The feasibility of a definitive study.

[try another castle]

That is why having a study focusing on how kids do after the program, actually serves the interests of programs.

Let's say you went to an abusive program, but you are doing great, sober, in school and better family life. Well, if you were turned into a statistic, it would appear that the program made the difference.

The truth is, it doesn't matter whether programs work or not because the process they use to accomplish their results is unethical.

This is something to be considered in doing a study.  Maybe there is a way to factor in that some people do well despite being in a program.  

Anytime I bring up that I am struggling, or having a difficult time in my life now as a result of the program, no one believes me because I 'have it together.'  My parents/family/others site the fact that I'm in school making good grades and working at a good job as proof of the programs success.  I was sober for a few years after I graduated, proving that the program "works."  Even though now I am 'relapsed' I still continue to have a good job, good family relationships, etc. but I struggle immensely with day to day life.  Because I have managed to internalize this, or compartmentalize enough, I am able to put on a good front.  It covers the harm done by the program, misrepresenting it.  I'm not sure if that makes sense.  

It would be interesting to see the results though.  I'm sure that there are many others who are doing well in spite of going through a program.  I am also sure that there are many who are not because of going through a program.  I am also curious of how many people still diligently follow the program.  I know there is a pocket of kids and straight graduates out there, but what about the other programs?  How many still think it is good, the best, follow the rules, etc. years later?

This is precisely why a study needs to divorce itself from that completely. It can't even really be considered something like "successful" or "good". The operative term is "high-functioning".  The issue isnt whether someone makes more money than someone else. The issue is simply employment status. Granted, income, I assume, is also part of the equation,  but that focuses on a narrower aspect of functionality, as opposed to the broader questions regarding simply at what level this person is able to live and function.

There are people who are considered extremely "successful" individuals, yet many, IMO, are moderate-functioning at best, in terms of other aspects of their lives such as relationships with others. (spouse, ex, family, friends). The criteria that is set up by the psychiatric community, I feel, covers most bases. It can be something as mundane as sleep pattern/circadian rhythm, to something as worldly as profession, income, presence of a police record, to something as abstract as personal relationships.

I think a joke in my OP made it sound like I was really about shutting the success-stories up, and I meant that tongue in cheek. The study can't be about who is right and who is wrong. Right and wrong are abstract and relative terms.

We're basically just looking for patterns right now. That's it. Is there deviation between the control and the study?

[TheWho]

That is an excellent point.  What is the definition of success?  Your parents see the program as successful because you are going to school,making good grades, working a good job.  Although you are experiencing side effects from the program does this mean the program was unsuccessful?

People who have diabetes and take insulin to manage their problems have side effects also which lowers their quality of life like swelling of the lips, tightness in the chest, daily injections,limited menu options etc.  but insulin is considered a successful option despite the side effect.

If a child is having difficulty in school, poor grades, dropping out of school and family and after the program the child is doing well in school and socially would this be considered a success?  If the child was depressed afterwards and had bouts of suicidal thoughts would these be considered side effects.  Would a deprogramming period of say 7 years be considered an acceptable byproduct of a 12 to 16 month stay?

Success can be individually defined.  If the child had poor grades before the program and has good grades after the program then the program was successful (even though the child may be depressed).  The larger question is…  “Is this an acceptable trade off?”

[try another castle]

That is an excellent point.  What is the definition of success?  Your parents see the program as successful because you are going to school,making good grades, working a good job.  Although you are experiencing side effects from the program does this mean the program was unsuccessful?

People who have diabetes and take insulin to manage their problems have side effects also which lowers their quality of life like swelling of the lips, tightness in the chest, daily injections,limited menu options etc.  but insulin is considered a successful option despite the side effect.

If a child is having difficulty in school, poor grades, dropping out of school and family and after the program the child is doing well in school and socially would this be considered a success?  If the child was depressed afterwards and had bouts of suicidal thoughts would these be considered side effects.  Would a deprogramming period of say 7 years be considered an acceptable byproduct of a 12 to 16 month stay?

Success can be individually defined.  If the child had poor grades before the program and has good grades after the program then the program was successful (even though the child may be depressed).  The larger question is…  “Is this an acceptable trade off?”

success is an abstract, subjective concept that is unmeasurable.

level of functionality, however, can be measured

[Froderik]

It's no measure of health to be well adjusted to a sick society.
-Krishnamurti

[try another castle]

It's no measure of health to be well adjusted to a sick society.
-Krishnamurti

Can you think of any well ones? Let me know when you find one. (Ill be sure to bomb it, simply out of jealousy.)

I personally think that "we" can come up with SOMETHING measurable for a study such as this. It's not going to be perfect, of course, but it can at least attempt to be as impartial as possible. There are some very simple things that could tell a lot. Suicides... for example. I think we can all safely say that even if someone has a damn good reason to off themselves, it's still clear that there were some functionality issues that came out with a less than favorable result. If it was proven that there was a deviation in such a thing... well, I personally think that would speak volumes, don't you? (cause is irrelevant, and often impossible to determine. A deviation in numbers is what is important, because that can lend speculation as to possible cause) Regardless of which way it went. And if there was no deviation, that says something too.

There are other, even more rudimentary things, that could speak volumes. Take my previous example of a circadian rhythm. People in programs were forced to have pretty irregular hours, in a similar way to someone who served infantry in a war. Don't you think it would be interesting to determine if there was any deviation in sleep pattern between the two groups? Especially since maintaining a healthy circadian rhythm (and no, that is not subjective. REM sleep is important. Just ask anyone who has sleep apnea.) is so difficult to do in this society, anyway, so I would think that in either group, there's going to be a lot of people who have fucked up sleeping habits, especially those who work swing shift jobs. (and actually there was recently a study that showed that swing shift workers have more health problems.) So, studying that pattern could be a worthwhile endeavor as well, since deviation from a standard in this case is more common.

Eating habits could be another one, as well as fitness level. (none, moderate, regular, manic), and I think I can safely say that in most cases, the extremes in either scenario is unhealthy, but also some amount of activity is important, especially for people such as myself who suffer from depression.

Instead of just speculating, maybe I should just ask my shrink what criteria people in his profession use for such a thing and get back to everyone on this.

I personally think that one of the reasons why a study would want to use the functionality criteria used by shrinks is because it already assumes a pathology. And since I think everyone here can agree that society as a whole is pretty pathological, it's a criteria that can be used for both groups.