new JRC Article

[Pile of Dead Kids]

At least they are doing something.

Eh, the disability rights organizations never were very 'tough' in terms of going all Anonymous on shit. They're usually more worried about mundanities like wheelchair access and equal opportunity. Honest-to-Satan child torture facilities is not what they have experience with.

I'm more interested in the DoJ. Those motherfuckers don't take shit from anybody.

[Whooter]

LOL. Well, I’m glad you think it was a good discussion, but I guess I was looking for answers that reflect your own set of morals and not totally concede to the program to decide the answers to the questions I asked.  Moral standards are set by all of us as free citizens in this society and it is our responsibility to offer our views as to what we consider morally acceptable. I don’t believe it is morally acceptable to defend a context that subjects another to pain and fear (and many other negative effects to an unknowable degree) and then submit that you shouldn’t have your own standards for what properly justifies subjecting someone to such treatment.

I guess I’ll offer one way in which we need to weigh whether or not the symptoms justify treatment. The symptoms must have negative consequences that are comparable to the negative consequences incurred by the treatment. That is to say, a process of therapy that is painful, keeps the subject under a constant state of fear, is humiliating, demeaning, can cause permanent psychological harm and the effect is unpredictable should only be considered if the symptoms are similarly harmful. I’m not saying I’ve taken everything into consideration here, but we must have some sort of moral guidelines and I think this is a good starting point. In fact, I would even go as far as to assume that we can already expect the standard to at least state that we can’t justify it if it can result in equal or more harm than the symptom presently causes.

Furthermore the term symptom is defined by the context under which therapy is conducted. If the subject is there under a forceful context the term ‘symptom’ must be analyzed as the negative effect(s) (Or really, symptoms resulting from the symptom) occurring in the individual(s) related to him that admitted him to therapy. The symptom being treated must be represented by the negative effect that motivates the choice for therapy, and treatment must consist of relieving that symptom. In this way it cannot be ignored that the first step in therapy is to focus on easing the pain (symptom)that is motivating the choice to endure therapy. If there is a way of supplying the client (family) with a solution to the negative effects of the subject of therapy’s symptoms, then attempting to find that solution should be a required first step in therapy before exposing the admitted subject to harmful treatment against their will.

I think it should be considered unethical for any facility capable of harm to skip this step in the therapeutic process, because the object of such extreme therapy (if it is really a last resort) should be for the subject to not have to endure It.  If the therapy is not a choice of the subject, and the negative consequences should, as a moral prerequisite for applying force,  be relative to the harm caused by the subject’s symptom to those who are affected by it, and are choosing therapy for him, then the object of therapy cannot be ‘cure of symptom’ but can only operate to diminish the symptom in the subject, and the negative effects (also symptoms) in those who chose therapy, to a degree that reasonably supports justifying that he is at that point within his right to choose.

I’m sure there ‘s more to consider here, but it’s not worth glossing over anything considering the risk.

You bring up a couple of good points, awake.  Lets look at it a differently.  Lets say you take a child who has cancer in her arm and assess that it has a high probability that it will spread to the rest of the body then I believe it is worth the risk of pain and suffering to subject that child to Chemotherapy.  Although the pain felt by the Chemotherapy will be much greater than the initial symptoms the risk outweighs doing nothing or consequently removing the arm or risking an early death.

A child who is banging their head on the ground causing extreme pain and injury or a child who is pulling out their hair would not have the choice of enduring this self inflicted pain for the rest of their life or just stopping on their own.  The risk of Shock therapy, which may alleviate the drive to self inflict pain, would be low in comparison to the symptom or just allowing the child to injure his/herself and would be a good candidate for this therapy from what I have read thus far on the subject.

I don’t think you or I would be able to consider all the facets needed to make a sound decision for these children’s fate like the fear of losing one’s hair or standing out in a group because they wear a backpack.  But licensed psychologists, advocacy groups and independent judges are making these decisions for them at this time on an individual bases.

If you read the personal accounts and consider that the abuses that occurred at JRC you will see that the shock therapy is effective and gives people a new chance at a better life.  The disturbing part is that the therapy does not seem to be very well regulated or controlled allowing unnecessary pain and suffering.  So I feel we have to look at the two separately when weigh the risks.



...

[Pile of Dead Kids]

You and the JRC can call it "therapy" as many times as you want, Whooter. it doesn't make it therapy.

Number of actual research organizations referring to this as a valid form of treatment: Zero. (No, this is not your cue to post a whole lot of "independent" "research", which is either wholly owned by the JRC or relies on their numbers. Don't waste our time.)

