AARC Summary (i.e. Ajax)

[psy]

Hey who.  Ever heard of "GIGO".  It means that if you feed bullshit in, you get bullshit out.

Garbage In, Garbage Out (abbreviated to GIGO) is a phrase in the field of computer science or ICT. It is used primarily to call attention to the fact that computers will unquestioningly process the most nonsensical of input data and produce nonsensical output

Another analogy would be to say that you can't turn shit into gold.

So who is verifying the purity of the input data here?  I really don't care how you interpret it.  I want to know how it was collected and whether the data is accurate.  This means independently conducted studies and double blind control groups (otherwise, it's just marketing).  I'd also like to see whether AARC's rate of "success" is any higher (or lower) than the spontaneous rate of recovery.

So tell me, Who, and stop spinning around in circles: why exactly am I supposed to trust this data given by a biased party as impartial and accurate?

Furthermore, as I stated above: "Who gives a flying fuck if it's "successful" or not!?!? Are their treatment methods humane and ethical? Do they deprive clients of their rights? So many questions like these are far, far, more relevant."

Recap for parents on this page, read above.

[ThéWho]

I found it frustrating that our society equates abuse with sexual and physical contact. If there is no bodily sexual contact or violent physical contact - it's not seen as abuse.But all survivors of abuse deal with one main element, the emotional/mental scars.A person can be raped, and beaten....and their bodies can mostly repair the damage.....but it's living with the emotional impact of that abuse that makes it a long time struggle. It's society's way of not speaking about bad or negative things. Unless you have physical wounds you aren't hurt.
In a way our society works with the abusers to hide the emotional and mental impact by denying it's importance. Survivors of abuse are eventually told to 'get over it'. There is supposed to be some deadline for survivors to deal with the abuse. And when abuse comes in a pure mental/emotional form (no sexual or physical attack) - it so much easier for the abuser to hide and or also to deny that it exists. Children can live in a mental prison that their abusive parents create. Much like the elephant being chained to the ground and eventually only requiring a small rope. It's learnt to be submissive and not escape or fight back. That's also why we repress most of the abuse and don't deal with it...because we are taught by the larger world to do that.

The world wants hard working people that read success books and practice positive thinking mantras so they can be good little machine workers. Don't say anything negative, don't talk about the past. Just get over it already. But the impact of the abuse doesn't go away if it's ignored.The worst culprits for denying the emotional/mental impact of our past abuse is ourselves.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

...

[TheWho]

When in doubt go back to the original study.

You already admitted you couldn't verify the accuracy of the source data, so what exactly do the statistics mean?

I was trying to help this poster "meathead" understand the study results.  There were obviously portions of the study (in particular the Tables design) which he struggled to understand.  As far as how the study was controlled or the accuracy of the raw data collection I cannot speak to that.  I am reading the results of the study like everyone else.  But that doesn’t mean there is a problem with it.  I do know that Hazelden was involved and that adds a very high level of credibility and confidence in my mind.  

I am not an AARC supporter because I know very little about the program, but saw an opportunity where I could help a fellow poster understand the study.




...

[ThéWho]

The Best Advice to a Family Member...
....of an abused person?

An incident concerning my sister has been troubling me since Friday and though I've surrendered it to the Lord I thought I'd also ask those of you who have escaped from abusive relationships.

I have been a shoulder to cry on for my sister, early in her relationship I was the only family member to confront the abusive man and lost contact with my sister for nearly a year, I was privy to her account of him being in the care of their little one (about two years ago) and him threatening to kill himself where I felt the need to contact a child protection agency and she nearly had a melt down as a result of me conveying what the agency had said. I've given her numbers for refuge shelters which she has not taken up. Our family have offered to pay for a lawyer to sort out their house so that she and my nephew could separate from him. Her response to our offer was that she does not want to lose where she lives and her house and start over again. The one incident on Friday had me hear (on speakerphone) her bf screaming at her to come and fix a soft drink for him. I have never heard a human being scream like that before.

This man has been a diabetic all his life - only when they are together does his diabetes get to a point where his blood sugars drop (when he is working abroad he is fine) and he "loses it". I was at my other sister's house when the phonecall was made. The abused sister had ran into the garden because she said that he had picked up a knife and was coming towards her. My older sister had motioned me over to her and put the conversation on speaker phone and this was when I heard the man angrily screaming at my sister. The abused sister had already called an ambulance prior to the phone call and the paramedics and two police officers finally arrived.

This week, she is still in the environment with my nephew. She has remained with this man since 1992.

