are separate things. For instance, just because you feel angry doesn’t mean you need to throw a tantrum—instead, you can channel those emotions into constructive activities like talking to someone or writing in a journal. Then, help kids develop their own toolkit of coping strategies. This teaches them to acknowledge their emotions without letting those feelings drive impulsive choices.

In The Whole-Brain Child, neurospsychiatrist Daniel J. Siegel and parenting expert Tina Payne Bryson recommend teaching kids that feelings are temporary states, not permanent traits. They explain that just as weather patterns change, emotions naturally shift and evolve over time. When children understand this concept, they’re less likely to get overwhelmed by intense feelings or see them as defining characteristics. One way to help them understand this concept is by asking kids how they might feel about a current situation in five minutes, five hours, or five days to help them gain perspective. Simple mindfulness exercises can also help kids step back from overwhelming feelings.

5) Children Might Feel Inherently Fragile

Shrier writes that overtreatment not only teaches children to fixate on their emotions, but it also causes them to view themselves as inherently damaged and fragile. She argues that today’s society has become obsessed with finding trauma in everyone’s past. While severe trauma exists, the tendency to see trauma everywhere convinces people that they’re permanently damaged by common childhood difficulties.

(Shortform note: Some experts argue that overusing the word “trauma” not only causes people to see themselves as inherently damaged, but also diminishes the experiences of people dealing with genuine trauma. According to the American Psychiatric Association, true trauma involves exposure to life-threatening events, serious injury, or sexual violence—experiences that can lead to PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder). Labeling everyday difficulties like job loss or relationship problems as trauma can make it harder to recognize and address truly severe cases.)

Shrier adds that when we rush to diagnose and medicate children, we damage their self-image and create a self-fulfilling prophecy: Children think they can’t change or improve without professional help and expect less from themselves. As a result, instead of learning to handle life challenges by themselves, they struggle to make decisions or take action without medication or guidance.

(Shortform note: When children believe they need external help to succeed in life, they develop what psychologist Martin Seligman calls learned helplessness—a belief that they’re powerless to change their circumstances even in new situations where they actually could make a difference. In Learned Optimism, Seligman explains that people develop this mindset of powerlessness when they repeatedly face situations where they feel they can’t affect any outcomes in their lives—situations that may include being labeled with diagnoses or relying on medications to get through each day.)

The Overemphasis on Mental Health in Schools

Now that we’ve discussed how unnecessary mental health treatment can harm children, let’s look more specifically at how schools can contribute to these issues. According to Shrier, schools focus too much on student mental health. Despite lacking proper training or guidelines, teachers and staff routinely encourage students to share personal feelings in class, suggest mental health diagnoses like ADHD, and provide excessive accommodations. In the following sections, we’ll discuss the effects of these interventions in school on student mental health.

(Shortform note: The Covid-19 pandemic, which worsened children’s mental health, prompted 38 states to pass nearly 100 laws for improving mental health services in schools. These laws aim to ensure that school mental health programs are properly implemented. For example, Virginia now requires school counselors to receive specific training in mental health disorders, depression, trauma, and youth suicide before they can be licensed. Other states like Connecticut and Florida have created protocols for how schools should respond to student mental health crises. These structured approaches suggest that schools are working on developing more professional and systematic ways to support student mental health.)

Mental Health Programs and Surveys

Shrier writes that many schools have implemented mental health programs like social-emotional learning (SEL), which have students share feelings and personal experiences in class. While schools intend for these to teach students emotional awareness and empathy, they disrupt learning by having students repeatedly discuss their anxieties and personal problems during academic time. Listening to and talking about negative emotions can leave students feeling distressed and make it harder for them to concentrate on their academic subjects.

(Shortform note: Research supports Shrier’s argument that mental health programs can potentially worsen mental health in students. In one study, students who participated in mindfulness training and emotional awareness programs reported feeling worse afterward, not better. Researchers theorize that the programs made students more aware of their difficult emotions without giving them effective tools to handle them. They add that group discussions can specifically backfire by causing students to engage in co-rumination—talking about problems without finding solutions, which can make students feel worse about those problems.)

Many schools also administer surveys that ask questions about mental health, family life, drug use, sexual activity, and other sensitive topics. Shrier argues these surveys are intrusive, inappropriate for children, and may actually introduce or normalize risky behaviors by asking about them. Additionally, in many states, schools aren’t required to inform parents when students receive counseling services. This means children may be discussing personal issues with school staff without parents’ knowledge.

(Shortform note: Some experts argue that mental health screenings in schools are essential tools for early identification, which allows students to connect with help before problems become severe. They say there’s a critical two- to four-year window between when mental health symptoms first appear and when they develop into serious disorders—a period when prevention programs could make the biggest difference.)

