Kids in Program Credible?

[RobertBruce]

Perhaps over the gender of your child.

Our kids complained on our first visit. We met up with all the other parents, sat in a circle and went over what had transpired over the first month or so on campus. Then we broke up into groups of 4 or 6 and spoke with the counselors along with the kids and when asked what the toughest part was we heard:
"Getting up at 7:00 am".... "Being away from friends"....."Being away from home"......."Cleaning our rooms"..."School!".. "cleaning the hallways"... "You think they could afford to hire help with all the money you parents spend here" lol. No one really complained about the food too much because it was pretty good, we ate with the other kids while we were there. There was one kid who never had to do homework apparently, because he thought the worst part was being forced to finish his homework assignment each night. My daughter didn't like getting up early.

So it sounds like you're saying you have no evidence of this occuring. Unless of course you'd like to show a post of someone saying something along these lines?

[Whooter]

This is sort of a snap shot.  We really dont know the history of this child.  Maybe the staff has been working with this persons' honesty issues and they havent responded very well and finally decided to bring it up in group.  Before sending the kid home or giving up on them it is important to see if they respond to peer pressure maybe.

Are you saying that a program’s manipulation of peer pressure can be abusive? I would agree with that.

I guess it could be, but you may want to try to spark some response in him or her before having the kid sent home or before you loss him to running away.  If the program isnt working for him/her or they are not applying themselves then it would be a waste of the staffs/programs time, effort and money to just let the child pass through the program without advancing or growing.  Granted that it is a business that wants to make money but at the same time they want to show their model is successful and if a child isnt responding well then it is best to cut them lose so that they can increase their success rate.
Do you see what I mean?



...

[Awake]

What do you mean you 'guess' it could be? I think the potential for causing psychological trauma to a kid by manipulating them through peer pressures is enormous in such totalitarian environments like troubled teen programs.

[Whooter]

What do you mean you 'guess' it could be? I think the potential for causing psychological trauma to a kid by manipulating them through peer pressures is enormous in such totalitarian environments like troubled teen programs.

If they manipulate the peer pressure in a good way then I think it could be beneficial to a child who is on the fence and thinking of running or leaving the program.  The last thing you want is for a child to end up back where they started and even worse off.  If the present program isnt working for them then changes need to be made to the process or the child needs to be sent home.



...

[Awake]

Would you say manipulation of peer pressure by staff in programs on kids has an equal potential to be harmful as it can be good, Whooter?
.

[Whooter]

Would you say manipulation of peer pressure by staff in programs on kids has an equal potential to be harmful as it can be good, Whooter?
.

I would think it would.  It depends on the staff involved.  



...

[Awake]

Would you say manipulation of peer pressure by staff in programs on kids has an equal potential to be harmful as it can be good, Whooter?
.

I would think it would.  It depends on the staff involved.  



...

You'd be correct that that theory is substantiated in the field of group dynamics an human relations training, however this would be in a completely democratic context in which all parties are there with complete informed consent as to the process, unlike the teen who is often forcefully taken into a program. I think that adds further risk of harm in using it. I would agree the human element of error by staff further increases the risk, as no one can truly know what another person is experiencing. I would identify the directions ofthe organization itself upon it's staff to be more important than that in producing a harmful effect.


The vast majority of programs are going to be based on a peer pressure system to change behavior and induce conformity.  There is no law that dictates when programs can’t abuse that control method. So if manipulation of peer pressure by staff is harmful and abusive if misapplied, isn’t every kid that goes to a program at risk of being abused?


BTW I know you haven’t looked into it much but what I hear you saying is that you might actually believe thought reform, mind control and coercive persuasion are justified forms of therapy as behavior modification. Peer pressure based behavior motivation is intrinsic to programs and thought reform. It may be worth looking into.

viewtopic.php?f=81&t=31447
viewtopic.php?f=81&t=30423

[Whooter]

You'd be correct that that theory is substantiated in the field of group dynamics an human relations training, however this would be in a completely democratic context in which all parties are there with complete informed consent as to the process, unlike the teen who is often forcefully taken into a program. I think that adds further risk of harm in using it. I would agree the human element of error by staff further increases the risk, as no one can truly know what another person is experiencing. I would identify the directions ofthe organization itself upon it's staff to be more important than that in producing a harmful effect.


