Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => CEDU / Brown Schools and derivatives / clones => Topic started by: try another castle on January 19, 2007, 01:51:48 PM
-
Ever wonder what makes someone a programmie and makes someone else a survivor? Well, I obviously do, or else I wouldn't be posting this fucking thread.
Is it arbitrary? Signs point to no, in my opinion. I'm fairly certain I am stating the obvious, here, but what the fuck do I know?
I personally don't think this is a question of intelligence or level of suggestibility. I know programmies whom I remember as extremely intelligent people. And I myself am highly suggestible, and consider myself a survivor. I could see a commercial on TV for Reeses peanut butter cups and say "You know, that doesn't sound half bad right now. I think I'll go to the corner store and pick myself up some." Even though I am fully aware that the commercial was partially responsible for my craving. (And no, I don't do this with every single commercial. I'd be a fucking blimp by now.)
I think it boils down to identity. The more in conflict someone's identity is with the dogma, the more conflict they will have reconciling it once they get out. There will be a fight to reclaim what has been lost. Some succeed, some flounder, suffer and question themselves, feeling shame and anger about how who they are does not jibe with what they were taught. Some may even develop personality disorders. In all scenarios, there is a conflict with identity, and at least some degree of suffering and trauma.
So how does it work with the programmies? Their identity is in synch with the program. This doesn't mean that that they were not subjected to the same brutal treatment than the others, or "skated by". Rather, the program was in "agreement" with who they are. It didn't create a conflict of character in or out of the program. The programmie willingly accepts the program's modes of conformity because it suits them and their inherent sensibilities. These sensibilities may have not been evident prior to entering a place like CEDU, because, after all, teens are rebellious, but there was something in their belief system that embraced the program on a deeper level than those of us who were simply victims of brainwashing.
Because of this cohesion, the belief in the program sustains itself long after the programmie exits the environment. I've often asked myself "Why do some people still, after all of this time, believe in this shit?" Well, maybe it's as simple as the fact that they are wired that way. There IS no repression of the psyche, because it jibes with the crap it has been taught, at its most basic level. Zero conflict. Zero contradiction. Is it denial? Well, it is denial that it's abuse, but it is not in the sense that the identity absorbs the ideology and makes it a part of itself. Round peg, round hole.
For those of us who don't fall into this category, we had to fight to regain ourselves. We survived something that sought to silence us. One man's repression is another one's emancipation. It's still abuse, for all of us. It's just that some people identify with abuse more than others.
The problem however, is that some programmies choose to pass that abuse on, in the name of what they believe to be love, or simply out of a sense of self-righteousness. These are obviously incredibly dangerous people.
All of these ruminations at this point are incredibly disorganized and possibly half-baked, and I will be the first to admit it. In some ways, I am simply thinking out loud. I also can't possibly pretend to know what goes on inside a programmie's head. It IS speculation, and just a theory. I CAN, of course, speak with more certainty on the survivor's perspective. What CEDU taught me was SO contradictory to my identity, at its most basic and fundamental level, that it was inevitable that I would have to face myself again and reconcile that conflict.
I think, for sure, that there are programmies who snap out of it. I mean, hell, most of us were programmies at one point, right? And we had to snap ourselves out of it. In this situation, I believe there was always conflict and denial regarding identity.
However, there are others who will never encounter this. Why? No conflict. These are the true programmies, and these are the people I am talking about.
For all I know, I could be wrong, and they may not even exist. Maybe ALL programmies are in denial about their conflict of identity. But it just seems that the program meshes SO well with who some of these people seem to be, that it's hard for me to tell. It's just that they seem so at peace with it. I don't remember feeling that way when I was at RMA, even though I was so incredibly brainwashed it wasn't even funny. I smiled like everyone else, and was terrified of being pulled, but my stomach was always churning. Regarding the ones who seem at peace with this... I guess Stacy Wasserman is a good example. She grew up with it. (She seemed disillusioned to me at one point and took some time off, but then she came back and headed up ASCENT.) I think Jackie is another. There are a few on the cedugraduates site who have been out longer than I have, who seem to fit this description as well. Oprah, and Dr. Phil, and Mel, and all of the people who create this shit to begin with. Sure, Mel might have been in it for the money, but there was something he saw in Synanon that clicked with him. I believe that.
This of course, could all be perfectly obvious to everyone else, and I'm just seeing it for the first time. I can be a bit slow on the uptake.
What do the rest of you think?
-
I think you need a stiff drink and a vacation.
-
I think you need a stiff drink and a vacation.
Translation:
I want you to get over yourself, even though I really am only making a snap, inaccurate judgment about where you are coming from. Instead, I'll be passive aggressive about it and say that I believe you should need something, despite the fact that I truly have no concerns for your needs whatsoever, and just want to be a self-righteous, judgmental prick.
7 months of RMA taught you well.