Number of other facilities using electric torture devices to "modify the behavior" of autistic children: Zero.

It's not treatment. It's not therapy. It's one guy throwing made-up numbers around to justify inflicting his fetishes on children too mentally broken to fight back.

But you're not exactly equipped to understand the difference, are you?

[alcoholics anonymous]

[SUCK IT]

In a social setting far, far away....

An attractive person of the opposite sex walks up to you....

Them: Hello, how are you?
You: I'm good, well.. actually, not so good.
Them: Oh really, why not?
You: Well it looks like Whooter disagrees with me about how to deal with retarded kids
Them: Oh really? Are you a child psychologist for a living or something?
You: Oh me? No, I work at the 7-11 actually, but my hobby is judging troubled child treatment techniques and then posting about it on the internet, there is one poster who in particular bothers me. Hold on, I have to make another post (pulls out smartphone and begins typing with smug grin) That will show Whooter, I am right about how to raise retarded kids!
Them: Oh... ok. That's cool, I guess. How long have you been interested in how to treat retarded kids?
Me: Ever since I found this forum, it gave me a great outlet for my troubled kid techniques, finally I have an audience.
Them: That's great.. but I have to go talk to my other friend over there. Have a good night!
You: *typing away furiously on your smartphone* huh? Wha? Oh.. ok, bye.

[DannyB II]

So your definition of ‘symptom’ is enough to constitute being subjected to the treatment we are discussing?

No, I wouldn’t think so.  I have not seen a comprehensive list of symptoms which would constitute being considered for shock therapy.  From what I have read so far this therapy is pretty much the end of the road for many patients, which means all other treatments have been ineffective in helping them.

Everyone has, or does things different from the norm. I’m not sure we have really agreed on the terminology of what we are discussing. Maybe we should just start with your definition of ‘symptom’ in a little more detail.

I wouldn’t think we would all agree on just my first cut at a definition.  The word Symptom has a wide range of meanings…i.e. a sniffle is a symptom of having a cold, but it doesn’t mean you do have a cold.  A person needs to look further… a symptom can be as little as a sign, that’s all.

In what ways does a symptom manifest itself? (That would be appropriately treated by these methods)

In the case of this treatment, who defines the symptom?

Who is affected by the symptom?

Which negative effects of the symptom are the most important in justifying this treatment?

Good questions but I couldn’t begin to answer any of them myself.

And just to clarify, the reasons against this treatment, so far (I may have missed some things too), are that it is painful, it is intended to alter behavior by utilizing pain, it is intended to alter behavior by maintaining a constant threat of pain, the effects of such treatment are dissociation which holds a risk to psychological health, and it is impossible to make a judgment as to other dissociative effects as people are inherently different and the level to which people feel demeaned or humiliated can’t be accurately factored into the treatment model.

Good point, we will add “Risk to psychological health”.  I think all of these factors and risks should be considered before this therapy be used.

The same would apply for any therapy….. say Chemotherapy.  Do doctors think about the risk of psychological health when these kids are subjected to Chemotherapy…the pain they will be subjected to, humiliation of losing their hair, constant thought of having to continue Chemotherapy if the first course fails, the constant fear.
In the case of JRC, It would be interesting if these factors are considered when their treatment is brought before the judge, psychologists and advocates for the approval needed to proceed to the level of shock treatment therapy?  I dont think we have had the privilege to view this info but it would answer many of our questions.  I would hate to think that these kids live in daily fear during their time there.

Good discussion, awake.

...

LOL. Well, I’m glad you think it was a good discussion, but I guess I was looking for answers that reflect your own set of morals and not totally concede to the program to decide the answers to the questions I asked.  Moral standards are set by all of us as free citizens in this society and it is our responsibility to offer our views as to what we consider morally acceptable. I don’t believe it is morally acceptable to defend a context that subjects another to pain and fear (and many other negative effects to an unknowable degree) and then submit that you shouldn’t have your own standards for what properly justifies subjecting someone to such treatment.

I guess I’ll offer one way in which we need to weigh whether or not the symptoms justify treatment. The symptoms must have negative consequences that are comparable to the negative consequences incurred by the treatment. That is to say, a process of therapy that is painful, keeps the subject under a constant state of fear, is humiliating, demeaning, can cause permanent psychological harm and the effect is unpredictable should only be considered if the symptoms are similarly harmful. I’m not saying I’ve taken everything into consideration here, but we must have some sort of moral guidelines and I think this is a good starting point. In fact, I would even go as far as to assume that we can already expect the standard to at least state that we can’t justify it if it can result in equal or more harm than the symptom presently causes.