Excessive Accommodations

Schools have long provided special accommodations to help struggling students succeed. But Shrier argues that schools now bend over backward to accommodate nearly every student request, a practice that undermines independence and academic performance. Shrier discusses three accommodations that she considers damaging:

1) Academic accommodations: Teachers liberally make modifications to academic standards, even for students without formal diagnoses, by accepting late work, giving extra time on tests, and allowing students to leave class if anxious. While some students face genuine trauma, schools now label common challenges like having divorced parents as traumatic. This leads educators to treat typical students as psychologically damaged and unable to meet basic expectations. Shrier contends that this mindset particularly harms disadvantaged students who need high standards and accountability to succeed.

(Shortform note: Teachers and parents often approve of accommodations like extra time for tests because they can lead to improvements in the student’s academic performance. However, experts warn that these quick fixes can become a crutch—for example, students may rely on extra time even for tests they could complete within normal limits simply to reduce anxiety. This has led some experts to propose several ways schools can reduce the overuse of accommodations. These include training teachers to understand when accommodations are truly needed versus when other interventions might be more appropriate and implementing academic support programs to build core skills like reading fluency and writing.)

2) Student aides: Schools increasingly assign aides to follow and help individual students throughout the day. While these helpers originally supported students with severe disabilities, schools now assign them to students for minor behavioral issues. Having a constantly monitoring shadow can make students more dependent on adults and deprive them of opportunities to learn to deal with situations independently.

(Shortform note: To avoid creating dependent students, educational psychologists recommend aides use fade-out support strategies. This means gradually reducing the amount of help given until the student can complete tasks independently. They suggest aides start with the minimum level of assistance needed for success before systematically decreasing that support over time. For example, you might begin by demonstrating a task, then switch to verbal reminders, and finally move to subtle gestures based on the student’s progress.)

3) Restorative justice: Many schools have replaced traditional discipline with restorative justice, where students who misbehave participate in group discussions about their feelings rather than face punishment. Shrier argues that this approach fails to prevent violence and actually hurts victims by forcing them to confront their attackers. By treating all misbehavior as a mental health issue requiring therapy instead of discipline, schools have lost the ability to maintain order. According to the teachers Shrier interviewed, restorative justice has led to more behavioral problems and school violence.

Can Restorative Justice Work?

Researchers argue that restorative justice programs can work effectively if school staff receive intensive training, consistent leadership, and ongoing coaching. They can’t be implemented after a few workshops and left to run on their own. When schools rush to adopt restorative justice without proper preparation, they struggle to maintain discipline and safety.

Schools have found success by taking a more measured approach: For example, in a Philadelphia high school once considered to be one of the most dangerous in the state, administrators first trained a core group of committed teachers before gradually expanding the program. This led to significant drops in repeat infractions and cut suspensions nearly in half over four years. So, while poorly implemented restorative justice programs can indeed lead to discipline problems, schools that carefully develop these programs may find better results than those from traditional punitive approaches.

How Parents Can Nurture Resilient Children

To raise more resilient children, Shrier encourages parents to trust their instincts instead of relying on expert opinions. She says modern parenting has become too dependent on experts and interventions, with parents turning to therapy and medication to handle their child’s behavioral issues instead of using parenting strategies like setting boundaries and consequences. Depending so heavily on outside help prevents children from developing life skills and forming strong relationships with their parents.

Instead of relying on mental health treatments, Shrier recommends parents be more authoritative instead of coddling their children and let their children be more independent.

(Shortform note: The idea that parents should follow expert advice to raise their children is called scientific motherhood— the belief that mothering should be guided by scientific supervision and principles. This parenting model gained momentum in the late 19th century when major scientific discoveries, like germ theory, were transforming how people lived their daily lives. The pressure to follow expert advice has historically fallen most heavily on mothers because society has long viewed mothers as responsible for raising successful future citizens. This expectation intensified as childhood development became seen less as a natural process and more as a series of tasks.)

Be a More Authoritative Parent

Shrier encourages parents to adopt a more authoritative parenting style—an approach that combines love with clear rules, high standards, and consistent discipline. She explains that modern parenting has become overly permissive and therapeutic. Parents often treat their children like therapy clients who need constant validation and emotional support. For example, where previous generations might have told a misbehaving child to stop and go to their room, today’s parents engage in lengthy discussions about emotions and offer multiple choices for the child to choose from.

The shift toward this more permissive style of parenting happened as Generation X parents rejected their own upbringing, wanting to avoid the emotional detachment and discipline methods they experienced as kids. However, this gentler parenting style hasn’t produced better outcomes. Shrier argues that despite parents being more present in their children’s lives and accommodating more of their needs, young people are more anxious, depressed, and struggling to launch into adulthood. Children naturally need and want parental authority—when parents fail to provide it, kids look for it elsewhere, so they may even distance themselves from their parents and seek authority from extreme political movements or cults.

