Cataloging TheWho/John Reuben's Lies

[Paul St. John]

Oh by the way instead of asking your (I am so smart look at me) questions, listen for a while.

Danny, is this really what you think?  Cause I think that you do in fact believe  this..

Danny, is it inconceivable  to you, that a person could ask questions, because they actually want to understand things?

LOL!  danny you would hate to do business with me.. I ll tell ya that. In order to get anywhere, I think that everyone has to be  one the same page.

Why would I listen for awhile.. I have done quite a bit of listening and looking through the threads, but if that is all I do, I will only learn what others  randomly put out there, and  not what I want to.

I am sure you think a lot about shooting people.. only kidding.. well kinda...

and so that is why I will use this analogy..

When you want to shoot something.. do you just keep shooting, and wait til one of the bullets hit your target.. or do you aim?

or to use yet another analogy.. Did your father fuck every animal in the zoo, til one was a sheep.. or did he ask the zoo-keeper where the sheep section was?

Paul

[DannyB II]

Oh by the way instead of asking your (I am so smart look at me) questions, listen for a while.

Danny, is this really what you think?  Cause I think that you do in fact believe  this..

Danny, is it inconceivable  to you, that a person could ask questions, because they actually want to understand things?

LOL!  danny you would hate to do business with me.. I ll tell ya that. In order to get anywhere, I think that everyone has to be  one the same page.

Why would I listen for awhile.. I have done quite a bit of listening and looking through the threads, but if that is all I do, I will only learn what others  randomly put out there, and  not what I want to.

I am sure you think a lot about shooting people.. only kidding.. well kinda...

and so that is why I will use this analogy..

When you want to shoot something.. do you just keep shooting, and wait til one of the bullets hit your target.. or do you aim?

or to use yet another analogy.. Did your father fuck every animal in the zoo, til one was a sheep.. or did he ask the zoo-keeper where the sheep section was?

Paul

Paul your right I am going to stop being a ass and get along with you. Actually I follow all of your  posts, you do ask insightful questions. But when you start to side with what everyone wants to think, this is when you loose me. Paul your a independent thinker, please stay that way. Please do ask questions and ruffle the feathers.
I won't be bothering much anymore there Paul.

Danny

[Whooter]

Right now some programs are experiencing about an 80 % or better success rate.

What are your sources for this figure?  What programs are you referring to?

Link to one of the Studies



...

And don't forget..... (You didn't post the findings below.  Are these the figures your referring to?)

Though reported outcomes vary widely,  ranging from about 25 % to 80%, reviews suggest that 60%-80% of adolescents improve during residential treatment

A review is anything concrete, so people generally take it with a grain of salt.

One way or another, I can t accept any of this... Just because of personal experience.

How do you know that a person improved?
It is not an easy thing to measure.

On face value many people leaving daytop would have been considered by many to have improved.  I know that A. they hadn t, and B. they were supposed to look like they did.  That s what it was all about.  It was about selling a product.

"We took your druggy and made a responsible member of society out of them."

having see this, how cold I possibly accept these results, without knowing EVERYTHING about it.

At the time, when I was in daytop, the monsignor or whatever he was had a book on the market called something like " The Daytop Method".  It claimed very largely across the front of the book, that Daytop had an 85 percent success rating..

Yet anyone you asked in Daytop, co-ordinator or whom ever, would say that most people go into Daytop using drugs.. and don t start their real drug taking career til after leaving, and of the people who left the program and came back, when I was there, this was clearly true.

I always thought it was funny.. They always said it like "Oh .. It s just one of those things"
They knew they were owned... most of them.  I just couldn t understand why they didn t care..

Paul

There were many studies conducted by various programs themselves which showed around 60 to 80% success rates depending on the program.  But this particular study covered about 1,000 kids who went to programs around the country and was done by an independent company who conducts studies and it was also over seen by another independent company who audits the study and insures there was no conflict of interest and that the study was done ethically.

I have been here on fornits long enough to know regulars here will never accept any study which shows that a child was helped by the industry, but I still post the results of various studies here for those who are interested.  They are readily accepted outside of fornits and by the therapeutic Community.



...

[Joel]

Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010

[Awake]

Right now some programs are experiencing about an 80 % or better success rate.

What are your sources for this figure?  What programs are you referring to?

Link to one of the Studies



...

And don't forget..... (You didn't post the findings below.  Are these the figures your referring to?)

Though reported outcomes vary widely,  ranging from about 25 % to 80%, reviews suggest that 60%-80% of adolescents improve during residential treatment

A review is anything concrete, so people generally take it with a grain of salt.

One way or another, I can t accept any of this... Just because of personal experience.

How do you know that a person improved?
It is not an easy thing to measure.

On face value many people leaving daytop would have been considered by many to have improved.  I know that A. they hadn t, and B. they were supposed to look like they did.  That s what it was all about.  It was about selling a product.

"We took your druggy and made a responsible member of society out of them."

having see this, how cold I possibly accept these results, without knowing EVERYTHING about it.