I've bounced it off another family member who also works with children and social services and she basically said that social services in the UK are so swamped with more serious cases that they will not bother with a man coming to a woman with a knife and screaming at her. Basically the mother or child would have to be physically hurt - with the knife - before they can intervene!

For those of you who have survived physical and verbal abuse, what advice can you offer?

Do we still stand far off from the situation due to the fact that she would go into denial, defend him and even cut herself off from us if she knew that we got the authorities involved?

Would you suggest we give her more time to do something herself?

Or is it time for us to intervene?

Any advice from those of you who have actually been there would be greatly appreciated.

...

[TheWho]

I found it frustrating that our society equates abuse with sexual and physical contact. If there is no bodily sexual contact or violent physical contact - it's not seen as abuse.But all survivors of abuse deal with one main element, the emotional/mental scars.A person can be raped, and beaten....and their bodies can mostly repair the damage.....but it's living with the emotional impact of that abuse that makes it a long time struggle. It's society's way of not speaking about bad or negative things. Unless you have physical wounds you aren't hurt.
In a way our society works with the abusers to hide the emotional and mental impact by denying it's importance. Survivors of abuse are eventually told to 'get over it'. There is supposed to be some deadline for survivors to deal with the abuse. And when abuse comes in a pure mental/emotional form (no sexual or physical attack) - it so much easier for the abuser to hide and or also to deny that it exists. Children can live in a mental prison that their abusive parents create. Much like the elephant being chained to the ground and eventually only requiring a small rope. It's learnt to be submissive and not escape or fight back. That's also why we repress most of the abuse and don't deal with it...because we are taught by the larger world to do that.

The world wants hard working people that read success books and practice positive thinking mantras so they can be good little machine workers. Don't say anything negative, don't talk about the past. Just get over it already. But the impact of the abuse doesn't go away if it's ignored.The worst culprits for denying the emotional/mental impact of our past abuse is ourselves.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

...

I would like to add that when it was said “the world wants hard working people that practice positive thinking”.  There is a place and time for everything, no one wants to hear about your current swollen hemorrhoids, how you were abused as a kid or the number of abortions your sister has had or removing your shoe to display your missing three toes due to your fathers drunken rage.  It just makes everyone uncomfortable when in the midst of a brain storming session and can play havoc on your upcoming review or promotion.  There are plenty of opportunities outside of work when you can surely talk about these things, but chose a friend with a sympathetic ear and/or talk about it during lunch.  Many people may not tell you to “Get over it” but they may tell you it is not appropriate conversation at work.



...

[TheWho]

Did someone mention that MP is no longer on the DSM list?

[ThéWho]

I do not think spanking is either mandated or forbidden by the Bible. I'm not 100% sure whether the rod referred to in the Bible is meant as a guidance tool, a comforting tool or a punishment tool, or perhaps a combination of all 3.
We do spank but only for outright defiance/disobedience and lying. We do not ALWAYS spank for those things, but usually do. We never spank without letting our kids be able to predict the consequences of their actions. (ie they know they will get a spanking for doing something before they do it). Spankings do not occur very often in our household. We do lightly swat babies as a training tool.
We stopped spanking around the age of 7 - after that, my personal opinion is that there are other more effective means of disciplinary action that can be used instead. Spanking should never be done in anger.

I do not think parents HAVE to spank in order for their children to turn out well. I do think spanking is the most effective method of discpipline SOME of the time, but not for all children. Different things work for different kids. I think consistency and love in any type of discipiline is the key no matter which type of "punishment" is used - be it spankings, time outs, natural consequences, etc.

...

[Anonymous]

I was trying to help this poster "meathead" understand the study results.  There were obviously portions of the study (in particular the Tables design) which he struggled to understand.

Oh just shut the fuck up.  Nobody needs help seeing through your bullshit statistics that you manipulate (pun intended) the hell out of.


 

As far as how the study was controlled or the accuracy of the raw data collection I cannot speak to that.

Yeah, no shit.  So again, shut the fuck up about it then.

I am reading the results of the study like everyone else.  But that doesn’t mean there is a problem with it.  I do know that Hazelden was involved and that adds a very high level of credibility and confidence in my mind.

No, the fact that Hazelden was involved makes it more suspect, IMO.

I am not an AARC supporter because I know very little about the program, but saw an opportunity where I could help a fellow poster understand the study.

Yeah, well thanks but no thanks.  "We" don't need your brand of help.  In fact, some of us have been "helped" nearly to death in the literal sense.