I like to contextualize and understand. It's how I'm wired.
-
wow, you're good. that hit the nail right on the head. I'm really only here because I'm looking for some old friends I haven't heard from in over 10 years. I have some fucked up memories and runaway stories I could share, but I'm sure it is nothing compared to the people who spent years there. Though I do understand the whole brainwashing thing because i was beginning to get brainwashed while there, my family noticed this and swiftly yanked me out of that shithole.
-
However, there are others who will never encounter this. Why? No conflict. These are the true programmies, and these are the people I am talking about.
I don't believe that. I think there are people who will never admit to it, though. I think of my brother, who would vehemently defend his cult guru whenever the topic came up (and if it didn't, he'd bait me). But never once, in the dozens of times he'd been back to Ft. Lauderdale, found time to stop in and visit the old crack pot. Why? Then there was the super straightling who came on here to defame and torment a friend of mine publicly, based on the program fiction he had believed (unquestioned) from 20 odd years ago. The two of them got to talking, straightened things out `n all. And in the course of that, the dude described some pretty serious compulsive type problems; obsessive tidiness, need for strong psyche drugs just to feel and act halfway 'normal', etc.
I think the difference between programmies and vets or survivors is that we know we're nuckin futz and are willing to discuss it.
-
I'm an intruder from the Hyde forum here, so feel free to tell me to take a flying leap...
IMPHO, I think the truth is somewhere in between. I definitely agree that some people are way more in sync with the program and hence stand by that identity and are "successful" at it longer than us rejects (survivors). On the other hand, there is a price. Whenever you have a closeknit group like this (be it a "program" or a family or a group of co-workers, even), and something is toxic for even one person, eventually it'll be toxic for everyone, on some level or another. How believable and good can your success feel, when the same medicine has destroyed so many others?
MR(2X)
-
This is an interesting discussion. Programmie vs Survivor. I am not sure there really is a difference, is there? ALL of us that were forced into one of these programs is a SURVIVOR. How we interpret our experiences may be different. Or how we deal with the personal conflict of having survived one these programs may also be different. But, I don't think that you can really separate the two.
We are all individuals and how we deal with what life throws at us varies from person to person. If I don't react the same way as someone else, it doesn't mean that what happended to us isn't wrong, or bad, or criminal. Make sense?
-
Right, I do agree that we all are survivors. I guess I was having a bit of a semantics issue. I think what I meant was more along the lines of how we view ourselves. Programmies don't look at themselves as survivors, and vice versa. But you do bring up a very valid point.
I'm definitely up in the air about all of this, because for me, it is certainly a confounding issue and one which interests me. What makes one person embrace the program for even decades after the fact, and what makes another one fight to reclaim what was lost or repressed? My current theory, as I said, has to do with identity and it's complicity or contradiction with the program. But I certainly can't say if this is true.
I think the difference between programmies and vets or survivors is that we know we're nuckin futz and are willing to discuss it.
No argument here! :silly: (cue crazy circus clown music) do do do do do do doo do do do
-
Just when i thought we were done discussing anything of substance.
I'm going to have to think on that. What would my senior counselor say?
-
Personally I really like being "nuckin futz." The only way I can stay SANE (semantics, anyone?) is being nuckin futz. And I identify more with the nuckin futz contingent in Life than I do with the status quo, most any day. Perhaps it is kind of an existentialist stance... And I've always related more as an individual than as part of a group. But we all need to "belong" somewhere, do we not? It's a basic human need.
Yes, 'tis true that we are all survivors of a kind. The world is a very painful place to be sometimes...
Nuckin Futz, MR(2X)
-
I think I can safely say that I am sick and tired of being crazy. I've had my fun. Please let me off the tilt-a-whirl, now. I'll turn in my pills at the gate.
I don't mind being eccentric, and having a dark, obnoxious, crude sense of humor, because that's just how I am, but crazy I can do without. I was already crazy before I went to raisin-cake-camp. CEDU just piled on the crazy. Going into one of those places already nuts is like double jeopardy, because you come out twice as fucked up.
So yeah, no thankee on the crazee. ::ftard::
It is actually encouraging though, to know that other people have an easier time with their nuttiness. :D
Damn, I'm so fuckin' serious today. I need to do something stupid, and fast. Maybe I really should take drlongjohn's advice. ::cheers::
-
This is an interesting and thought provoking thread to me. I don?t identify as a survivor of the program though I certainly remember being emotionally abused by some sadistic staff. I never felt like the abuse I suffered at RMA was in danger of destroying me though. It was injurious and was sometimes disorienting, and people were certainly cruel at times, but there were plenty of nurturing and caring people around me too. In fact, I experienced more care and nurturance than not, and it was certainly a more positive balance than the family I came from.
I have a trauma history that predates being at RMA and I can?t compare those experiences with what I experienced at the school. One set of experiences was life and soul threatening to me; the other set didn?t come close.