The vast majority of programs are going to be based on a peer pressure system to change behavior and induce conformity.  There is no law that dictates when programs can’t abuse that control method. So if manipulation of peer pressure by staff is harmful and abusive if misapplied, isn’t every kid that goes to a program at risk of being abused?


BTW I know you haven’t looked into it much but what I hear you saying is that you might actually believe thought reform, mind control and coercive persuasion are justified forms of therapy as behavior modification. Peer pressure based behavior motivation is intrinsic to programs and thought reform. It may be worth looking into.

viewtopic.php?f=81&t=31447
viewtopic.php?f=81&t=30423

Exactly, awake, there is nothing intrinsic to the programs design which would unnecessarily expose the child to abuse.  I can agree that there are levels of risk associated with, and dependent upon, the training of the staff members involved in overseeing a peer pressure system.  But the use of peer pressure isn’t abusive in and of itself nor by design and to answer your question as to whether there is a risk involved in sending a child to a program.  The answer is “Yes”, definitely.  But before a child is sent to a program the parents and professionals need to weigh the risk of  “not” sending the child to a program.

As far as thought reform and mind control I have read up on these and do not consider them an acceptable form of therapy.  In fact I don’t consider them therapy at all.



...

[Awake]

You'd be correct that that theory is substantiated in the field of group dynamics an human relations training, however this would be in a completely democratic context in which all parties are there with complete informed consent as to the process, unlike the teen who is often forcefully taken into a program. I think that adds further risk of harm in using it. I would agree the human element of error by staff further increases the risk, as no one can truly know what another person is experiencing. I would identify the directions ofthe organization itself upon it's staff to be more important than that in producing a harmful effect.


The vast majority of programs are going to be based on a peer pressure system to change behavior and induce conformity.  There is no law that dictates when programs can’t abuse that control method. So if manipulation of peer pressure by staff is harmful and abusive if misapplied, isn’t every kid that goes to a program at risk of being abused?


BTW I know you haven’t looked into it much but what I hear you saying is that you might actually believe thought reform, mind control and coercive persuasion are justified forms of therapy as behavior modification. Peer pressure based behavior motivation is intrinsic to programs and thought reform. It may be worth looking into.

viewtopic.php?f=81&t=31447
viewtopic.php?f=81&t=30423

Exactly, awake, there is nothing intrinsic to the programs design which would unnecessarily expose the child to abuse.  I can agree that there are levels of risk associated with, and dependent upon, the training of the staff members involved in overseeing a peer pressure system.  But the use of peer pressure isn’t abusive in and of itself nor by design and to answer your question as to whether there is a risk involved in sending a child to a program.  The answer is “Yes”, definitely.  But before a child is sent to a program the parents and professionals need to weigh the risk of  “not” sending the child to a program.

As far as thought reform and mind control I have read up on these and do not consider them an acceptable form of therapy.  In fact I don’t consider them therapy at all.

The intrinsic flaw you have missed is the element of free choice on the part of the teen. That is the design flaw that is in denial of an individuals’ existential qualities. So with that in mind do you think techniques that are used to coerce, from thought reform, mind control are acceptable forms of behavior modification for programs to use in any way that fits the business model by troubled teen programs?

.

[Whooter]

The intrinsic flaw you have missed is the element of free choice on the part of the teen. That is the design flaw that is in denial of an individuals’ existential qualities.

I never understood this argument that kids entering into programs should be given all this free choice and adult status.  It should be just the opposite in my opinion.  The child was making poor choices when they were outside of the program and therefore their choices should be further restricted not opened up more.  Wouldn’t you agree with this?

So with that in mind do you think techniques that are used to coerce, from thought reform, mind control are acceptable forms of behavior modification for programs to use in any way that fits the business model by troubled teen programs?

Thought reform and mind control should not be used on anyone, period.  What many posters here try to do is tie a dotted line back to North Korean torture techniques and say “There you go this place is abusive” when it is not necessarily true.  For example:

For example if a refrigerator salesman at Home Depot utilizes the “Hard Sell” on you then you could label that as “coercive persuasion”.   Which we all know is rooted in thought reform and mind control which was used extensively on POWs by the North Koreans and or Chinese.  Therefore (based on some peoples logic here) HomeDepot is an abusive company which has roots in thought reform and can safely be labeled a cult.



...

[RobertBruce]

The best salesman in the world isn't going to have the ability to deny his potential customers food, sleep, or shelter. If he tries screaming at the customer telling them unless they buy his refridgerator they're going to end up "deadorinjail" he's going to be fired. If he tackles the customer and attempts to "restrain" him until he agrees to purchase said fridge not only will he be fired, but he'll go to jail as well.

You keep somehow missing these facts with your bad analogies.

As far as you not believing kids should have choices, can you show us anything suggesting coercion therapy works? When you take the kids choice away you've already failed. That's supposed to be the difference between prison and rehab. One has people there by choice, one does not.

[Awake]

Whooter, I thought you had read up on thought reform and coercive persuasion? If you had you would know that it requires a totalistic environment like a troubled teen program to be implemented. To think that the kind of abusive used of peer pressure in programs that have total environmental control over teens  is translatable to a seller/ customer interaction at Home Depot, well, I think any reasonable person can read through the last few pages of conversation I’ve had with you and find that there is a clear difference there. Go ahead and read though the links I left you again, I’m sure it will point out why your thinking is incorrect.
viewtopic.php?f=81&t=31447
viewtopic.php?f=81&t=30423


Actually you neglected the part of my post before that was intended to help you answer your questions Whooter. I believe it can help bring full circle to the last few pages of conversation  we’ve had together.

I really believe it is important to understand how negative feedback can be abusive and how that is facilitated in troubled teen programs.

Whooter, let’s say for instance I am a staff in a program and we are in a group session together. At some point you were dishonest about something, anything really, maybe you were caught hiding a nose ring that was part of your old image that you weren’t supposed to have. Let’s say I turn to another member in the group besides you and ask, “Hey so and so, when someone lies, what does that make them?”

In fact can someone else other than Whooter answer this for me? When someone lies what does that make them?

.

This is sort of a snap shot.  We really dont know the history of this child.  Maybe the staff has been working with this persons' honesty issues and they havent responded very well and finally decided to bring it up in group.  Before sending the kid home or giving up on them it is important to see if they respond to peer pressure maybe.

Are you saying that a program’s manipulation of peer pressure can be abusive? I would agree with that.


To clarify a point I was making, If I go around the room and ask each person ‘If someone lies, what does that make them?’ and they all respond, ‘they are a liar’, and then I turn to you,( and perhaps you may reflect on your own behavior here on fornits), and ask you, Whooter, what do you think that makes you?

What is your honest response to that?

.

It is worth it for your own awareness to give an answer here.

[Shadyacres]

The best salesman in the world isn't going to have the ability to deny his potential customers food, sleep, or shelter. If he tries screaming at the customer telling them unless they buy his refridgerator they're going to end up "deadorinjail" he's going to be fired. If he tackles the customer and attempts to "restrain" him until he agrees to purchase said fridge not only will he be fired, but he'll go to jail as well.

You keep somehow missing these facts with your bad analogies.

As far as you not believing kids should have choices, can you show us anything suggesting coercion therapy works? When you take the kids choice away you've already failed. That's supposed to be the difference between prison and rehab. One has people there by choice, one does not.

 :tup:

[Whooter]

Awake you asked me this:

So with that in mind do you think techniques that are used to coerce, from thought reform, mind control are acceptable forms of behavior modification for programs to use in any way that fits the business model by troubled teen programs?

Depending on what the techniques are they may or may not be acceptable.  The total use of thought control or brainwashing is not acceptable in my opinion, but some of the techniques that are used may be I really dont know.  Like the appliance salesman who uses the hard sell ( coercive persuasion) I would not consider this to be abusive although it falls under the category of thought reform techniques.

Are you saying that a program’s manipulation of peer pressure can be abusive? I would agree with that.


To clarify a point I was making, If I go around the room and ask each person ‘If someone lies, what does that make them?’ and they all respond, ‘they are a liar’, and then I turn to you,( and perhaps you may reflect on your own behavior here on fornits), and ask you, Whooter, what do you think that makes you?

What is your honest response to that?

I would respond that one event doesn’t define someone or label them.  If a wife asks her husband :  “Does this dress make me look fat” and he responds “No, dear, you look lovely in it”.  Then I would say he is acting out of compassion and we would call him compassionate.  If three friends are throwing rocks and Jimmy breaks a window and the owner comes out and asks “Who broke my window” and you step forward and say “I did” taking the blame for Jimmy knowing his father is known to hand out harsh beatings and your dad would probably only ground you then I would call him a good friend.

So I would guess it depends on the circumstances but you cant depend on these events to repeat themselves nor should you label these people based on single events in their lives.  They may be habitual liars other than those snap shots or they may not be.  We would need a little bit more information.



...

[heretik]

Awake you asked me this:

So with that in mind do you think techniques that are used to coerce, from thought reform, mind control are acceptable forms of behavior modification for programs to use in any way that fits the business model by troubled teen programs?

Depending on what the techniques are they may or may not be acceptable.  The total use of thought control or brainwashing is not acceptable in my opinion, but some of the techniques that are used may be I really dont know.  Like the appliance salesman who uses the hard sell ( coercive persuasion) I would not consider this to be abusive although it falls under the category of thought reform techniques.

Are you saying that a program’s manipulation of peer pressure can be abusive? I would agree with that.


To clarify a point I was making, If I go around the room and ask each person ‘If someone lies, what does that make them?’ and they all respond, ‘they are a liar’, and then I turn to you,( and perhaps you may reflect on your own behavior here on fornits), and ask you, Whooter, what do you think that makes you?

What is your honest response to that?

I would respond that one event doesn’t define someone or label them.  If a wife asks her husband :  “Does this dress make me look fat” and he responds “No, dear, you look lovely in it”.  Then I would say he is acting out of compassion and we would call him compassionate.  If three friends are throwing rocks and Jimmy breaks a window and the owner comes out and asks “Who broke my window” and you step forward and say “I did” taking the blame for Jimmy knowing his father is known to hand out harsh beatings and your dad would probably only ground you then I would call him a good friend.

So I would guess it depends on the circumstances but you cant depend on these events to repeat themselves nor should you label these people based on single events in their lives.  They may be habitual liars other than those snap shots or they may not be.  We would need a little bit more information.



...

Whooter, what is not commendable is your true intent in these conversations you have with sincere members here on this site. You, I believe get a perverse pleasure antagonizing them with your fake benign quotations. Your analogies today do no justice to the children who have suffered and are still suffering under the thumbs of programs misusing the label, "healthy treatment". You have no point at all, this has been established. Awake has presented countless articles and studies for you to comment on and you hesitate to answer. Why??? You have no answer intellectually or emotionally to come back with. "NO EXPERIENCE" professionally or personally.
You are a comical buffoon playing a part that comes from some disturbed latent behavior.
Here is a example of a confused inexperienced comment you constantly make; "The total use of thought control or brainwashing is not acceptable in my opinion, but some of the techniques that are used may be I really dont know".
You really do not know what you want to say, better you say nothing. (Old saying; Better a fool say nothing then speak and leave no shadow of a doubt.)