(Shortform note: Gen X earned the nickname “latchkey kids” because they regularly came home to empty houses after school while their parents worked. They received so little supervision that New York’s FOX 5 news aired a nightly reminder asking parents “It’s 10 p.m., do you know where your children are?” While Shrier says that Gen X parents have rejected their own upbringing, research suggests the independence they had wasn't necessarily harmful. Kids who spent time alone fared just as well socially and emotionally as those with adult supervision. They also had various support systems in place—they could call their parents, visit neighbors, or hang out with friends.)

For these reasons, Shrier advocates a return to clearer boundaries, consistent consequences, and the understanding that temporary discomfort from discipline helps children develop into capable adults. She cites studies showing that children raised with firm but loving guidance become more successful and emotionally stable than those raised with permissive parenting.

Discipline Children With the Counting System

In 1-2-3 Magic, Thomas W. Phelan offers specific insights into why modern parents’ tendency to over-explain and over-discuss misbehavior actually backfires. He explains that trying to have detailed conversations with misbehaving children is ineffective because their brains aren’t ready for it—children under 12 can’t process explanations about why their behavior is wrong. When parents launch into lengthy discussions about feelings and choices, they often end up frustrating their children and making the situation worse.

Instead of long talks or emotional reactions, Phelan recommends a simple counting system where parents calmly give children three chances to correct their behavior: When a child misbehaves, the parent calmly says, “That’s one” and waits five seconds. If the behavior continues they say, “That’s two,” and if the child still doesn’t stop, they get “That’s three” and must take a five-minute break. This approach provides clear boundaries while avoiding power struggles or lengthy discussions that young brains aren’t ready to handle. It also offers a middle ground between the harsh discipline of previous generations and today’s overly permissive parenting that Shrier critiques.

Encourage Independence

Shrier writes that children need time away from adult supervision to develop properly. In the past, kids were given more independence and expected to entertain themselves. Today, parents intervene excessively in their children’s schooling, social lives, and daily activities. For example, they might pick up their child immediately after school, supervise all homework, and plan enriching activities at home. This constant adult supervision actually increases stress and anxiety in children, Shrier argues.

(Shortform note: How dangerous is it really for children to play unsupervised? According to data, children today are actually safer than ever before. Child mortality rates have dropped tenfold since 1935, and the chances of a child aged 5-14 dying prematurely are only about 0.01%. Data also suggests that the fear of kidnapping that drives many parents to constantly supervise their children is largely unfounded. Missing person reports involving minors have fallen by 40% since 1997, and only 0.1% of missing persons cases involve what we think of as stereotypical kidnapping by strangers.)

Shrier cites countries like Japan and Israel, which allow young children to regularly navigate public transportation alone and handle responsibilities that American parents would consider dangerous. This independence, she argues, leads to greater emotional stability and fewer mental health issues compared to American youth.

(Shortform note: According to a study comparing 16 countries (not including the US), Japan ranks among the top performers in giving children the freedom to move around independently, with Finland ranking the highest. However, contrary to what Shrier suggests, Israel actually ranks among the lowest. The study suggests that traffic danger is the biggest factor limiting children’s freedom in most countries. Because of this, researchers believe that it’s the community’s role to improve child independence by creating safer environments through better urban planning, less car dependency, and stronger road safety measures.)

Ultimately, Shrier argues parents should reduce their involvement in children’s lives rather than constantly intervening. She encourages them to step back and allow children to face natural consequences. For instance, instead of emailing teachers about homework, let your children face the natural outcomes of forgetting assignments. Allowing kids to have responsibilities and explore their environment without adult supervision—even if it involves small risks—teaches them to negotiate relationships, solve problems on their own, and build confidence.

The Rise of Safety Parenting

In The Coddling of the American Mind, Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff trace overprotective “safety” parenting back to the 1980s and 1990s when 24-hour news coverage of child abductions sparked widespread panic among parents. Though stranger kidnappings were extremely rare—only about 100 cases annually among 70 million US children—the media coverage convinced parents that danger lurked around every corner.

This fear led to what Haidt and Lukianoff call safetyism—the belief that children must be protected from all possible risks or discomfort. As a result, parents began restricting basic childhood activities like walking to a friend’s house alone and started intervening in their children’s social conflicts and academic challenges. The authors note that this trend is especially prominent among privileged families who can afford to closely monitor their children’s activities.

The authors say the consequences of safetyism become clear when these sheltered children reach college. Having missed out on opportunities to develop resilience through moderate risks and independent problem-solving, many students struggle with their first taste of autonomy. They often expect administrators to shield them from challenging ideas or uncomfortable situations, just as their parents protected them from childhood difficulties. When colleges respond by adding more protections, they reinforce students’ beliefs that they’re too fragile to handle challenges, contributing to their lack of resilience.