Your idea though, that for some people the program just jived with some internal sense of the world and our place in it, definitely has some merit in my opinion. When I think about RMA, I think of sadistic people, not a sadistic program. I never felt injured by what I learned; I felt injured by those trying to teach it to me. Or in some cases, I felt injured by staff that I think were simply injurious. Any conflicts I have had with the program, some 15 years later, have been when I have found something to be too limited, too simplistic, or too extreme (yes or no; do or don?t do etc.). My conflict has not been with something being ?right? or ?wrong.? For me, it has been about learning nuance and about grappling with my limitations and the limitations of those I love.
In thinking about your question, I think that there are probably three factors that influence how I understand my RMA experience and why I don?t see myself as a survivor where it is concerned. 1) The program did jive with some existing internal representation that I had had; 2) I went to RMA with a trauma history. While some experiences at RMA exacerbated my history, the program certainly didn?t rise to the level of being a trauma experience in and of itself. 3) I had way more people at RMA who treated me lovingly than who were cruel to me.
Take care, M
-
I did 2nd post. (Didn't have new name) This is exactly my issue with CEDU... the inability to address real problems and the resulting aftermath.
This is why it really disgusts me when trained therapists defend this place... for example, Mad.
He is a trained therapist/ former attendee who seems to defend CEDU... I can't see how... it defies any acceptable ethical/ therapeutic practice, so he should know better.
I'm not some asshole whining about work detail, structure, or discipline... But there is NO WAY you can tell me that the coersive, isolating, and verbally abusive tactics used to promote "growth" by unlicensed, either inept or egocentric--or worse, both--staff members is acceptable. It's not like they just fucked up in isolated incidents. Every rap was abusive and coersive; people were badgered to lie or exaggerate their own history on a systemic basis; staff members worked out their own psychoses on us. How could a teen aged girl feel safe when her "role model" staff was copping out to sexual misconduct--including playing with "feces", animals, and rape? No, it's not okay these these events supposedly occurred in the past when I had to be supervised by these people in an isolated environment--the same people who monitored every movement and lied to my parents? THESE WERE NOT ISOLATED INCIDENTS--THEY WERE SYSTEMIC!
Then, of course, you have the people who claim CEDU gave them "tools" and saved them even though they continue to suffer whatever the suffered pre-CEDU, post-CEDU and during CEDU.NOT ONE person has ever been able to define what those tools were specifically--NOT ONE! I mean I could say what tools I picked up in all my job related training or education, therapy, even marriage, it shoudl't be that difficult for someone to come up with "tools" they gleaned from an "emotional growth facility" after a two year residency. Tools, of course, that don't have to do with bullying peers, verbally abusing peers, etc. Oh! I know... I did learn to chop wood and dig trenches for pipe systems.... and pitch tents... and that is all fine and good, but the purpose of the facility was "emotional growth." What tools did I glean in that realm? Zip.
Last, let's stop calling CEDU a school. It wasn't. That part, in my tenure, was a complete sham. It was a registered group home.
This is an interesting and thought provoking thread to me. I don?t identify as a survivor of the program though I certainly remember being emotionally abused by some sadistic staff. I never felt like the abuse I suffered at RMA was in danger of destroying me though. It was injurious and was sometimes disorienting, and people were certainly cruel at times, but there were plenty of nurturing and caring people around me too. In fact, I experienced more care and nurturance than not, and it was certainly a more positive balance than the family I came from.
You remember "being emotionally abused some sadistic staff"!!I
But you don't "identify as a survivor".
Who is it that can say and believe it that they KNOW the staff they believe "caring and nurturing" were NEVER the other "sadistic" or "cruel" staff to other people besides this poster?
I had one person tell me ring me out of the blue and say, "but this guy is alright! I still talk to him". To which I responded: "you were never a fourteen yrear old girl". The staff that I LIKE, I cannot know what they did with/ to/ for anyone but me. Why can't people realize this? I am loyal, but i don't know WHY Glenn Sutton licked a kid's face? I don't know how it was to be a fifteen year old of any PERSONALITY and be in a rap with Dan Earl, or with someone who was a fucking horse farrier three years before! You see what I'm getting at? Your personal responses do defend the PLACE, skool, whathaveyou. As a therapist- isn't the first RULE: DO NO fucking HARM. You come off rational, but you must be a little more programmie than you would like to admit. Don't want to make challenges, but an articulate response to the anonymous poster (who wasn't me). As I originally said, I was going to have to think on this thread before posting. My mind is made up: MAD is still suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, and thinks CEDU was an acceptable surrogate parent,
have a trauma history that predates being at RMA and I can?t compare those experiences with what I experienced at the school. One set of experiences was life and soul threatening to me; the other set didn?t come close.
