Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Awake on September 22, 2010, 09:11:10 PM
-
Can anyone help me find information that defines what 'abuse' consists of in our current ethical standards for these programs? Any resources would be helpful.
As well I want to know if you (those who were in a program) experienced something particular that you felt was abusive that may or may not be part of the accepted ethical standards for what is abuse.
For those who were forced through a program and not given the choice I believe it is your right to be part of defining abuse as the environment disqualified ones free expression.
-
abuse
n. (-bys)
1. Improper use or handling; misuse: abuse of authority
2. Physical maltreatment: spousal abuse.
3. Sexual abuse.
4. An unjust or wrongful practice: a government that commits abuses against its citizens.
5. Insulting or coarse language: verbal abuse.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abuse (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abuse)
-
Can anyone help me find information that defines what 'abuse' consists of in our current ethical standards for these programs? Any resources would be helpful.
Define "our". Lots of people have different opinions, even here, on what constitutes abuse and so on. I'd say it's better to just states what happened and let others judge whether it was abuse or not. Are dog cages at High Impact or the Hobbit at SCL(A) abuse? Most people would agree so. Are LGATs and confrontational attack therapy abusive? I'd say so. Others wouldn't... but if you're looking for a mission statement of some sort... maybe it's best you write one. I'm not sure anybody has done anything like that.
-
My definition of whether something is abusive is, whether the perpetrator of the action could be arrested for what they did. I never saw anything at the program that rose to this level. That is why people here don't just call the cops on programs, because what happens in programs for the most part is legal, even if people here want to relabel it abuse. The term abuse on fornits is relative, I choose to use the legal definition, of whether somebody could be prosecuted and arrested for what they did. I think to myself, if I had a cell phone in the program, could I have called the police and would they have intervened and arrested the staff, or therapist during the group therapy? The answer is no, I would have probably got a ticket for abusing the 911 system if I had called from the program.
-
It is a closed environment completely cut off from the outside world ( the one I was in, at least ). No talking to non-indoctrinated people. No privacy, at all. This is abusive to a developing teen, who in most cases has not been convicted of any crime. The law has not caught up with science in this area. It is possible to cause MASSIVE psychological damage to a person at this fragile stage of development, which is why only licensed psychologists should be able to provide this kind of therapy. This kind of damage would be invisible to any patrol officer. Also, much of the physical abuse takes place in small rooms with limited people involved, who are all indoctrinated into the program, by the time the police showed up there would be no evidence or (willing) witnesses.
-
I would suggest trying to determine what is "uniquely" abusive about programs. Rape is abusive, but it occurs everywhere.. public schools, churches, privates schools, at home, camping trips etc.
What sets programs apart as being abusive? Is there anything unique? or are we just talking about random events of abuse that occur in programs which also occur outside of programs.
If someone is raped in a McDonalds that doesn't make all McDonalds abusive. Do you see what I mean?
...
-
It is a closed environment completely cut off from the outside world ( the one I was in, at least ). No talking to non-indoctrinated people. No privacy, at all. This is abusive to a developing teen, who in most cases has not been convicted of any crime. The law has not caught up with science in this area. It is possible to cause MASSIVE psychological damage to a person at this fragile stage of development, which is why only licensed psychologists should be able to provide this kind of therapy. This kind of damage would be invisible to any patrol officer. Also, much of the physical abuse takes place in small rooms with limited people involved, who are all indoctrinated into the program, by the time the police showed up there would be no evidence or (willing) witnesses.
Very incisive observation. And nicely put! Indeed, the law has not caught up to science with regard to what can damage a developing psyche. But then again, not all psyche professionals are of one mind about this.
I myself also have some deep reservations as to what exactly is on the agenda of many of these professionals and specialists in relevant fields. Some of them do not appear to have their client's interests at the fore, but rather the interests and needs of school administrations, local politics, Big Pharma, and the approval or acceptance of their circle of peers. Thankfully, this last incentive can at least work both ways.
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Can anyone help me find information that defines what 'abuse' consists of in our current ethical standards for these programs? Any resources would be helpful.
Define "our". Lots of people have different opinions, even here, on what constitutes abuse and so on. I'd say it's better to just states what happened and let others judge whether it was abuse or not. Are dog cages at High Impact or the Hobbit at SCL(A) abuse? Most people would agree so. Are LGATs and confrontational attack therapy abusive? I'd say so. Others wouldn't... but if you're looking for a mission statement of some sort... maybe it's best you write one. I'm not sure anybody has done anything like that.