[Froderik]

All good points, but you don't have to cuss.

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately Who, you've made a grave error in stating that graduates have a 48% chance of living a continuously sober life past 4 years, based on the results of the study.  The average time since graduation for the sample was 2 years 3 months, not 4 years.  For the sake of argument, accepting your claim that 93% of grads are continuously sober for one year from the time of graduation, the proportion of grads continuously sober after an average time since gradation of 2 years 3 months had declined to 48%.  Nothing whatsoever included in the study about living a continuously sober life after 4 years.  Again, the only information in the study pertaining specifically to those grads in the study who were graduated 4 years or more is the fact that 85.7% of them had maintained one year or more of continuous sobriety some time since their graduation.  The first fact that you stated may or may not be true.  The fact that most of the individuals in the respondent 85% of the sample were included in the second and third groups of table 2, and both of these groups had a propotion of individuals whose longest period of continuous sobriety since graduation was under 93.1%, the probability of your first statement being true is dubious.  Your second statement may be true, but is not corroborated by any evidence whatsoever from the study.  Your third statement cannot be proven with data from the study, as the length of time since graduation varies greatly from eight months to over 5 years, with an average of 2 years 3 months.  Who, responses like this from you are what makes this fun.  It's entertaining to speculate as to whether you're stupid but arrogant, or an extremely clever deviant.  Either way, I do hope that you'll carry on!

[Anonymous]

All good points, but you don't have to cuss.

Why, no.  No I don't.

 :rasta:    :moon:

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately Who, you've made a grave error in stating that graduates have a 48% chance of living a continuously sober life past 4 years, based on the results of the study.  The average time since graduation for the sample was 2 years 3 months, not 4 years.  For the sake of argument, accepting your claim that 93% of grads are continuously sober for one year from the time of graduation, the proportion of grads continuously sober after an average time since gradation of 2 years 3 months had declined to 48%.  Nothing whatsoever included in the study about living a continuously sober life after 4 years.  Again, the only information in the study pertaining specifically to those grads in the study who were graduated 4 years or more is the fact that 85.7% of them had maintained one year or more of continuous sobriety some time since their graduation.  The first fact that you stated may or may not be true.  The fact that most of the individuals in the respondent 85% of the sample were included in the second and third groups of table 2, and both of these groups had a propotion of individuals whose longest period of continuous sobriety since graduation was under 93.1%, the probability of your first statement being true is dubious.  Your second statement may be true, but is not corroborated by any evidence whatsoever from the study.  Your third statement cannot be proven with data from the study, as the length of time since graduation varies greatly from eight months to over 5 years, with an average of 2 years 3 months.  Who, responses like this from you are what makes this fun.  It's entertaining to speculate as to whether you're stupid but arrogant, or an extremely clever deviant.  Either way, I do hope that you'll carry on!

Why?  All he's doing is distracting from the discussion, derailing threads and spreading bullshit information in a manner that appears to be sensible.  He's good at it and everyone, including myself at times, gives him the opportunity to do it.

[TheWho]

Again meatwad, you seem to be hung up that these are my personal conclusions.  They are not.  I dont have access to the raw data and therefore cannot conclude anything other than what the study states.  So each time you misinterpret my posts we will have to go back to the study and look at the original tables.
It is important to stick with what the study says and concludes.  If you want to create your own data sets then I suggest you speak with the AARC or Hazelden people, what you are trying to do cannot be done without the raw data.  I do think you have come a long way in understanding the study and  in the midst of our disagreements I think we can both agree that the more people we get to review the study the better.

Lets go back and take a look at what the AARC study says again to refresh our memory:

Table 2 Longest period of continuous sobriety of interviewed graduates, maintained by time since graduation
Time since graduation:….. One month …..Six months …..Twelve months or more
One year or less (n=29) …….0% .........…….6.9% .........…….93.1%
Two to three years (n=42) ..2.49% ..........4.8% .............92.9%
Four or more years (n=14) ...0% ............14.3% ............85.7%.


1.    So for those who finish the program at AARC the graduates can expect a 93.1% chance of staying clean and sober for the first year out.  

2.   After 4 years the graduates can expect an 85.7% probability that they will be living a clean and sober life.

3.   48% of the entire population stayed continuously clean and sober the whole time since graduation.


AARC Study Link



...

[Froderik]

Meatwad

       

[Anonymous]

Why?  

Meatwad is TheWho.  :guesswho: Talking to himself is something he does a lot, and surprisingly people continue to fall for it.  :jerry: