Carlbrook

[Charly]

Truth Searcher-  My son's transcript and record clearly reflected his stint at Carlbrook and he was accepted at excellent prep schools and very selective colleges.  It didn't hurt him.

Niles- You continue to miss the point that doing nothing was NOT an option.  Our son could not remain at home.  Our household and family was being destroyed as was our son's future.  He had to go somewhere.  I think our son is in a little better position than you are to decide what helped him and what didn't.  
OK- assume wilderness did nothing for him and neither did Carlbrook. This means he got to sit out a year, read and think, and then move forward with his life the way he wanted.    This is a bad thing?  
If he comes forward and tells us he was traumatized and abused, I'll be sure to let you know.  I am sending him information on the propheets that psy gave me.

Yes, there is a lot of information out there (including on this forum) about abusive programs.  I certainly would never have sent me child to a program if there was any evidence of abuse occurring.  At the time I chose the programs, there was nothing out there indicating that either Carlbrook or Second Nature would be harmful to my son. What I still don't know is whether Carlbrook truly follows the CEDU model or whether the workshops are changed and "softened".  Perhaps the format is different.

[Charly]

Niles- you are a completely different type of person than my son is.
He subjects himself to abuse all the time and would consider it "good". This is a young man who runs 9 miles up a mountain for fun.  If you have ever been on an athletic team, you get the opportunity to do things you don't want to do and push yourself very hard.  This is what he meant by "good abuse".  I know you can't relate to this, but I can because I am the same way.  

He was able to challenge what we had to say and respond his very first week in wilderness.  I assure you that he did not "learn what to say".  This never happened with our son.  I understand how badly you want my son to fit the mold of a "programmed kid", but he just doesn't.  You can ask the other Carlbrook kids who post here about that and I promise you they will confirm what I am saying.

You really hurt your case by trying to force everyone into the same slot.  It just doesn't work.

[psy]

Truth Searcher-  My son's transcript and record clearly reflected his stint at Carlbrook and he was accepted at excellent prep schools and very selective colleges.  It didn't hurt him.

Niles- You continue to miss the point that doing nothing was NOT an option.  Our son could not remain at home.  Our household and family was being destroyed as was our son's future.  He had to go somewhere.  I think our son is in a little better position than you are to decide what helped him and what didn't.  
OK- assume wilderness did nothing for him and neither did Carlbrook. This means he got to sit out a year, read and think, and then move forward with his life the way he wanted.    This is a bad thing?

Hey!  I sent my kid swimming in a river that i didn't know was filled with piranhas and he survived.  This is a bad thing?

The results were not bad(debatable, time will tell), however the risk was unacceptable.

If he comes forward and tells us he was traumatized and abused, I'll be sure to let you know.

He might not see it as abuse.  Most kids loved propheets / workshops when they got out of them.  They only made you feel like shit for the first half (so they could comfort you in the second).  If he reads what other kids have said... maybe he'll snap out of it.

Yes, there is a lot of information out there (including on this forum) about abusive programs.  I certainly would never have sent me child to a program if there was any evidence of abuse occurring.

Of course not.  Nobody would.

At the time I chose the programs, there was nothing out there indicating that either Carlbrook or Second Nature would be harmful to my son.

You make a good argument as to why programs are so risky, even if they have no reports of abuse.

What I still don't know is whether Carlbrook truly follows the CEDU model or whether the workshops are changed and "softened".  Perhaps the format is different.

It's the same.   trust me.  we've talked about.  i'm 100% positive on this one.  show your kid what i gave you.  He'll confirm it.
If anything, CEDU clones "innovate" on older tactics, "improving" on them, finding new "tricks".  It gets worse, not better, with every "generation" of program.

When he confirms it.. don't blame yourself.  You were ignorant, not malicious.  You had his best interests in mind and did what you thought was necessary.

[Nihilanthic]

Niles- You continue to miss the point that doing nothing was NOT an option. Our son could not remain at home. Our household and family was being destroyed as was our son's future. He had to go somewhere. I think our son is in a little better position than you are to decide what helped him and what didn't.

You can't just sacrafice a child "for the household". This isn't a feudal era, its nearly 2007. And 'doing nothing' as far as saying "get a job, grow up, and I'll stop mommying you and let you go out on your own" WAS most definitely an option, just not one a program/Ed-Con would tell you you can take.

IMHO, childhood has been needlessly extended by years and years, and this is only a natural result of that.

Regarding your son's ability to decide what helped him - sure, if he was not put into a coersive behavior mod program... no less than TWICE and taking up at least a year of his life, sure! But, he was, and one of our biggest complaints is that it manipulates and brainwashes people. Naturally if someone is accused of brainwashing, having someone who was supposedly say they weren't brainwashed doesn't really hold much sway, now does it?

OK- assume wilderness did nothing for him and neither did Carlbrook. This means he got to sit out a year, read and think, and then move forward with his life the way he wanted. This is a bad thing?

That alone is not a bad thing. Everything else done to him IS, and the ability that he got to 'sit out read and think' was IN SPITE of that. You also seem to minimize the effects putting a year of someones life out at the stage in life that is late adolesence. That is VERY important to a person's development as an adult and one of the last "good" years of your life before you have to grind away and grow up.

Oh well.

If he comes forward and tells us he was traumatized and abused, I'll be sure to let you know. I am sending him information on the propheets that psy gave me.

The factor of "is it ok to say it was abusive" and "Was it really abusive, becuase I was told this isn't" is still present. A good program-neutral psychologist would probably be much better than I at explaining how this kind of manipulation and influence works, and for that matter, examining what was done to him and how he is now and deciding if he needs deprogramming or not.

It IS good that there is some candid and blunt discussion about LGATs and how they work... have you read that article posted about where psychologists tried to participate in a Lifespring LGAT to learn about how they work? That's pretty informative... so is the "Discovery Seminar exposed" thing on ISAC... written by a psychologist who went through one.

Yes, there is a lot of information out there (including on this forum) about abusive programs. I certainly would never have sent me child to a program if there was any evidence of abuse occurring. At the time I chose the programs, there was nothing out there indicating that either Carlbrook or Second Nature would be harmful to my son. What I still don't know is whether Carlbrook truly follows the CEDU model or whether the workshops are changed and "softened". Perhaps the format is different.

Whats funny is what you described about Carlbrook or Second Nature was most definitely abusive, and you most definitely did send him into an abusive environment, based on what you've said! There were so many apparent red flags its a little mind boggling.

Also, fornits has been here since the late 90s.. when did you send your son off again? Fornits was most likely here by then, but I'm not sure if it was as easy to find via Google as it is now.

Based on what you said it is also not difficult to see how he was manipulated, if not "brainwashed" and most definitely coersed. The spin he puts on things will reflect the program he was in, and he was in programs of various sorts for a LONG, LONG time.

At any rate, a "softened" LGAT is no more acceptable than "softened rape" or "softened confinement" or "softened abuse". Abuse is abuse, if its greater than zero, its still abuse, and there is no threshhold of acceptable abuse!

Furthermore, ALL LGAT's share a lot in common with one another. Certain mind games, specific vocabulary or names might differ, but the general way they are ran and the goal in mind (a mental breakdown, for lack of a better term except "psychologial regression") remian in the same... becuase thats what a LGAT is by definition.

[psy]

I understand how badly you want my son to fit the mold of a "programmed kid", but he just doesn't.  You can ask the other Carlbrook kids who post here about that and I promise you they will confirm what I am saying.

He was probably not broken i agree.  But i don't think he was entirely unaffected.  Some abnormal things that happen in program seem normal after a while.

You really hurt your case by trying to force everyone into the same slot.  It just doesn't work.

She's right.  a better approach would be to provide a similar example to her son five years from now.
A better approach would be to provide her with "kid profile" examples and see which one she thinks her kid fits into.
You're creative.  build a better case.  Pretend she's a jury and let her come to her own conclusions by implying rather than stating (you can get away with a lot more that way).