Well, by 'our' I mean some legislation that outlines certain conditions of abuse or ethics violations. I just thought there might be something that say would have stict guidelines for what is considered an abuse of say sleep deprivation, isolation, verbal attacks, the size of the dog cage.... I didn't really know what to expect.
It is a closed environment completely cut off from the outside world ( the one I was in, at least ). No talking to non-indoctrinated people. No privacy, at all. This is abusive to a developing teen, who in most cases has not been convicted of any crime. The law has not caught up with science in this area. It is possible to cause MASSIVE psychological damage to a person at this fragile stage of development, which is why only licensed psychologists should be able to provide this kind of therapy. This kind of damage would be invisible to any patrol officer. Also, much of the physical abuse takes place in small rooms with limited people involved, who are all indoctrinated into the program, by the time the police showed up there would be no evidence or (willing) witnesses.
Very incisive observation. And nicely put! Indeed, the law has not caught up to science with regard to what can damage a developing psyche. But then again, not all psyche professionals are of one mind about this.
I myself also have some deep reservations as to what exactly is on the agenda of many of these professionals and specialists in relevant fields. Some of them do not appear to have their client's interests at the fore, but rather the interests and needs of school administrations, local politics, Big Pharma, and the approval or acceptance of their circle of peers. Thankfully, this last incentive can at least work both ways.
I also think that was well put Shadyacres. I think many people are under the impression that if a program doesn’t help someone it is at worst not harmful to go through, but I would submit that the Double Bind can be a psychologically traumatizing situation for a child that can alter them for life.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&hilit=double+bind%3A+mind+control (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&hilit=double+bind%3A+mind+control)
The double bind was originated as a theory of schizophrenia, has been proven to produce dissociated states in people in controlled studies and is currently still regarded as providing a means to understand the development of psychosis in children with sociopathic parents. Double binds have also been explored for particular use in therapy, very much in the context of the old circle of chairs we are all used to.
Here is the basic double bind formula. In some fashion I think it can provide a guide to what precipitates psychological harm, and abuse.
• a) The victim of double bind receives contradictory injunctions.
• b) No metacommunication is possible
• c) The victim cannot leave the communication field
• d) Failing to fulfill the contradictory injunctions is punished
• e) an intense relationship, e.g., in family life, captivity, love, loyalty,
I think this also is a reason for why forced therapy is wrong altogether. It inherently imposes conflicting demands ‘take responsibility for your progress in therapy, and do it because I tell you to, or you will be punished.’ The intense relationship portion is presumed to be the reason the double bind has such a powerful effect, and I think the TTI’s manipulation of interpersonal communication with parent and child can be a cause for serious harm.
-
Wow, no offense, but this seems like a lot of mumbo-jumbo...lol
So then.....what exactly do we consider abuse...? >yawns<
(It seems pretty obvious to me, but then, I'm a simple kind of man..)
-
My definition of whether something is abusive is, whether the perpetrator of the action could be arrested for what they did. I never saw anything at the program that rose to this level. That is why people here don't just call the cops on programs, because what happens in programs for the most part is legal, even if people here want to relabel it abuse. The term abuse on fornits is relative, I choose to use the legal definition, of whether somebody could be prosecuted and arrested for what they did. I think to myself, if I had a cell phone in the program, could I have called the police and would they have intervened and arrested the staff, or therapist during the group therapy? The answer is no, I would have probably got a ticket for abusing the 911 system if I had called from the program.
This is probably one of the most disturbing posts by max/suckit yet. He never even acknowledges any abuse other than that which the police could theoretically be called for ie physical assault. What kind of robotic brainwashed monster would not aknowledge emotional, mental and verbal abuse as well? But see, you cant usually be arrested for those types of things. You can sue sometimes for that kind of abuse but the police will only arrest and prosecute you for physical assaults or threat of physical assault (sometimes). We all know that mental, emotional and verbal abuse can be far worse in the long term than the physical abuse can. A person who only considers a direct physical attack to be abuse is not even a Human Fucking Being to me. They are the slime that I try not to step in.
-
My definition of whether something is abusive is, whether the perpetrator of the action could be arrested for what they did. I never saw anything at the program that rose to this level. That is why people here don't just call the cops on programs, because what happens in programs for the most part is legal, even if people here want to relabel it abuse. The term abuse on fornits is relative, I choose to use the legal definition, of whether somebody could be prosecuted and arrested for what they did. I think to myself, if I had a cell phone in the program, could I have called the police and would they have intervened and arrested the staff, or therapist during the group therapy? The answer is no, I would have probably got a ticket for abusing the 911 system if I had called from the program.
This is probably one of the most disturbing posts by max/suckit yet. He never even acknowledges any abuse other than that which the police could theoretically be called for ie physical assault. What kind of robotic brainwashed monster would not aknowledge emotional, mental and verbal abuse as well? But see, you cant usually be arrested for those types of things. You can sue sometimes for that kind of abuse but the police will only arrest and prosecute you for physical assaults or threat of physical assault (sometimes). We all know that mental, emotional and verbal abuse can be far worse in the long term than the physical abuse can. A person who only considers a direct physical attack to be abuse is not even a Human Fucking Being to me. They are the slime that I try not to step in.
How about wrongful imprisonment / kidnapping?
Shit, man... so far, this "abuse" debate is fuckin' RETARDED.
-
How about wrongful imprisonment / kidnapping?
According to what "Max" has written here, it simply doesn't happen in the TTI. It appears he thinks that all kids who ended up in programs deserved it.
Shit, man... so far, this "abuse" debate is fuckin' RETARDED.
:tup:
-
How about wrongful imprisonment / kidnapping?
According to what "Max" has written here, it simply doesn't happen in the TTI. It appears he thinks that all kids who ended up in programs deserved it.
Shit, man... so far, this "abuse" debate is fuckin' RETARDED.
:tup:
Yeah. I know this may be considered off topic, but I HAVE SERIOUS DOUBTS that SUCK_IT / Max was ever in a program. Why do people here feel they should take this phony at his/her word? (For all we know it could be Ottawa5 or somebody, or have the admins proven otherwise?)
-
How about wrongful imprisonment / kidnapping?
Shit, man... so far, this "abuse" debate is fuckin' RETARDED.
Because they are drama phrases used here on fornits to keep the adrenaline going. They dont exist in reality, Frod, we dont see to any false imprisonment or kidnapping charges brought against these places.
The abuse debate here stinks because it becomes apparent from reading this thread that abuse rarely occurs and parallels the level of abuse seen in other institutions like public school, boarding school etc.
...
-
How about wrongful imprisonment / kidnapping?
Shit, man... so far, this "abuse" debate is fuckin' RETARDED.
Because they are drama phrases used here on fornits to keep the adrenaline going. They dont exist in reality, Frod, we dont see to any false imprisonment or kidnapping charges brought against these places.
Yeah, like "we" should believe you... now that's funny!!
"We" see plenty, charges or no charges.
Go away, Whooter...
-
To the washed, programs are "the way, the truth and the light/life" and nothing will ever sway them from their mission.....to pass on that "way" to all the unfortunate masses that aren't blessed enough to have benefit of their wonderful 'lifesteps'.
This LGAT-type shit has infected the entire country and made maltreatment and abuse of kids in it's name, palatable. To them the "end justifies the means" and they just know that they've found THE answer. They're saving the children, dontchaknow, and as long as it 'helps' just ONE PERSON, it's all worth it to them. The rest is collateral damage that deserved it anyway, according to their thinking.
-
To the washed, programs are "the way, the truth and the light/life" and nothing will ever sway them from their mission.....to pass on that "way" to all the unfortunate masses that aren't blessed enough to have benefit of their wonderful 'lifesteps'.
This LGAT-type shit has infected the entire country* and made maltreatment and abuse of kids in it's name, palatable. To them the "end justifies the means" and they just know that they've found THE answer. They're saving the children, dontchaknow, and as long as it 'helps' just ONE PERSON, it's all worth it to them. The rest is collateral damage that deserved it anyway, according to their thinking.
::puke:: ::puke:: ::puke::
One more comment on a relatively minor point: I agree with the bolded* statement up there^, but I'm afraid it's infected more of the world than just this country, even...it's not unheard of elsewhere (according to some of the articles I've seen posted here, anyway)..
A good society is a program-free society.
-
So it's society and the world that are wrong, and the ten or so enlightened people that post here, they are the only people to know the truth? Or could it perhaps be the other way around, that the world, and society is right, and the few disgruntled people posting here are incorrect. Hmm, I wonder which is could be?
-
One more comment on a relatively minor point: I agree with the bolded* statement up there^, but I'm afraid it's infected more of the world than just this country, even...it's not unheard of elsewhere (according to some of the articles I've seen posted here, anyway)..
A good society is a program-free society.
Yeah, I agree. It just seems more prevalent and accepted here, but that may just be because I haven't been overseas in a while to see for myself.
So it's society and the world that are wrong, and the ten or so enlightened people that post here, they are the only people to know the truth?
No, 'society' isn't wrong. The idiotic segment of society that buys into all the pseudo-psycho babble that is LGAT and the like are wrong. Just as wrong as the friggin' Scientologists.
Or could it perhaps be the other way around, that the world, and society is right, and the few disgruntled people posting here are incorrect. Hmm, I wonder which is could be?
You're a lot like Whooter. You read things into posts that aren't there. As I said, it's not society...it's the lunatic fringe in search of a guru to lead them like the sheep they are, making maltreatment and abuse of people in general tolerable in the name of help/treatment/enlightenment.
-
So it's society and the world that are wrong, and the ten or so enlightened people that post here, they are the only people to know the truth?
No, 'society' isn't wrong. The idiotic segment of society that buys into all the pseudo-psycho babble that is LGAT and the like are wrong. Just as wrong as the friggin' Scientologists.
Or could it perhaps be the other way around, that the world, and society is right, and the few disgruntled people posting here are incorrect. Hmm, I wonder which is could be?
You're a lot like Whooter. You read things into posts that aren't there. As I said, it's not society...it's the lunatic fringe in search of a guru to lead them like the sheep they are, making maltreatment and abuse of people in general tolerable in the name of help/treatment/enlightenment.
:tup: :tup:
-
So it's society and the world that are wrong, and the ten or so enlightened people that post here, they are the only people to know the truth? Or could it perhaps be the other way around, that the world, and society is right, and the few disgruntled people posting here are incorrect. Hmm, I wonder which is could be?
Neither -- it is SIBS that is always right!!!
-
Wow, no offense, but this seems like a lot of mumbo-jumbo...lol
So then.....what exactly do we consider abuse...? >yawns<
(It seems pretty obvious to me, but then, I'm a simple kind of man..)
Well Froderick, I couldn’t disagree more. I think the double bind can account for why certain aspects of program life can induce mental trauma, and I believe there is enough connective history to suggest it is a concept intentionally built into some programs. I actually believe a good way to describe these programs is as a system of double binds that insist the kids move through processes in which they must act against their own beliefs in favor of their definition, in continual incremental steps. You are damned if you do, you are damned if you don’t but you must still make a choice, this is the double bind faced in a program. A single event may not be the root of the psychological trauma, in fact the processes of change they are drawing from would suggest otherwise.
I will note the origin of the whole circle of chairs style of therapy comes from Training Groups (T-Groups) and sensitivity training . These are used to create individual change from group processes and they have been studied and documented at length (not mumbo jumbo). However the basic premise clearly shows that negative self concepts can result from these group processes as easily as positive. It is also admittedly drawn from and compared to concepts in brainwashing and coerced change. The ethics of these early training experiences were committed to uncoerced choice, respect for individual autonomy and voluntary participation so as to achieve a truly democratic consensus in the group. This is not the case in programs, and the double bind of forced therapy makes that something to be very wary of in my book.
My recollection of the circle of chairs, raps, was nothing like what most in the outside world would recognize as group therapy. It was more like an interrogation under the guise of therapy. There was no such thing as ‘not wanting to talk’. If you didn’t want to talk there was something wrong with you, you were hiding something, you would end up having to talk about why you didn’t want to talk, it was a game. They were going to press you for your secrets whether you liked it or not, and I’m telling you a couple of these guys truly were skilled interrogators, they could really break you down and in a pretty covert fashion.
How do describe to someone how it can be traumatic to be kidnapped from your bed, be strip searched by the kids at your new ‘school’, then be led around by them while they tell you all the things you cannot say or do, and then go into group therapy and be asked “what’s going on with you?†with the real expectation that you are supposed to be honest about your feelings. I view this as a double bind with the potential for crazy making effects. I saw many a new arrival at cedu be driven absolutely nuts in front of everybody without the need for yelling or namecalling. It was done with calm caring attitudes and carefully positioned questions, ‘how do you feel about being here right now? Are you scared to be here? You bet, what’s that like? Why is it uncomfortable for you to talk in here?’. I’m not exaggerating, I believe this was the intent, you could not hide your feelings, and they would interrogate you until you revealed them. I think the double bind is a very relevant concept for a lot of reasons.
One last question. Which situation is more traumatic? Girl A is raped by a stranger or Girl B is raped by her father. I assume most people will say girl B, but why? I would say because it effectively leaves the child in a double bind.
