Author Topic: What Are You Looking At?  (Read 4909 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Xelebes

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 348
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: What Are You Looking At?
« Reply #15 on: December 12, 2011, 01:06:58 AM »
Quote from: "ajax13"
The temperance movements arose in the Anglo countries generally, not in the European nations that experienced revolts in 1848.  

True.  Misread a bit.  It was a portion of the Chartists (1838 and on) who pushed the temperance as a demonstration of responsibility, but the decade prior had people deciding to give up drink.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline ajax13

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1599
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: What Are You Looking At?
« Reply #16 on: December 12, 2011, 01:48:16 PM »
Quote from: "Xelebes"
Quote from: "ajax13"
The temperance movements arose in the Anglo countries generally, not in the European nations that experienced revolts in 1848.

True. Misread a bit. It was a portion of the Chartists (1838 and on) who pushed the temperance as a demonstration of responsibility, but the decade prior had people deciding to give up drink.

So the fact that the Seed was experimental and government-funded and government-initiated and opened in 1970 supports your claim that the experiments stopped in the sixties?  And your statement about the Chartists somehow supports your claim that the temperance movement can be equated to government research into behaviour modification?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"AARC will go on serving youth and families as long as it will be needed, if it keeps open to God for inspiration" Dr. F. Dean Vause Executive Director

"...based on an understanding that addiction is a chronic relapsing disease that makes people more vulnerable to overdose after they've been in treatment."  Zontar?

Offline Xelebes

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 348
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: What Are You Looking At?
« Reply #17 on: December 12, 2011, 03:32:34 PM »
See, I don't know how experimental it was.  It had its funding from the government, yes, but can you tell me what the hypothesis was?  What were the controls on the experiment that differentiated it from the previous experiment/programs like Synanon.  See, I'm missing something.  How does a charlatan like Art Baker become privy to the experimental data and funding that is accessible to the military-scientific community?  Art Baker had no prior scientific experience and had no prior military experience.  The only way I can feasibly imagine that he got access to the funding was that he sold to the stringholders of the purse that his program worked, lifting directly the techniques used in Paradise House and mishmashing them a bit to come up with something that would appear experimental, but truly was nothing more than charlatanry - nothing different than what we see with attachment therapy.  And if you sell it well enough to the stringholder, you can get a lot of fuzzy deals that ensure that the operation can work in secrecy.

Dr. Davidson's Elan is a bit different.  Ricci was a charlatan, but we don't know much about Dr. Davidson.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2011, 03:36:08 PM by Xelebes »

Offline Xelebes

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 348
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: What Are You Looking At?
« Reply #18 on: December 12, 2011, 03:35:20 PM »
Quote from: "ajax13"
And your statement about the Chartists somehow supports your claim that the temperance movement can be equated to government research into behaviour modification?

The Chartists do offer some insight into the relationship between alcohol and political power.  It's not direct, but you cannot deny the mix of factors that lead to the outright silliness that we face with when dealing with alcohol and substance abuse.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline ajax13

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1599
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: What Are You Looking At?
« Reply #19 on: December 12, 2011, 04:56:55 PM »
Quote from: "Xelebes"
See, I don't know how experimental it was.  It had its funding from the government, yes, but can you tell me what the hypothesis was?  What were the controls on the experiment that differentiated it from the previous experiment/programs like Synanon.  See, I'm missing something.  How does a charlatan like Art Baker become privy to the experimental data and funding that is accessible to the military-scientific community?  Art Baker had no prior scientific experience and had no prior military experience.  The only way I can feasibly imagine that he got access to the funding was that he sold to the stringholders of the purse that his program worked, lifting directly the techniques used in Paradise House and mishmashing them a bit to come up with something that would appear experimental, but truly was nothing more than charlatanry - nothing different than what we see with attachment therapy.  And if you sell it well enough to the stringholder, you can get a lot of fuzzy deals that ensure that the operation can work in secrecy.

Dr. Davidson's Elan is a bit different.  Ricci was a charlatan, but we don't know much about Dr. Davidson.

No doubt you are missing something, see, and no doubt you don't know how experimental it was, see.  Your statement that what was done in the Seed is no different than what is seen with Attachment Therapy shows a distinct lack of familiarity with either the Seed or Attachment Therapy, or both.  Buchmanism is not used in attachment therapy at all, yet it is the stated basis of the Seed/Straight/Kids/AARC model.  The techniques of turning peers into masters and fostering a culture of betrayal and alienation are not part of Attachment Therapy.  Nor is rewarding comlpiance with power over other clients.  You have picked the wrong venue to make pronouncements about these phenomena given the little knowledge that you have.  Nobody likes a tourist.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"AARC will go on serving youth and families as long as it will be needed, if it keeps open to God for inspiration" Dr. F. Dean Vause Executive Director

"...based on an understanding that addiction is a chronic relapsing disease that makes people more vulnerable to overdose after they've been in treatment."  Zontar?

Offline Xelebes

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 348
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: What Are You Looking At?
« Reply #20 on: December 12, 2011, 05:16:47 PM »
And all that was lifted from Synanon.  Synanon was considered the experiment but it more importantly ran as a program and was allowed to become a profitable enterprise.  The Seed and Straight are profitable enterprises - they didn't need the experiments.  They already had the experiments done for them.  

I never conflated Buchmanism with Attachment therapy.  I said that the Seed and Straight are charlatanry, just like attachment therapy - not that they are attachment therapy.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline ajax13

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1599
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: What Are You Looking At?
« Reply #21 on: December 12, 2011, 06:07:41 PM »
Synanon was considered "the experiment" by whom?  As I stated earlier, and you ignored earlier, the Seed was determined to be experimental in a government investigation.  The money made available to Art Barker from the Federal Law Enforcement slush fund and NIDA was intended to fund experimentation.  I find your claim that the experiments "were already done for them" to be baffling.  Modifications to psychological theory appear consistently to this day.  Do you suppose that the people who saw Ewen Cameron's experiments go to shit were satisfied and just packed it in when Psychic Driving failed to produce the intended results?  
The Seed and Straight were the experiments, being conducted on another party's behalf.  Whether or not you feel that the experiments had scientific validity is not really relevant.   The techniques used in the Seed, Straight, Kids, AARC and the other clones were derived from those used in Synanon but were not identical.  There are elements common to Synanon and the Seed line of institutions, and there are also differences.  So "nothing different" means that something is not the same, but is rather "just like" something?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"AARC will go on serving youth and families as long as it will be needed, if it keeps open to God for inspiration" Dr. F. Dean Vause Executive Director

"...based on an understanding that addiction is a chronic relapsing disease that makes people more vulnerable to overdose after they've been in treatment."  Zontar?

Offline Xelebes

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 348
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: What Are You Looking At?
« Reply #22 on: December 12, 2011, 06:38:47 PM »
There is only tenuous evidence that it truly was experimentation.  Senator Ervin stipulated that The Seed prove itself to be experimental and issue the forms.  The Seed didn't do this and so folded.  Now, we could say that it was experimental before it was demanded to be shown to be experimental, but I think that misses the point of the stipulation in the first place.  There are two possible states before that: Art Baker was winging an experiment and gathering some data but not enough data to satisfy the experiment stipulations or Art Baker was winging a private enterprise and gathering no data.  I find it odd that Ervin felt himself compelled to stipulate it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Xelebes

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 348
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: What Are You Looking At?
« Reply #23 on: December 12, 2011, 06:52:44 PM »
Also, with regards to differences and shifts.  Things change, especially when you have new influences.  They develop dialects.  Especially when we have these things started up by amateurs and participants, it's going to lead to cut corners and some unexpected shifts.  The Seed is two steps away from Synanon.  AARC is three steps away from The Seed (Straight ? KHK ? AARC.)  There is going to be a substantial difference between each one of them.  That difference does not to automatically suggest that they were experiments.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline ajax13

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1599
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: What Are You Looking At?
« Reply #24 on: December 12, 2011, 08:39:04 PM »
Quote from: "Xelebes"
There is only tenuous evidence that it truly was experimentation.  Senator Ervin stipulated that The Seed prove itself to be experimental and issue the forms.  The Seed didn't do this and so folded.  Now, we could say that it was experimental before it was demanded to be shown to be experimental, but I think that misses the point of the stipulation in the first place.  There are two possible states before that: Art Baker was winging an experiment and gathering some data but not enough data to satisfy the experiment stipulations or Art Baker was winging a private enterprise and gathering no data.  I find it odd that Ervin felt himself compelled to stipulate it.

You are very much misinformed, and yet you seem compelled to present yourself as someone with a unique understanding of this phenomenon, or newly discovered information.  There is no evidence the Senator Ervin demanded forms to prove that the Seed was experimental.  Consent forms were demanded because it had been deemed experimental.  The Seed did not fold.  AARC did not come from KHK, it is a renamed Kids program, a completely separate stream from KHK.  As such, it is only two degrees removed from Straight.
Do you suppose that after thirty years of B-mod research, the US intelligence-backed research just stopped at a time when US society was torn by the unrest of the late sixties?  That is rather counterintuitive.  So again, what is this evidence that the Thought Reform research stopped in the mid-sixties?
« Last Edit: December 12, 2011, 08:45:15 PM by ajax13 »
"AARC will go on serving youth and families as long as it will be needed, if it keeps open to God for inspiration" Dr. F. Dean Vause Executive Director

"...based on an understanding that addiction is a chronic relapsing disease that makes people more vulnerable to overdose after they've been in treatment."  Zontar?

Offline Xelebes

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 348
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: What Are You Looking At?
« Reply #25 on: December 12, 2011, 08:41:02 PM »
Quote from: "ajax13"
Quote from: "Xelebes"
There is only tenuous evidence that it truly was experimentation.  Senator Ervin stipulated that The Seed prove itself to be experimental and issue the forms.  The Seed didn't do this and so folded.  Now, we could say that it was experimental before it was demanded to be shown to be experimental, but I think that misses the point of the stipulation in the first place.  There are two possible states before that: Art Baker was winging an experiment and gathering some data but not enough data to satisfy the experiment stipulations or Art Baker was winging a private enterprise and gathering no data.  I find it odd that Ervin felt himself compelled to stipulate it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Re: What Are You Looking At?
« Reply #26 on: December 12, 2011, 08:56:34 PM »
.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 10:30:32 PM by Anonymous »

Offline Xelebes

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 348
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: What Are You Looking At?
« Reply #27 on: December 12, 2011, 09:24:44 PM »
Eh, I'm not here to call him any names or to dismiss what he has to bring to the table.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline ajax13

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1599
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: What Are You Looking At?
« Reply #28 on: December 12, 2011, 09:51:26 PM »
Claiming, with no evidence to support the idea, and lots to refute it, that US intelligence gave up B-mod experiments in the mid-sixties constitutes "bringing something to the table", but pointing out fundamental inaccuracies in a public statement is hair-splitting?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"AARC will go on serving youth and families as long as it will be needed, if it keeps open to God for inspiration" Dr. F. Dean Vause Executive Director

"...based on an understanding that addiction is a chronic relapsing disease that makes people more vulnerable to overdose after they've been in treatment."  Zontar?

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Re: What Are You Looking At?
« Reply #29 on: December 12, 2011, 09:53:59 PM »
.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 10:30:10 PM by Anonymous »