[Nihilanthic]

All I said was that he WAS effected by what was done to him, not by how much. As in the effect from the coersion and mind control was greater than zero?

Saying he went through "good abuse" or "it wasn't coersive becuase of how he got there" is evidence enough to me...

But at any rate why not go see a real shrink and bring this evidence? If you can afford programs and are an attourney you can most definitely afford the co-pay chumpchange unless you dont have insurance, in which case you can STILL afford it anyway.

[Charly]

My son saw a real shrink.  Several of them.  The one he trusted the most and who he returned to after he got out of Carlbrook agreed with our decision to send him to wilderness.  He said we were out of options.

TSW- My son said wilderness was  "abusive in a good way".  That is what I was responding to.  Running up a mountain is voluntary but so is carrying the group's water supply.  No one forced him to do it.

Niles-  You don't kick a 16 year old out of the house and say "get a job".  Also, yes, you do make sacrifices for the household.  Other people live there.  The terrorizing of the family had to stop.  

If my son wants to see a therapist to figure out whether or not he has been abused, he is welcome to do so.  

My son said how he got there WAS coercive (the escorts).  I agree.
So what?  He wasn't going to go on his own.

[Nihilanthic]

My son saw a real shrink.  Several of them.  The one he trusted the most and who he returned to after he got out of Carlbrook agreed with our decision to send him to wilderness.  He said we were out of options.

I'm glad he saw some shrinks, but that still does not minimize the effect of mind control these places do by design on children in them.

TSW- My son said wilderness was  "abusive in a good way".  That is what I was responding to.  Running up a mountain is voluntary but so is carrying the group's water supply.  No one forced him to do it.

And certainly the environment he was in had nothing to do with that, right? :roll:

Niles-  You don't kick a 16 year old out of the house and say "get a job".  Also, yes, you do make sacrifices for the household.  Other people live there.  The terrorizing of the family had to stop.  

You do not sacrafice A CHILD for the household!!! PERIOD. "terrorizing of the family" comes across as a bit of a program-esque comment, not that Im trying to minimize the stress that can be put onto a family if someone acts out or makes people worry for them.

But you know what? Its better to kick out a 16 year old and let him go out and grow up than abuse them, fuck with them, put them back years and years, and THEN kick them out, which is what MOST programs do anyway.

If my son wants to see a therapist to figure out whether or not he has been abused, he is welcome to do so.  

I would encourage it, but obviously not coerse it... that would kind of defeat the purpose.

My son said how he got there WAS coercive (the escorts).  I agree.
So what?  He wasn't going to go on his own.

You still havent proven it did any good and coersion is stil unethical and unnecessary...

[psy]

All I said was that he WAS effected by what was done to him, not by how much. As in the effect from the coersion and mind control was greater than zero?

Based on what she told me, i don't think the brainwashing was sucessful.  Program brainwashign requires a kd to lose hope of leaving. He had hope of leaving so he never broke.

I do think, however, that he probably got use to certiain abnormalities about the place, thinking the fucked up, was normal.  That's different than brainwashing.  That's the effects of trauma.  That's just learning to tolerate the intolerable.

[Nihilanthic]

I do think, however, that he probably got use to certiain abnormalities about the place, thinking the fucked up, was normal. That's different than brainwashing. That's the effects of trauma. That's just learning to tolerate the intolerable.

Manipulation and an 'adjustment' of his perceptions and thoughts is brainwashing in my book, albeit on a different level... but its the same thing, just not as complete.

At any rate this is ultimately semantic and a result of our language not being so finely tuned to discuss this kind of horrible stuff, isn't it?

[psy]

I do think, however, that he probably got use to certiain abnormalities about the place, thinking the fucked up, was normal. That's different than brainwashing. That's the effects of trauma. That's just learning to tolerate the intolerable.

Manipulation and an 'adjustment' of his perceptions and thoughts is brainwashing in my book, albeit on a different level... but its the same thing, just not as complete.