1. The child is in an intense, dependent relationship with her father 2. The only source of protection is her father, but the rape shatters the trust and safety. The child is left receiving the paradoxical injunction that says she must depend on her father, but she can’t depend on her father. 3. As a child she cannot leave the communication field with her father, as she is dependent on him. In this sense the rape is like an ongoing trauma that cannot be resolved. 4. She is unable to or prevented from meta-communicate the paradox she is in. She is left in a position where no one can understand her predicament or denied the reality that it exists. 5. She is punished if she does not deny the situation exists, maybe just by laying on guilt. I think if you remove any one of the elements of the double bind in a situation the potential for harm becomes far less. Consider that girl A is able to go to her father and receive genuine help and support from her father after her trauma, Girl B is faced with a far more disturbing situation. I would say the double bind matters very much.
-
Wow, no offense, but this seems like a lot of mumbo-jumbo...lol
So then.....what exactly do we consider abuse...? >yawns<
(It seems pretty obvious to me, but then, I'm a simple kind of man..)
Well Froderick, I couldn’t disagree more. I think the double bind can account for why certain aspects of program life can induce mental trauma, and I believe there is enough connective history to suggest it is a concept intentionally built into some programs. I actually believe a good way to describe these programs is as a system of double binds that insist the kids move through processes in which they must act against their own beliefs in favor of their definition, in continual incremental steps. You are damned if you do, you are damned if you don’t but you must still make a choice, this is the double bind faced in a program. A single event may not be the root of the psychological trauma, in fact the processes of change they are drawing from would suggest otherwise.
I will note the origin of the whole circle of chairs style of therapy comes from Training Groups (T-Groups) and sensitivity training . These are used to create individual change from group processes and they have been studied and documented at length (not mumbo jumbo). However the basic premise clearly shows that negative self concepts can result from these group processes as easily as positive. It is also admittedly drawn from and compared to concepts in brainwashing and coerced change. The ethics of these early training experiences were committed to uncoerced choice, respect for individual autonomy and voluntary participation so as to achieve a truly democratic consensus in the group. This is not the case in programs, and the double bind of forced therapy makes that something to be very wary of in my book.
My recollection of the circle of chairs, raps, was nothing like what most in the outside world would recognize as group therapy. It was more like an interrogation under the guise of therapy. There was no such thing as ‘not wanting to talk’. If you didn’t want to talk there was something wrong with you, you were hiding something, you would end up having to talk about why you didn’t want to talk, it was a game. They were going to press you for your secrets whether you liked it or not, and I’m telling you a couple of these guys truly were skilled interrogators, they could really break you down and in a pretty covert fashion.
How do describe to someone how it can be traumatic to be kidnapped from your bed, be strip searched by the kids at your new ‘school’, then be led around by them while they tell you all the things you cannot say or do, and then go into group therapy and be asked “what’s going on with you?†with the real expectation that you are supposed to be honest about your feelings. I view this as a double bind with the potential for crazy making effects. I saw many a new arrival at cedu be driven absolutely nuts in front of everybody without the need for yelling or namecalling. It was done with calm caring attitudes and carefully positioned questions, ‘how do you feel about being here right now? Are you scared to be here? You bet, what’s that like? Why is it uncomfortable for you to talk in here?’. I’m not exaggerating, I believe this was the intent, you could not hide your feelings, and they would interrogate you until you revealed them. I think the double bind is a very relevant concept for a lot of reasons.
One last question. Which situation is more traumatic? Girl A is raped by a stranger or Girl B is raped by her father. I assume most people will say girl B, but why? I would say because it effectively leaves the child in a double bind.
1. The child is in an intense, dependent relationship with her father 2. The only source of protection is her father, but the rape shatters the trust and safety. The child is left receiving the paradoxical injunction that says she must depend on her father, but she can’t depend on her father. 3. As a child she cannot leave the communication field with her father, as she is dependent on him. In this sense the rape is like an ongoing trauma that cannot be resolved. 4. She is unable to or prevented from meta-communicate the paradox she is in. She is left in a position where no one can understand her predicament or denied the reality that it exists. 5. She is punished if she does not deny the situation exists, maybe just by laying on guilt. I think if you remove any one of the elements of the double bind in a situation the potential for harm becomes far less. Consider that girl A is able to go to her father and receive genuine help and support from her father after her trauma, Girl B is faced with a far more disturbing situation. I would say the double bind matters very much.
tl;dr