Behavior Modification/Torture

[Anonymous]

First of all my comments about freedom of speech wasn't directed at you or this website. Second I never made a statement with a judgement about RTCS. I never made a statement at all about Wilderness Programs. Don't presume to know anthing about me. I might be homeless, using a library, a yuppie, or extreamly wealthy. The acrimony of your hysteria is a real turnoff to parents looking to this site to get information.

[Anonymous]

Don't presume to know anthing about me. I might be homeless, using a library, a yuppie, or extreamly wealthy. The acrimony of your hysteria is a real turnoff to parents looking to this site to get information.

Hi Karen!  :wave: Since we don't know anything about you, why don't you tell us more about yourself?

[Anonymous]

On 2006-03-19 14:31:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

Don't presume to know anthing about me. I might be homeless, using a library, a yuppie, or extreamly wealthy. The acrimony of your hysteria is a real turnoff to parents looking to this site to get information.

Hi Karen!  :wave: Since we don't know anything about you, why don't you tell us more about yourself?"

Yeah, you do write a lot like Karen.

You aren't homeless, you aren't using a library, and you aren't extremely wealthy.

You're middle class, you went to college, you were in the college bound track in high school, you're a devotee of pop psychology (although you don't consider yourself one), and you had teachers who rewarded pompous writing.  Your IQ is between 116 and 140---most likely around 126.  You most likely scored between 1100 and 1250 on your SATs--1300, max.  Although your intelligence is between above average and gifted, when you meet new people you are likely to assume you're smarter than they are--far more often than you should.

The college you went to was better than a community college and probably had competitive admissions, but wasn't Ivy League.

You're most likely between thirty and fifty.  You're white collar, but you don't work in science or engineering.

You're a program parent or an ed con.  From various bits of information from your post I can tell that you are not staff, a program owner, just a program relative, a former program kid, a journalist, or an interested bystander.  That just leaves program parent, which other bits of information from you post confirms.

Word choices tell a lot about a person.  If they didn't, characterization would be a whole lot harder.

Don't presume you don't give away a lot about yourself just by how you say what you say.

I won't necessarily have gotten all of that right, but I'm sure I pegged you on most of it.

The only other thing you could be is a professional writer, like me, who is (unlike me) pretending to be an anonymous program parent.  Not likely.

Julie

[Anonymous]

Hi Julie

My name is not Karen, that I can assure you. I am not a program parent or program kid. I have owned and operated my own businesses for the last 20 years. I have expertise in rare books. I have two graduate degrees, one from an Ivy League College. I was also a high school flunkout so I worked before going to college. My first job as after grad school was in a drug rehab TC. That was enough experience for me to understand that I never wanted to work for anyone else again.

IQ measures a very small range of cognitive abilities and is highly correlated with SAT scores. It doesn't measure creativity, emotional intelligence, and a range of talents. IQ scores often fluctuate two standard deviations depending on when it is given in persons life. It is an appropriate part in a diagnostic series in context with other factors.

I did spend some time reviewing the literature including reading the evidence that the Wilderness Therapy Association provided. There is not one study with a control group. So fundamentally they have absolutely no evidence that wilderness therapy changes behavior. The same type of gains they claimed on the Youth Activity Questionaire were achieved by the Salt Lake City DYFS with 12 therapy sessions. And this questionaire was normed using kids in Austrailia. And the results are published by a biased organization. On the other hand the surgeon general report is generally considered to be unbiased. There are nine studies referenced, which isn't very many, but at least they are published in respected journals. There conclusion is that there is no current evidence that treatment in either TC'S or Wilderness Camp on institutional recidivism. Family Therapy, Multi Systemic Therapy and community mental health are the modalities of choice. In short, keep the pups home.
Ancedotaly, I have been through all that bad boy stuff (I was not a pleasant adolescent)  and managed to get through quite nicely, as did my friends and dorm buds.Kids need experience making better choices in the communities they live in, not thousands of miles from home in an artificial enivironment. This has always been my inclination. I glad that I found that the research is on my side.
As to Eudora's comment that I couldn't get through a Wilderness Program, when I was in high school I wrestled at a championship level and that is more physically demanding than than wilderness programs. That is lots exercise, a lot of times in rubber sweatsuits, extreamly limited calorie intake, laxitives, puking, with lots of stairs to climb if you didn't make weight. Oh' and lots of restraining. Some people like physical challanges. The reasons for not sending someone to a WC has nothing to do with what I could or couldn't do. It is that there is no evidence that this modality has any effect on behavior. The marketing of these programs is extremly dangerous because their are no inpectors and it is easy for a parent to make the mistake of sending a child into an unscrupulous program. Physical challanges will do harm to a percentage of those who go. Family therapy,  and community mental health have evidence based research that suggest they are better alternatives. Now it's time to go on Woodbury's parent forum and tell them that the evidence suggests that the parents are wasting their money. I wonder how long it will be before he kicks me off.

[Antigen]

On 2006-03-25 13:04:00, Anonymous wrote:

As to Eudora's comment that I couldn't get through a Wilderness Program, when I was in high school I wrestled at a championship level

If it weren't so tragic, that would be funny as hell. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

Take your camping/sports wrestling and put it in the context life under incarceration ( http://www.prisonexp.org ), adding the ever potent element of uncertain duration and the fact that it's real and your own damned parents ordered and paid for it.

If you can wrap your mind around just that much, then we'll have enough comon ground to start talking the same language.

It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was
made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.
There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to
govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be
masters.