At the time, when I was in daytop, the monsignor or whatever he was had a book on the market called something like " The Daytop Method".  It claimed very largely across the front of the book, that Daytop had an 85 percent success rating..

Yet anyone you asked in Daytop, co-ordinator or whom ever, would say that most people go into Daytop using drugs.. and don t start their real drug taking career til after leaving, and of the people who left the program and came back, when I was there, this was clearly true.

I always thought it was funny.. They always said it like "Oh .. It s just one of those things"
They knew they were owned... most of them.  I just couldn t understand why they didn t care..

Paul

We may debate as to the reality of those statistics but the TTI can't deny the reason for them. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423


.

[Whooter]

There were many studies conducted by various programs themselves which showed around 60 to 80% success rates depending on the program. But this particular study covered about 1,000 kids who went to programs around the country and was done by an independent company who conducts studies and it was also over seen by another independent company who audits the study and insures there was no conflict of interest and that the study was done ethically.

[/i]

What studies are you referring to?    

I have been here on fornits long enough to know regulars here will never accept any study which shows that a child was helped by the industry, but I still post the results of various studies here for those who are interested. They are readily accepted outside of fornits and by the therapeutic Community.

You stated "but I still post the results of various studies here for those who are interested."  If you could post the results in another thread to discuss that would be helpful.  [/i]

Joel pick it up here



...

[Whooter]

We may debate as to the reality of those statistics but the TTI can't deny the reason for them. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423


.

The TTI didnt conduct the studies an outside agency did.  Almost any industry is going to conduct studies to see the outcome of their work whether it be the auto industry, the food industry or the medical industry.  

Although Schizophrenia is an interesting topic it doesn't apply to every discussion.



...



...

[Joel]

Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010

[Whooter]

You stated "but I still post the results of various studies here for those who are interested." If you could post the results in another thread to discuss that would be helpful.[/size]

 :cry:

I created a link to the other thread for you in a previous post.  Here it is again:

Joel pick it up here



...

[Awake]

We may debate as to the reality of those statistics but the TTI can't deny the reason for them. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423


.

The TTI didnt conduct the studies an outside agency did.  Almost any industry is going to conduct studies to see the outcome of their work whether it be the auto industry, the food industry or the medical industry.  

Although Schizophrenia is an interesting topic it doesn't apply to every discussion.



...



...

Not schizophrenia, but the double bind, and it does. It is inseperable from the TTI.



.,

[Whooter]

We may debate as to the reality of those statistics but the TTI can't deny the reason for them. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423


.

The TTI didnt conduct the studies an outside agency did.  Almost any industry is going to conduct studies to see the outcome of their work whether it be the auto industry, the food industry or the medical industry.  

Although Schizophrenia is an interesting topic it doesn't apply to every discussion.



...



...

Not schizophrenia, but the double bind, and it does. It is inseperable from the TTI.



.,

It is interesting that you think this.  I have never seen this used or heard about it being used in any of the models that I have read about.  Is this an old CEDU  thing?  How was it used on you?  Can you share examples?



...

[Whooter]

An attorney in Miami was prevented from seeing one of her clients at a federal detention center due to the metal underwire in her bra, and then again for not wearing a bra, The Miami Herald reported Saturday.

Brittney Horstman attempted to visit a client held at the Miami Federal Detention Center, but security guards would not allow her to enter because the metal in her underwire bra set off the facility’s metal detectors. An internal Detention Center memo makes an exception for underwire bras, but guards still refused Horstman entry.

Horstman removed the bra in a bathroom and passed the metal detectors, but was then told that going braless was a violation of prison dress code guidelines, which also forbid women from wearing low-cut blouses or dresses, leotards, sundresses or “any type of garment that is see-through . . . or clothing that is tight and sexually suggestive or revealing.” The dress code requires that women wear bras but does not forbid underwire bras.

Link



...

[Awake]

We may debate as to the reality of those statistics but the TTI can't deny the reason for them. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423


.

The TTI didnt conduct the studies an outside agency did.  Almost any industry is going to conduct studies to see the outcome of their work whether it be the auto industry, the food industry or the medical industry.  

Although Schizophrenia is an interesting topic it doesn't apply to every discussion.



...



...

Not schizophrenia, but the double bind, and it does. It is inseperable from the TTI.



.,

It is interesting that you think this.  I have never seen this used or heard about it being used in any of the models that I have read about.  Is this an old CEDU  thing?  How was it used on you?  Can you share examples?



...

It’s not so much a question of being used within a model, the TTI itself is a model of the double bind and vice versa, and the double bind is the overall context within which therapy is held, and therefore is part of the definition of it.  I thought I had been pretty clear in the link.

A better approach to understanding it is to ask the question ‘how does the TTI not represent a double bind context? ‘  

I’ll try to give a possible example. A great many program teens (I like to call them projectipants, or projected participants due to the inability to identify their level of personal involvement) are enduring therapy in a program against their will.  You’ve heard the phrase ‘ you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink’, well neither can you make a resistant teen ‘want’ therapy, or want to personally grow, or force someone to improve their self esteem.  