Furthermore the term symptom is defined by the context under which therapy is conducted. If the subject is there under a forceful context the term ‘symptom’ must be analyzed as the negative effect(s) (Or really, symptoms resulting from the symptom) occurring in the individual(s) related to him that admitted him to therapy. The symptom being treated must be represented by the negative effect that motivates the choice for therapy, and treatment must consist of relieving that symptom. In this way it cannot be ignored that the first step in therapy is to focus on easing the pain (symptom)that is motivating the choice to endure therapy. If there is a way of supplying the client (family) with a solution to the negative effects of the subject of therapy’s symptoms, then attempting to find that solution should be a required first step in therapy before exposing the admitted subject to harmful treatment against their will.

I think it should be considered unethical for any facility capable of harm to skip this step in the therapeutic process, because the object of such extreme therapy (if it is really a last resort) should be for the subject to not have to endure It.  If the therapy is not a choice of the subject, and the negative consequences should, as a moral prerequisite for applying force,  be relative to the harm caused by the subject’s symptom to those who are affected by it, and are choosing therapy for him, then the object of therapy cannot be ‘cure of symptom’ but can only operate to diminish the symptom in the subject, and the negative effects (also symptoms) in those who chose therapy, to a degree that reasonably supports justifying that he is at that point within his right to choose.

I’m sure there ‘s more to consider here, but it’s not worth glossing over anything considering the risk.

 :shamrock:  :shamrock:
 
Danny spoke:
Awake was this paragraph plagiarized/para-phrased and if so who wrote it.

Awake spoke:
"Furthermore the term symptom is defined by the context under which therapy is conducted. If the subject is there under a forceful context the term ‘symptom’ must be analyzed as the negative effect(s) (Or really, symptoms resulting from the symptom) occurring in the individual(s) related to him that admitted him to therapy. The symptom being treated must be represented by the negative effect that motivates the choice for therapy, and treatment must consist of relieving that symptom. In this way it cannot be ignored that the first step in therapy is to focus on easing the pain (symptom)that is motivating the choice to endure therapy. If there is a way of supplying the client (family) with a solution to the negative effects of the subject of therapy’s symptoms, then attempting to find that solution should be a required first step in therapy before exposing the admitted subject to harmful treatment against their will."

Danny spoke:
If my question offends you I am sorry, if you wrote this entire post with all your own thoughts from teaching or experience I am impressed. Finally we have someone here who really gives a shit other then Anne.

[Awake]

So your definition of ‘symptom’ is enough to constitute being subjected to the treatment we are discussing?

No, I wouldn’t think so.  I have not seen a comprehensive list of symptoms which would constitute being considered for shock therapy.  From what I have read so far this therapy is pretty much the end of the road for many patients, which means all other treatments have been ineffective in helping them.

Everyone has, or does things different from the norm. I’m not sure we have really agreed on the terminology of what we are discussing. Maybe we should just start with your definition of ‘symptom’ in a little more detail.

I wouldn’t think we would all agree on just my first cut at a definition.  The word Symptom has a wide range of meanings…i.e. a sniffle is a symptom of having a cold, but it doesn’t mean you do have a cold.  A person needs to look further… a symptom can be as little as a sign, that’s all.

In what ways does a symptom manifest itself? (That would be appropriately treated by these methods)

In the case of this treatment, who defines the symptom?

Who is affected by the symptom?

Which negative effects of the symptom are the most important in justifying this treatment?

Good questions but I couldn’t begin to answer any of them myself.

And just to clarify, the reasons against this treatment, so far (I may have missed some things too), are that it is painful, it is intended to alter behavior by utilizing pain, it is intended to alter behavior by maintaining a constant threat of pain, the effects of such treatment are dissociation which holds a risk to psychological health, and it is impossible to make a judgment as to other dissociative effects as people are inherently different and the level to which people feel demeaned or humiliated can’t be accurately factored into the treatment model.

Good point, we will add “Risk to psychological health”.  I think all of these factors and risks should be considered before this therapy be used.

The same would apply for any therapy….. say Chemotherapy.  Do doctors think about the risk of psychological health when these kids are subjected to Chemotherapy…the pain they will be subjected to, humiliation of losing their hair, constant thought of having to continue Chemotherapy if the first course fails, the constant fear.
In the case of JRC, It would be interesting if these factors are considered when their treatment is brought before the judge, psychologists and advocates for the approval needed to proceed to the level of shock treatment therapy?  I dont think we have had the privilege to view this info but it would answer many of our questions.  I would hate to think that these kids live in daily fear during their time there.

Good discussion, awake.

...

LOL. Well, I’m glad you think it was a good discussion, but I guess I was looking for answers that reflect your own set of morals and not totally concede to the program to decide the answers to the questions I asked.  Moral standards are set by all of us as free citizens in this society and it is our responsibility to offer our views as to what we consider morally acceptable. I don’t believe it is morally acceptable to defend a context that subjects another to pain and fear (and many other negative effects to an unknowable degree) and then submit that you shouldn’t have your own standards for what properly justifies subjecting someone to such treatment.

I guess I’ll offer one way in which we need to weigh whether or not the symptoms justify treatment. The symptoms must have negative consequences that are comparable to the negative consequences incurred by the treatment. That is to say, a process of therapy that is painful, keeps the subject under a constant state of fear, is humiliating, demeaning, can cause permanent psychological harm and the effect is unpredictable should only be considered if the symptoms are similarly harmful. I’m not saying I’ve taken everything into consideration here, but we must have some sort of moral guidelines and I think this is a good starting point. In fact, I would even go as far as to assume that we can already expect the standard to at least state that we can’t justify it if it can result in equal or more harm than the symptom presently causes.

Furthermore the term symptom is defined by the context under which therapy is conducted. If the subject is there under a forceful context the term ‘symptom’ must be analyzed as the negative effect(s) (Or really, symptoms resulting from the symptom) occurring in the individual(s) related to him that admitted him to therapy. The symptom being treated must be represented by the negative effect that motivates the choice for therapy, and treatment must consist of relieving that symptom. In this way it cannot be ignored that the first step in therapy is to focus on easing the pain (symptom)that is motivating the choice to endure therapy. If there is a way of supplying the client (family) with a solution to the negative effects of the subject of therapy’s symptoms, then attempting to find that solution should be a required first step in therapy before exposing the admitted subject to harmful treatment against their will.

I think it should be considered unethical for any facility capable of harm to skip this step in the therapeutic process, because the object of such extreme therapy (if it is really a last resort) should be for the subject to not have to endure It.  If the therapy is not a choice of the subject, and the negative consequences should, as a moral prerequisite for applying force,  be relative to the harm caused by the subject’s symptom to those who are affected by it, and are choosing therapy for him, then the object of therapy cannot be ‘cure of symptom’ but can only operate to diminish the symptom in the subject, and the negative effects (also symptoms) in those who chose therapy, to a degree that reasonably supports justifying that he is at that point within his right to choose.

I’m sure there ‘s more to consider here, but it’s not worth glossing over anything considering the risk.

 :shamrock:  :shamrock:
 
Danny spoke:
Awake was this paragraph plagiarized/para-phrased and if so who wrote it.

Awake spoke:
"Furthermore the term symptom is defined by the context under which therapy is conducted. If the subject is there under a forceful context the term ‘symptom’ must be analyzed as the negative effect(s) (Or really, symptoms resulting from the symptom) occurring in the individual(s) related to him that admitted him to therapy. The symptom being treated must be represented by the negative effect that motivates the choice for therapy, and treatment must consist of relieving that symptom. In this way it cannot be ignored that the first step in therapy is to focus on easing the pain (symptom)that is motivating the choice to endure therapy. If there is a way of supplying the client (family) with a solution to the negative effects of the subject of therapy’s symptoms, then attempting to find that solution should be a required first step in therapy before exposing the admitted subject to harmful treatment against their will."

Danny spoke:
If my question offends you I am sorry, if you wrote this entire post with all your own thoughts from teaching or experience I am impressed. Finally we have someone here who really gives a shit other then Anne.

I didn’t copy this or modify any text. However it has already been pretty extensively discussed primarily in the 60’s due to the emergence of cybernetics and it’s connection with communications theory which had a dramatic impact on therapy.

I’ll shamelessly suggest reading my post on the Double Bind viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423 , and research into the works done by that group. I believe that there is an entire language we lack in trying to discuss these types of therapeutic situations that are commonplace in programs. Without having terms that can clearly correspond to the  context we are discussing how is anyone supposed to know what the conversation is truly about?


It seems we are left trying to discuss something without bothering to redefine the ambiguous meanings of terms related to therapy, and in particular are analyzed  with cause –effect properties that are outdated. For instance:

If you kick a rock, it is the energy from your foot that causes it to land in a new place. If you kick a child and he hits you, it is not the energy from your foot that caused you to get hit. But we can hardly look at the child’s behavior as symptomatic with the intent to isolate him as a the unit of treatment, this would imply a misunderstanding of the cause –effect pattern.

All too often I feel a conversation gets undermined by making comparisons or analogies that take the therapeutic terminology into an area that doesn’t make sense as it relates to programs.

[Ursus]

All too often I feel a conversation gets undermined by making comparisons or analogies that take the therapeutic terminology into an area that doesn’t make sense as it relates to programs.

Such as ... chemotherapy ... for example?  ::evil::

[DannyB II]

All too often I feel a conversation gets undermined by making comparisons or analogies that take the therapeutic terminology into an area that doesn’t make sense as it relates to programs.

Such as ... chemotherapy ... for example?  ::evil::

 :shamrock:  :shamrock:
 
No... Ursus you trying to be in this conversation with your constant insignificant comments.
Why don't you just sit out this one, the popcorn gallery is full.

Danny

[DannyB II]

Awake spoke:
I didn’t copy this or modify any text. However it has already been pretty extensively discussed primarily in the 60’s due to the emergence of cybernetics and it’s connection with communications theory which had a dramatic impact on therapy.

I’ll shamelessly suggest reading my post on the Double Bind viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423 , and research into the works done by that group. I believe that there is an entire language we lack in trying to discuss these types of therapeutic situations that are commonplace in programs. Without having terms that can clearly correspond to the context we are discussing how is anyone supposed to know what the conversation is truly about?


It seems we are left trying to discuss something without bothering to redefine the ambiguous meanings of terms related to therapy, and in particular are analyzed with cause –effect properties that are outdated. For instance:

If you kick a rock, it is the energy from your foot that causes it to land in a new place. If you kick a child and he hits you, it is not the energy from your foot that caused you to get hit. But we can hardly look at the child’s behavior as symptomatic with the intent to isolate him as a the unit of treatment, this would imply a misunderstanding of the cause –effect pattern.

All too often I feel a conversation gets undermined by making comparisons or analogies that take the therapeutic terminology into an area that doesn’t make sense as it relates to programs.


:shamrock:  :shamrock:


Danny spoke:
Thanks for your reply. You ask for a, meaning of terms, context and conversation. I don't think at this time I can accommodate due to my lack of book reading and teaching. Though I could communicate on a more personal level. I have witnessed these children and the treatments being discussed here. If you would like to know more please contact me (PM). I will not share anymore here. Folks are to all over the place with there take on this.
I will also say this what is going on in JRC is not set up like a treatment center or any program I know about and as you said, "All too often I feel a conversation gets undermined by making comparisons or analogies that take the therapeutic terminology into an area that doesn’t make sense as it relates to programs."


Thanks again for your input

Danny

[alcoholics anonymous]

[Whooter]

If you kick a rock, it is the energy from your foot that causes it to land in a new place. If you kick a child and he hits you, it is not the energy from your foot that caused you to get hit. But we can hardly look at the child’s behavior as symptomatic with the intent to isolate him as a the unit of treatment, this would imply a misunderstanding of the cause –effect pattern.

As I see it the root cause of you getting kicked is the direct result of you kicking the child.  The energy would cancel out if the kicks were the same magnitude and would have a “net zero” effect (no energy lost) if you consider yourself the child and the rock as an isolated "closed system".  Plus the child was aware that you kicked him/her.  If you throw a rock at a dog the dog will attack the rock (every time).  So you pass energy into the rock giving it velocity (energy) which is absorbed by the dog and the dog in turn attacks the rock (expending energy) moving it further until it comes to rest.  You can do this all day long and the dog will not bite you because he sees the rock as the root cause of his pain where as the child would see you as the root cause and throw the rock back at you, causing you pain (completing the energy cycle).  So there is an awareness that needs to take place in order to determine root cause and some children may possess this while others may not.  I think a big part of the success of shock therapy may be in part to this awareness, and how the child reacts to the therapy.