--Daniel Webster

[Anonymous]

On 2006-03-25 13:39:00, Eudora wrote:

"

On 2006-03-25 13:04:00, Anonymous wrote:


As to Eudora's comment that I couldn't get through a Wilderness Program, when I was in high school I wrestled at a championship level

If it weren't so tragic, that would be funny as hell. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.



Take your camping/sports wrestling and put it in the context life under incarceration ( http://www.prisonexp.org ), adding the ever potent element of uncertain duration and the fact that it's real and your own damned parents ordered and paid for it.



If you can wrap your mind around just that much, then we'll have enough comon ground to start talking the same language.

It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was
made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.
There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to
govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be
masters.

--Daniel Webster

"

Do YOU have any idea what he's talking about?  I rather thought he said wilderness programs don't work, or at least aren't shown to work according to some government report, and that they are,at best, a waste of parental money.  He said kids should get help in their local community.  So why the hell attack him???

[AtomicAnt]

"If you invite me to the wilderness to teach me some survival skills, I can choose to build a fire or go home and cook on the stove."  In your approach, yes.  But the parallel is the child can choose to walk from the parental model and follow that of the drug abusing peer, as one example.  The child can continue to blame others for all the ils they face and experience, rather than experience the inescapable result of not making a fire for warm food.  I guess each instance involves choice, but one doesn't let the child run from reality.

Projection is a complex defense mechanism that is difficult for trained psychiatrists and psychologists to deal with. If you think it can be cured by tossing the patient into the wilderness and forcing them to learn fire making or suffer the consequences of eating cold food, you are an idiot.

A patient in this situation can just as easily project their plight onto those who forced them into the wilderness and the counselors making them eat cold food. Only this time it is not projection. They would be correct.

Your intended lesson runs along the lines of, "My actions lead to the consequence of being sent to wilderness. Learning to make a fire has taught me that my actions all have inescapable consequences."

The real lesson that will be internalized is, "My fucked up parents forced me into wilderness and made me eat cold food. Adults are all assholes."

[Anonymous]

On 2006-03-19 15:14:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

On 2006-03-19 14:31:00, Anonymous wrote:


"

Don't presume to know anthing about me. I might be homeless, using a library, a yuppie, or extreamly wealthy. The acrimony of your hysteria is a real turnoff to parents looking to this site to get information.

Hi Karen!  :wave: Since we don't know anything about you, why don't you tell us more about yourself?"

Yeah, you do write a lot like Karen.



You aren't homeless, you aren't using a library, and you aren't extremely wealthy.



You're middle class, you went to college, you were in the college bound track in high school, you're a devotee of pop psychology (although you don't consider yourself one), and you had teachers who rewarded pompous writing.  Your IQ is between 116 and 140---most likely around 126.  You most likely scored between 1100 and 1250 on your SATs--1300, max.  Although your intelligence is between above average and gifted, when you meet new people you are likely to assume you're smarter than they are--far more often than you should.



The college you went to was better than a community college and probably had competitive admissions, but wasn't Ivy League.



You're most likely between thirty and fifty.  You're white collar, but you don't work in science or engineering.



You're a program parent or an ed con.  From various bits of information from your post I can tell that you are not staff, a program owner, just a program relative, a former program kid, a journalist, or an interested bystander.  That just leaves program parent, which other bits of information from you post confirms.



Word choices tell a lot about a person.  If they didn't, characterization would be a whole lot harder.



Don't presume you don't give away a lot about yourself just by how you say what you say.



I won't necessarily have gotten all of that right, but I'm sure I pegged you on most of it.



The only other thing you could be is a professional writer, like me, who is (unlike me) pretending to be an anonymous program parent.  Not likely.



Julie

"

Julie,

Have you just described yourself?

[Anonymous]

After 3 weeks of reading every post on this forum I've come to the conclusion, thought I don't always agree with him, that Dysfunction Junction is the only person with any sense.  Deborah, Julie, Eudora, Three springs-- you are obnoxious and I'm not even a program person.  You make me want to put my kid in one though.

[Anonymous]

::troll::

[Anonymous]

You make me want to put my kid in one though.

Please explain your logic behind this statement, because it eludes me. You are annoyed at anonymous internet posters, so in turn, you want to place your kid in a program? This is one the most ridiculous statements I've read on fornits.... and I've been reading this forum for years, not three weeks.

[Anonymous]

On 2006-03-25 21:27:00, Anonymous wrote:

"After 3 weeks of reading every post on this forum I've come to the conclusion, thought I don't always agree with him, that Dysfunction Junction is the only person with any sense.  Deborah, Julie, Eudora, Three springs-- you are obnoxious and I'm not even a program person.  You make me want to put my kid in one though."

::troll::  ::troll::  ::troll::

At least I sign my posts, bitch.

Julie

[Anonymous]

Class act.

[Anonymous]

Have you lost your ability to comphrehend the English language? I know I have a few typos in there but I just gave the best case arguement for not sending anyone to WC or BM. My arguement is based on  existing research from an unbiased source, the surgeon generals report on residential treatment, verses their Wilderness Therapy Research which is published by highly biased industry journal and sucks for the reasons I stated. What better arguement could there be than to say to a parent that there isn't a shred of unbiased research that these places work. This is not based on my ancedotal experiences but on objective fact supported by the best unbiased literature written to date. Further, the marketing of these programs is obscene and unscrupulous.

[Anonymous]

You asked me to say a little about myself, now you tell me about yourself.