You didn't see anyone else or yourself become COMPLETELY FUCKING UNGLUED in workshops and or raps and propheets? I believe this is more anathema to the original questions:
What would happen if you REFUSED to do the IWTL pillow pouding fight with your parents on the pillows? or whoever it was for you? what if you REFUSED parts of the I and ME like the "fight for Me's Life" or the Fantastic Voyage? what if you had...You couldn't...it was not possible to refuse anything. Compliance was mandatory, and you seem to allude to that being OK. Not for me, buddy, and it's still ain't. Also, I would like to bring up the fact- FACT that it labeled and billed itself as a thing it was not.
Your idea though, that for some people the program just jived with some internal sense of the world and our place in it, definitely has some merit in my opinion. When I think about RMA, I think of sadistic people, not a sadistic program. I never felt injured by what I learned; I felt injured by those trying to teach it to me. Or in some cases, I felt injured by staff that I think were simply injurious. Any conflicts I have had with the program, some 15 years later, have been when I have found something to be too limited, too simplistic, or too extreme (yes or no; do or don?t do etc.). My conflict has not been with something being ?right? or ?wrong.? For me, it has been about learning nuance and about grappling with my limitations and the limitations of those I love.
Unfortunately CEDU 'education' does promote and I think, purposefully done made/makes a dualistic YES/NO/BLACK/WHITE
view of the world, and those limitations are really inside of ourselves; we KNOW what is right/ wrong while others are limited. But really we missed out on essential parts of programming. I use this word in the "positive" way. There is a certain amount of programming that goes on in normal teenage life. That morphs and changes as times do, but it is time immemorial that conditioning to the clan is made during puberty and pre- puberty. People sent away as parriahs at fourteen and fifteen for TWO OR THREE fucking years miss out on this normal programming. In fact the result is much the same as if you are playing basketball with a friend as a nine year old. Suddenly you disappear and reappear a moment later but two + years have passed. It doesn't even matter what your original skills were. THEY ARE MOOT, because the normal flow of time was interrupted. Nothing more. But it's an important time...those two+ years as a child as you see by my simple analogy.
In thinking about your question, I think that there are probably three factors that influence how I understand my RMA experience and why I don?t see myself as a survivor where it is concerned. 1) The program did jive with some existing internal representation that I had had; 2) I went to RMA with a trauma history. While some experiences at RMA exacerbated my history, the program certainly didn?t rise to the level of being a trauma experience in and of itself. 3) I had way more people at RMA who treated me lovingly than who were cruel to me.
In CEDU survivor fashion, "my experience if I describe it truthfully, absolutely must be the experience of yours too". Perfect empathy, Take care.
Take care, M
-
I have to agree with blownawaytheidahoway. Bless us all, but the CEDU family of "registered group homes" was BASED on coersive, isolating, verbally abusive tactics by unlicensed, inept, and yes, egocentric power-tripping staff members who were and felt completely in control. Control was a real issue with the staff members. I didn't feel safe being FORCED to cop out to my dirt, and I didn't feel safe knowing that depending on the head space of the particular staff member depended on my own personal outcome of what I copped out to. No matter HOW painful or embarrassing or difficult to say. My copping out didn't come close to most of what I heard, but that never made me feel ANY safer.
I was TERRIFIED of raps and propheets and they were always traumatizing to me. Absolutely.
We are all older now. At least some of us see the reality of what being in Cedu's group of registered group homes have done to us while many are just still in denial...
-
i agree with blownaway as well, RMA was definately a mind fuck for kids who are trying to find their place in the world. Some things were meant not to be dicussed in open detail with peers and staff who had no formal psychiatric education. Once everyone knows your "dirt," they judge you on it every time they lay eyes on you.
-
Hola Blown. Glad to see you used my post (it's Helen)... Hope all is well, and thank you for addressing Mad's response. I haven't met a therapist yet (outside the program) who thinks this stuff is half-Kosher.
-
have a trauma history that predates being at RMA and I can?t compare those experiences with what I experienced at the school. One set of experiences was life and soul threatening to me; the other set didn?t come close.
and
1) The program did jive with some existing internal representation that I had had; 2) I went to RMA with a trauma history. While some experiences at RMA exacerbated my history, the program certainly didn?t rise to the level of being a trauma experience in and of itself. 3) I had way more people at RMA who treated me lovingly than who were cruel to me.
This says it all. You go with what you know.
What I said in my original post:
One man's repression is another one's emancipation. It's still abuse, for all of us. It's just that some people identify with abuse more than others.
Come on mad, I mean, seriously. "It was abusive, but it wasn't like what I had experienced before."
ABUSE IS ABUSE. Jesus fucking christ, do I have to get this tattooed on my fucking head? How many fucking times do I have to say this shit? :flame:
I don't know what kind of shit you went through before, and it's none of my business, but to go from whatever abusive situation you were in to an environment that love-bombs the fuck out of you with forced intimacy and cornholes your brain so fucking much that you love your abusers. Jeez, the affection and forced closeness and constant venting of emotions must have been a welcome relief. (You might have even thought you wanted it.) It was such a different color of mindfuckery and abuse than what you were used to, it's no wonder you still don't see it for what it was.
This is why a lot of people get into cults. They may be abused, lonely, on the streets. The cult offers love, inclusion, an illusion of acceptance. People may be craving a parental figure, someone to guide them. The leader and members can provide that, at a price.
Do you not see that your history of abuse made you the perfect target for programming, mad?
(This isn't to say that everyone who has a history of prior abuse defends the program.)
All I know is, whatever baggage you gotta deal with, godspeed and good luck, and I sincerely mean that, but you'd better not be fucking referring people to programs in the position of authority you are in. Face it, as a therapist, you are potentially dangerous, thinking the way you do. This is why I'm leaning into you like this. Normally, I'm pretty easy going with whatever people take out of the program, unless they are just so stupid, judgmental and obnoxious in the forums it's ridiculous. But you have the potential to do some damage, ESPECIALLY because of your skewed understanding of what is abuse and what is not. Can someone say conflict of interest??
You are smart
You are a licensed therapist
You justify the program
Dangerous combination. Period.
-
Castle: Maybe I am missing something, but I didn't read where Mad justified the program.
I do think that both of you are ultimately saying the same thing. Mad agrees that the CEDU programs were abusinve, but I think the way he has dealt with that abuse or his interpretation is just different from yours. I think he is coming from a different place, trying to engage in the discussion you started and try to answer some of the questions you presented.
I have friends from those days that won't even discuss RMA. They will listen to any "news" I may have heard, such as the death of a peer or staff member, but they don't dare engage in conversation about it. I have other friends that can not mention their time in Idaho without exposing a deep hidden rage.... others will talk about some good memories and not mention anything else, while some friends are willing to have deep discussions about what was good and what wasn't.
Who's right? What is the best way to deal with that time in our lives? Who is the programmie? The survivor?
-
Hola Blown. Glad to see you used my post (it's Helen)... Hope all is well, and thank you for addressing Mad's response. I haven't met a therapist yet (outside the program) who thinks this stuff is half-Kosher.
Helen ahandbasket, Helen of Troy, or Helen Keller?
I recognize brilliance when I read it. In touch. Very.
-
wow, you're good. that hit the nail right on the head. I'm really only here because I'm looking for some old friends I haven't heard from in over 10 years. I have some fucked up memories and runaway stories I could share, but I'm sure it is nothing compared to the people who spent years there. Though I do understand the whole brainwashing thing because i was beginning to get brainwashed while there, my family noticed this and swiftly yanked me out of that shithole.
No, Doc, please do tell! I can only tell you about my own perspective, having been inducted into the cult at the ripe old age of about 6 or 7. What did this all look like to someone unfamiliar w/ this brand of insanity?
It takes a thousand voices to tell just one story.
-
Castle: Maybe I am missing something, but I didn't read where Mad justified the program.
I do think that both of you are ultimately saying the same thing. Mad agrees that the CEDU programs were abusinve, but I think the way he has dealt with that abuse or his interpretation is just different from yours. I think he is coming from a different place, trying to engage in the discussion you started and try to answer some of the questions you presented.
I have friends from those days that won't even discuss RMA. They will listen to any "news" I may have heard, such as the death of a peer or staff member, but they don't dare engage in conversation about it. I have other friends that can not mention their time in Idaho without exposing a deep hidden rage.... others will talk about some good memories and not mention anything else, while some friends are willing to have deep discussions about what was good and what wasn't.
Who's right? What is the best way to deal with that time in our lives? Who is the programmie? The survivor?
Maybe I used the wrong choice of words, re: embrace the program. He certainly doesn't think the program was hunky dory, but he refuses to look at it as a systemic issue. It was just a few bad apples, (bad staff) as opposed to the underlying ideology. I'll post this again:
In thinking about your question, I think that there are probably three factors that influence how I understand my RMA experience and why I don?t see myself as a survivor where it is concerned. 1) The program did jive with some existing internal representation that I had had; 2) I went to RMA with a trauma history. While some experiences at RMA exacerbated my history, the program certainly didn?t rise to the level of being a trauma experience in and of itself. 3) I had way more people at RMA who treated me lovingly than who were cruel to me.
1. He feels an identification with the program
2. He has a prior history of abuse, which RMA exacerbated, yet he justifies it as being a question of degrees, so it's ok.
3. He identifies with his abusers and doesn't acknowledge the conditions under which the affection was given. Let alone the boundary issues.
Some of the staff I was the closest with were some of the most brutal in the school. Stacy and Sharon. I believe they loved me. I'm sure they believed they loved me. Stacy presented at my graduation. Yet they were anything but nurturing. What "nurturing" I got, was conditional.
Who knows, maybe mad ran into some good folks, but I question it.
And I agree with you, that it's best, for the most part, to at least kick back about each others' experience. (Doesn't mean I won't ask questions, though, if they say something that interests me.) The reason I'm getting on mad's case is because he is a therapist.
But at this point, I should probably just let it go.
-
I get it, Castle.
I don't think you can "let it go". Personally, I think this is one of the most interesting discussions on the board. A battle I have often thought about over the last 20 years - but have had difficulty articulating as well as you have on here.
Don't stop asking questions!
-
Try another Castle:
It could be as simple as some people are more "gullible" than others. We know this to be true by this simple test: Ever try playing a practical joke on two different friends , and part of that practical joke is to try to trick them into believing something? While one friend is quick to believe you, meanwhile the other friend is giving you the eye like your full of shit. Yet the first friend goes looking for the item that was there that ye tried to trick him/her about.
In saying that.what defines the friend that believes you quickly is "who they are" or their "identity", of course their are other factors involved such as: how long they have known ye as a friend, what the state of your current relationship is etc.....
In cases of abuse: Somtimes the abused choose to "identify" with the abusers for a few different reason: safety, meaning in hopes they will stopped being abused, fear, abusive themselves
this is a great discussion...thanks for bringing this discussion to see the light of day from your dark corner TAC, I appreciate it very much, as there are lots of points to take into consideration on this matter.
In my humble opinion I do not feel that ye should drink this thought away, b/c it is obviously an important part of your deprogramming , otherwise it would not be burning inside of you.
I have found in my personal deprogramming it has been extrememly
important to pay attention to my body, because my body seems to tell me what to do. So, when questions burned inside me and when they still do, I seek the answers for them, so that I may answer them and then put them to rest, but not forget them.
warm regards,
_DP 8-)
-
Try another Castle:
It could be as simple as some people are more "gullible" than others. We know this to be true by this simple test: Ever try playing a practical joke on two different friends , and part of that practical joke is to try to trick them into believing something? While one friend is quick to believe you, meanwhile the other friend is giving you the eye like your full of shit. Yet the first friend goes looking for the item that was there that ye tried to trick him/her about.
In saying that.what defines the friend that believes you quickly is "who they are" or their "identity", of course their are other factors involved such as: how long they have known ye as a friend, what the state of your current relationship is etc.....
In cases of abuse: Somtimes the abused choose to "identify" with the abusers for a few different reason: safety, meaning in hopes they will stopped being abused, fear, abusive themselves
this is a great discussion...thanks for bringing this discussion to see the light of day from your dark corner TAC, I appreciate it very much, as there are lots of points to take into consideration on this matter.
In my humble opinion I do not feel that ye should drink this thought away, b/c it is obviously an important part of your deprogramming , otherwise it would not be burning inside of you.
I have found in my personal deprogramming it has been extrememly
important to pay attention to my body, because my body seems to tell me what to do. So, when questions burned inside me and when they still do, I seek the answers for them, so that I may answer them and then put them to rest, but not forget them.
warm regards,
_DP 8-)
Interesting thoughts DP. I'm not sure if it's gullibility, though. I was certainly gullible enough to believe in the program. Wholeheartedly. And I have a tendency to be highly suggestible. Yet I found my way out of it, although my first girlfriend was the first to verbalize the issue in such a way that I could make some sense out of the conflict I had been feeling for about two years. Yet there are others who, for whatever reason, will not grok the criticism of the program, no matter how many ways they are spoken to about it.
There are people who come around. I mean, I came around, and it took another person to point out how what I had went through was fucked up, even though she had never gone through it herself. I could have been defensive and just not listened to her, but I didn't, because there was so much conflict within me already about it. Right after I got out, I mentioned something about agreements to the first woman I slept with, and she said "That kinda sounds full of shit. That's a total euphemism for rules. They were still rules." and my response was "Well, you weren't there, you don't understand." There was that defensiveness. Yet, two years later, I'm discussing similar things with my girlfriend, and she says something along the same lines about the hypocrisy of the program, and THAT TIME, it resonated with me, and I thought "Wow, that makes sense." I am fully confident that if she had said that right when I got out, I would have had the defensive reaction I had to the prior conversation about agreements.
So... over a period of a few years, something happened to me. I may have still on the surface felt that the place was good, but my identity was in such conflict with the teachings of the program that there were lots of cracks in the armor. It got to the point where I started to think about things differently. That's when the conscious deprogramming began.
I wonder if there is that inner conflict for programmies? Even if it's denied and repressed? Is there an X factor, or a combination of X factors? Is the identify compromised, or has it assimilated the program and changed as a result?
I'm not an essentialist. I don't believe that identity is unchanging and non negotiable. Sure, there are things that are hard-wired, you are not born a blank slate. (Anyone who has had a kid can attest to that.) You are definitely NOT a chrome ball. Identity evolves. Maybe I'm stating the obvious. I'm wondering a.) was there something implicit in a programmie's identity going into the experience that made them predisposed to embracing it for decades? b.) Did the act of embracing the program cause an actual change in identity, as opposed to a repression of it? c.) If b. is yes, does a. have to be yes, too?
Of course, this addresses the question of identity as a whole. Is one person at one time the same person at another?
All I know is, when I read John Locke in college, he confused the hell out of me. I just read some passages again a few minutes ago and I'm still nonplussed. So maybe I don't really know what I'm talking about, since I kind of have a half-baked understanding about what identity is anyway. I know one thing, it is not what CEDU taught us. That whole "who you are as a person" summit contract. As if identity could be defined in two words with your signature at the bottom.
"Who are you?"
"Jerri Blank"
"No... whooooooo aaaaaaaarrreee yoooouuuu?"
"Jeeeeeeeeerrrrrriiiii Bbbbbllllaaaaaannnk!"
I guess what it boils down to for me is, if there IS a reason, is it a trait, (such as being gullible) a combination of traits, or something more deeply embedded in a person's personae?
I would hope a person wouldn't let go. How can people turn their back on something like CEDU and pretend it never happened?
I meant that I should "let it go" regarding badgering mad. (Jury's still out on that.) I would like to hear what he has to say about all that has been mentioned since his last post, though.
-
Hey castle, Ginger found this somehwere, I think it may be related to what we have been discussing here. We should ask her where she found this article and possibly contact the researchers.
Lemme know what ye think.
-DP 8-)
Quote: Cassandra
Lab Experiment
Dr. Kassin and his student, Catherine L. Kiechel, designed a lab experiment demonstrating how innocent people can be led to a false confession, to the point that some may even become convinced they are guilty. (1,3) In the study, college students were asked to type letters on a keyboard as a researcher pronounced them. Some researchers read out the letters quickly (67 per minute), others slowly (47 per minute). The subjects were warned to not touch the ALT key, because a bug in the testing program would cause the computer to crash and lose all the data. One minute into the test, the computer was manually caused to crash. In half the tests, the researchers said they had actually seen the subject depressing the ALT key. At first, the subjects correctly denied hitting the key. The researcher then hand-wrote a confession and asked the subjects to sign it. The penalty would be an angry telephone call to the subject by Dr. Kassin. One hundred per cent of the subjects who had typed the letters quickly, and who were told by the researcher that they had been observed hitting the ALT key, signed the confession; 65% of the subjects believed they were guilty; 35% even confabulated non-existent details to fit their beliefs. Overall, 69% signed the note and 28% believed they were actually guilty.
-
I'd be interested to know if the people who signed the confessions still believed they pressed the ALT key years later, even if they knew or found out about the nature of the project.
For the most part, most of us at CEDU believed we pressed the ALT key. What makes some of us still believe it decades later?
Forced confession was only one part of the program, though. There is so much other lovely muckety-muck to account for as well.
-
Interesting.
I believed that I "pressed the ALT key" for years! And then my first child became a teenager. Of course, by the time she was 11 and 12, I started to worry that she was going to be a "fuck up", a "rebel", etc. I read books. I talked to her. I learned what time of day was best to talk to her about what was going on ( at night, just before bed... if I hang out on HER bed while she is getting ready, she tells me all sorts of stuff). She is now 14, almost the age I was when I was sent to Idaho.
I have learned that, for the most part, I was a normal kid, trying to grow up under some pretty crappy circumstances. I tried things. I ran away. I did some horrible things as a kid -- BUT, not until after I was told over and over that I had hit that ALT key. By the time I got to Idaho, I had been convinced by parents, dentention center counselors, etc, that those in Idaho just exaggerated what I had done --- not only had I hit that ALT key, but I created the damn virus! Does that make sense?
-
Interesting.
I believed that I "pressed the ALT key" for years! And then my first child became a teenager. Of course, by the time she was 11 and 12, I started to worry that she was going to be a "fuck up", a "rebel", etc. I read books. I talked to her. I learned what time of day was best to talk to her about what was going on ( at night, just before bed... if I hang out on HER bed while she is getting ready, she tells me all sorts of stuff). She is now 14, almost the age I was when I was sent to Idaho.
I have learned that, for the most part, I was a normal kid, trying to grow up under some pretty crappy circumstances. I tried things. I ran away. I did some horrible things as a kid -- BUT, not until after I was told over and over that I had hit that ALT key. By the time I got to Idaho, I had been convinced by parents, dentention center counselors, etc, that those in Idaho just exaggerated what I had done --- not only had I hit that ALT key, but I created the damn virus! Does that make sense?
-
Forced confession was only one part of the program, though. There is so much other lovely muckety-muck to account for as well.
Not so much about Forced confession, as the much more muckety muck had to do with a life altering aspect, as well. What I mean by life altering is that they force ye to not only confess even if ye were innocent, they forced ye to also confess to being a defective(with their methods) , even if ye were not one, and most of us were truly not, innocent children, Mischevious, some of us? Yes, of course; aren't all children at one time or another?
-
Forced confession was only one part of the program, though. There is so much other lovely muckety-muck to account for as well.
Not so much about Forced confession, as the much more muckety muck had to do with a life altering aspect, as well. What I mean by life altering is that they force ye to not only confess even if ye were innocent, they forced ye to also confess to being a defective(with their methods) , even if ye were not one, and most of us were truly not, innocent children, Mischevious, some of us? Yes, of course; aren't all children at one time or another?
-
accidentally hit the submit button twice...lol
-
That's one of the wierdest things about the time and the genre that Castle and I were there.
Even if you were of the mindset that you just were going to make due because it was in you nature, or you didn't like to cause waves - even if you followed the RULES agreements LAWS (fucking can't believe they just open right back up with flashy websites after the scandals of '04) that the school enforced by having everyone so scared they ratted on eachother and enforced even the most petty agreements like a life or death matter- doesn't account for the way they made you feel you were not really getting the program. You always could tear yourself down further. There was no ultimate goal in mind on the schools behalf except to make the students feel "good" for the last month. The rest of the time there is always more Emotional Growth to be done...even if it means making up issues, or talking about your dreams in raps. Traps, I'll coin the phrase. There was a problem whenver there wasn't one. And furthermore, it was a purposeful design for the school to assist Kids in struggling and encouraging worse feelings in the studentbody before that groups important milestones along the way.
In particular the I and ME sessions exacted auto responses for weeks leading up to the workshop. These sessions excelled at employing a helpless and futile self hatred and regretful sadness before the Three day workshop. Virtually every cedu- ite would have to admit that if they were there.
-
I want to clarify about that bit about dreams.
I don't want to leave the impression that there was any real dream identification/ therapy going on in the raps.
Often, I remember, dreams would be brought up half way through a really sleepy rap...NOTE: sleepy rap = all the indicting and people who wanted to "work" had already done so.
So during a rap that didn't have more issues to surface (believe it or not this was unusual) the "facilitator" would say "tell us all about your dreams" and I recall more than one occasion where dreams became yet another vehicle to break kids down with NO reason other than a bullshit "gut" feeling from one of the staff. You just couldn't win, even if you had a dream that about daisies and crying at the sunset with your big brother while making cards for your little brothers while James Taylor's goofy expression fastens itself to the inside of your face through the constant osmosis of his sappy music- It just didn't matter, I was feeling good in that dream for something else...something bad.
if there was time left in a sleepy rap and no kids wanted to do "work" at least a few people were going to be made to feel bad before the end of that TRAP. Plain and simple and I still don't know WHY. WHY?
How could anyone have called this therapy? and them therapists? whackos and quacks is more like it.
-
I double posted too. sorry.
-
In particular the I and ME sessions exacted auto responses for weeks leading up to the workshop. These sessions excelled at employing a helpless and futile self hatred and regretful sadness before the Three day workshop. Virtually every cedu- ite would have to admit that if they were there.
The I & Me literally sought to split your psyche in two. Black and white. Right and wrong. It's no wonder some of us have borderline personality tendencies now.
Blownaway is right. You couldn't skate by. You would be dropped a couple of peer groups, and as a result, stuck there longer. Sometimes they would send you back through the Truth, not as a support, which was a "privilege", but as a participant, like everyone else. (Even though supports did all of the same things the participants did anyway.) You would get accused of being a "look good" if you were trying to adhere to the program but your performance wasn't considered "authentic" enough, or "not growing" because you weren't "getting it" or struggling with the dogma.
I mentioned this in the lingo thread, but the whole notion of "taking care of your feelings", i.e. running your anger and dribbling snot and mucus into the carpet, and pounding a pillow after you learned how to do trust counseling; we were made to believe that we "had" to do these things to stay sane and well-adjusted. When I got out, I thought that was how it was done. You were supposed to be a weepy mess. I did the whole run your anger thing maybe two or three times in my parents' basement, two for no reason in particular, one for being stood up. Then I stopped, and realized "Holy shit, I'm not going to implode if I don't do this. Well, that's good. Guess I don't have to do it anymore."
I wonder if programmies still do that shit? I can't imagine.
Haha. Sleepy rap. Should have just taken us out fishing. Would have had more therapeutic merit.
I am trying like hell to find this post, but I haven't had much luck. There was someone who posted something in the middle of a CEDU thread, I believe logged on as guest, and they stated that raps helped them in their job as an attorney during courtroom litigation. I balked, and immediately thought, "That must be one tolerant judge." I dislike paraphrasing someone without citing the source, however. Especially since I am going off memory, here.