As far as determining root cause before treating the child I agree with you there.  If the child is acting out then it could be the result of the childs home environment so the home dynamics should be treated, not the child, in that case.  One way this can be determined is by isolating the child from the home environment and observe to see if the child improves. (But there are many other ways too)

As far as the Chemo analogy goes.  It is not intended to undermine the discussion.  It is intended to show that shock therapy is very mild compared to the pain and suffering incurred by Chemotherapy.  The child sometimes does not have a say whether or not they receive either therapy.  Does this violate “first do no harm?”…. I think it helps to put the discussion in perspective because many here are using the argument that shock therapy should not be used because it causes pain and I don’t see this as a valid argument in light of other therapies which are readily accepted.

If shock therapy pain is on the level of a bee sting (and people view it as abusive) then how do we handle kids who get immunization shots?  Chemotherapy? Radiation therapy? Open heart surgery…etc.  In light of this is it valid to disallow shock therapy on the grounds of pain alone?



...

[Pile of Dead Kids]

If you throw a rock at a dog the dog will attack the rock (every time). You can do this all day long and the dog will not bite you because he sees the rock as the root cause of his pain

Every so often, Whooter gives himself away with posts that prove he really has no idea what the fuck he's talking about, ever.

No no no, Whooter, don't feed us your usual bullshit. Just prove it. Please. With a rottweiler, and have a third party record it. I'll put it on Youtube.

[Awake]

If you kick a rock, it is the energy from your foot that causes it to land in a new place. If you kick a child and he hits you, it is not the energy from your foot that caused you to get hit. But we can hardly look at the child’s behavior as symptomatic with the intent to isolate him as a the unit of treatment, this would imply a misunderstanding of the cause –effect pattern.

As I see it the root cause of you getting kicked is the direct result of you kicking the child.  The energy would cancel out if the kicks were the same magnitude and would have a “net zero” effect (no energy lost) if you consider yourself the child and the rock as an isolated "closed system".  Plus the child was aware that you kicked him/her.  If you throw a rock at a dog the dog will attack the rock (every time).  So you pass energy into the rock giving it velocity (energy) which is absorbed by the dog and the dog in turn attacks the rock (expending energy) moving it further until it comes to rest.  You can do this all day long and the dog will not bite you because he sees the rock as the root cause of his pain where as the child would see you as the root cause and throw the rock back at you, causing you pain (completing the energy cycle).  So there is an awareness that needs to take place in order to determine root cause and some children may possess this while others may not.  I think a big part of the success of shock therapy may be in part to this awareness, and how the child reacts to the therapy.


...

Good on you for showing my fault in not considering how use of metaphor easily results in loss of context. My metaphor with the kicking is meant to show the difference in cause effect relationship when we are dealing with cybernetic relationships, like people, versus things. The cause and effect relationship when you kick a rock is a result of transfer of energy, but between people, or any open system, is the result of a transfer of information, energy is only a consideration as a form of message transfer. If we want to really understand cause and effect as it concerns the term symptom, this is an important basic concept.

Just like you can’t spontaneously avoid understanding the words you are reading now, we as people can’t avoid how we are programmed to interpret stimulus.
At the risk of misinterpretation of context, I will offer this analogy: If there are two AC/heating units in the same room (call them 1 and 2), and 1 is set to start cooling at 80 degrees and the other is set to warm at 80 degrees then the behaviours (or symptoms) are not isolated to either one, but what results is a stable pattern of interaction that is a system itself to be analyzed as an indivisible whole. Symptom, or behaviour, can’t be analyzed successfully by breaking the system into parts, otherwise it destroys the object of observation..

Also, the idea of root cause is a particularly interesting subject that is very interconnected with this, i’ll get to that too. But for now as a thought, what if you could not identify root cause? What if all you can determine is that each person is kicking the other because the other kicked them and the interaction is hopelessly subject to a re- punctuation of ‘root cause’?

The result of this misinterpretation as it applies to therapy is nightmarish, and not just under this therapeutic context.

... and i just don't agree with you about the dog.... every dog i've known is smart enough to know i threw the ball, they know fetch is a playful interractive context, and they know that rocks themselves are not sentient beings that can up and hurt them.

[Ursus]

All too often I feel a conversation gets undermined by making comparisons or analogies that take the therapeutic terminology into an area that doesn’t make sense as it relates to programs.

Such as ... chemotherapy ... for example?  ::evil::

No... Ursus you trying to be in this conversation with your constant insignificant comments.
Why don't you just sit out this one, the popcorn gallery is full.

Jeeeez... Do you own this thread, Danny? Seems to me this is an open discussion, no?

I regard Whooter's having made reference to his baseless chemotherapy analogy at least 14-15 times ... in this thread alone ... as hardly an insignificant obfuscation, if you ask me.