I know it requires actual experience to understand, but can you imagine being forcefully taken from your home and detained and then have those people put you through a process where you were supposed to work on improving your self esteem in some way, say ‘ exhibiting more confidence’ or ‘ learning to take a compliment well’.


It is laughable, for someone living in reality, and not in a program, to hear about this taking place. But it is distressful and dissociating to actually have to act in this context.


Can you imagine being held against your will by someone who says, ‘I keep complimenting you on how smart you are, why won’t you just accept it? You just shun me away like you don’t really believe that about yourself.’

Btw if u want to continue this on the Double Bind thread please do.



.

[DannyB II]

It’s not so much a question of being used within a model, the TTI itself is a model of the double bind and vice versa, and the double bind is the overall context within which therapy is held, and therefore is part of the definition of it.  I thought I had been pretty clear in the link.

A better approach to understanding it is to ask the question ‘how does the TTI not represent a double bind context?    

I’ll try to give a possible example. A great many program teens (I like to call them projectipants, or projected participants due to the inability to identify their level of personal involvement) are enduring therapy in a program against their will.  You’ve heard the phrase ‘ you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink’, well neither can you make a resistant teen ‘want’ therapy, or want to personally grow, or force someone to improve their self esteem.  

I know it requires actual experience to understand, but can you imagine being forcefully taken from your home and detained and then have those people put you through a process where you were supposed to work on improving your self esteem in some way, say ‘ exhibiting more confidence’ or ‘ learning to take a compliment well’.

It is laughable, for someone living in reality, and not in a program, to hear about this taking place. But it is distressful and dissociating to actually have to act in this context.

Can you imagine being held against your will by someone who says, ‘I keep complimenting you on how smart you are, why won’t you just accept it? You just shun me away like you don’t really believe that about yourself.’

Btw if u want to continue this on the Double Bind thread please do.

Awake you make it all sound so simple like you get it and the thousands of professionals in and out of the TTI don't. This is a amazing analysis, Double Bind. It is a model for the Program I attended yet I seriously don't believe that Joe Ricci or Dr. Gerald Davidson understood or where cognizant of, the complexities of this method/manipulation of communication, no way. They did not know this is what was going on nor the power of it (neither did I).
Now I have a little brain here and I will try to ask the questions I have been wanting to ask since this came about. Here is a comment you made above, "A better approach to understanding it is to ask the question ‘how does the TTI not represent a double bind context"? Please explain.  Another question what happens when all the examples are not met you mentioned above and the program is not forcing you to do the behavioral modification exercises but rather Teaching. Isn't being taught optional in it's essence, you (the projectipant) decide.

danny

P.S. I am also posting this on the Double Bind thread.

[Awake]

It’s not so much a question of being used within a model, the TTI itself is a model of the double bind and vice versa, and the double bind is the overall context within which therapy is held, and therefore is part of the definition of it.  I thought I had been pretty clear in the link.

A better approach to understanding it is to ask the question ‘how does the TTI not represent a double bind context?    

I’ll try to give a possible example. A great many program teens (I like to call them projectipants, or projected participants due to the inability to identify their level of personal involvement) are enduring therapy in a program against their will.  You’ve heard the phrase ‘ you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink’, well neither can you make a resistant teen ‘want’ therapy, or want to personally grow, or force someone to improve their self esteem.  

I know it requires actual experience to understand, but can you imagine being forcefully taken from your home and detained and then have those people put you through a process where you were supposed to work on improving your self esteem in some way, say ‘ exhibiting more confidence’ or ‘ learning to take a compliment well’.

It is laughable, for someone living in reality, and not in a program, to hear about this taking place. But it is distressful and dissociating to actually have to act in this context.

Can you imagine being held against your will by someone who says, ‘I keep complimenting you on how smart you are, why won’t you just accept it? You just shun me away like you don’t really believe that about yourself.’

Btw if u want to continue this on the Double Bind thread please do.

Awake you make it all sound so simple like you get it and the thousands of professionals in and out of the TTI don't. This is a amazing analysis, Double Bind. It is a model for the Program I attended yet I seriously don't believe that Joe Ricci or Dr. Gerald Davidson understood or where cognizant of, the complexities of this method/manipulation of communication, no way. They did not know this is what was going on nor the power of it (neither did I).
Now I have a little brain here and I will try to ask the questions I have been wanting to ask since this came about. Here is a comment you made above, "A better approach to understanding it is to ask the question ‘how does the TTI not represent a double bind context"? Please explain.  Another question what happens when all the examples are not met you mentioned above and the program is not forcing you to do the behavioral modification exercises but rather Teaching. Isn't being taught optional in it's essence, you (the projectipant) decide.

danny

P.S. I am also posting this on the Double Bind thread.

Danny I’ve got your reply over here. Whooter, I hope you want to continue to participate in the discussion about these programs here also.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423  


...