At any rate this is ultimately semantic and a result of our language not being so finely tuned to discuss this kind of horrible stuff, isn't it?

When i say "break", i mean having your whole identity overwritten.  Being told you are just a "mask" that you need to take off.... that shit...

[Nihilanthic]

I guess we're wondering if complete brainwashing or manipulation of some thoughts and perceptions compare.

Well, obviously thats a half a dozen of one thing and six of another. ANY of that is wrong, but completely breaking someone is totally horrible - but that can't minimize smaller more 'subtle' adjustments.

And naturally any and all forms of this is completely wrong and should not be tolerated or condoned or excused.

[Charly]

Niles- Whatdo you suggest parents in our situation do?  It is illegal to kick out a 16 year old.  Besides that, we would not do it.  We would take every step to try to help our son, which is what we did.  I doubt he would be doing as well as he is today if we had kicked him out.

My son agrees that he was out of control and could not remain in the household.  This is 3 1'/2 years later.  He agrees that we had no other options.  My husband and I are intelligent, resourceful people.  We did our research, we tried everything, and there wasn't one medical or mental health professional that thought for a moment that our son could or should remain at home.  I don't know why you think you know so much better about what was the right decision at the time.  EVEN IF WILDERNESS DIDN'T HELP HIM, which he believes it did, he was safe, my daughter was safe, our cars and neighbors were safe.  

When you can provide me and other parents with an alternative choice, then I might find you credible.  All I'm hearing from you, in a million different ways is, "You are a horrible parent because you sent your son to an abusive program and it didn' t help anyway and then you sent him to another abusive program and even though he says he is fine, he really isn't because he was abused."

[Nihilanthic]

Niles- Whatdo you suggest parents in our situation do? It is illegal to kick out a 16 year old. Besides that, we would not do it. We would take every step to try to help our son, which is what we did. I doubt he would be doing as well as he is today if we had kicked him out.

Knowing what you know now... why fuck someone up before they "go out on thier own"? Just let them go out on thier own. Tell him to get a job and decide for himself what he wants to do, and if he does stuff to break the law, call the cops.

Natural consequences. Besides, when you need to grow up, you just do... let them start realizing what it means to provide for yourself to survive and it just happens.

Also, you know what? You have NO idea how he would be doing today had you done that, and you have no way to know, either

My son agrees that he was out of control and could not remain in the household. This is 3 1'/2 years later. He agrees that we had no other options. My husband and I are intelligent, resourceful people. We did our research, we tried everything, and there wasn't one medical or mental health professional that thought for a moment that our son could or should remain at home. I don't know why you think you know so much better about what was the right decision at the time. EVEN IF WILDERNESS DIDN'T HELP HIM, which he believes it did, he was safe, my daughter was safe, our cars and neighbors were safe.

.
You, and your daugther, and neighbors were safe, sure, but he was not. I'll let deb RE-POST the health issues with wilderness crap, the deaths from them, and I need not repeat for the nth time in this thread how psychologically unsafe you are in such a place, do I?

When you can provide me and other parents with an alternative choice, then I might find you credible. All I'm hearing from you, in a million different ways is, "You are a horrible parent because you sent your son to an abusive program and it didn' t help anyway and then you sent him to another abusive program and even though he says he is fine, he really isn't because he was abused."

All I hear from you is an excuse to not re-examine what you did because doing so would mean you are in someone's mind, or that because if I don't sugar coat what I say enough and it can be construed as an attack on you, then the issues I bring up somehow aren't relevant anymore, because I'm too mean, even though the relevance of what I say is not dependant on how I say it.

Its not my job to find other options, its not my job to find some easy button for parenting, because there is not one! Im here because abusing people and not helping them is not OK, no matter how much you say "we didn't know what else to do" or "You didn't give me another option for sending him away!".

IT DOES NOT EXIST. The only thing that is easy FOR YOU is most definitely NOT easy for the child in the BM warehouse, and you know that now as much as we do.

Its not my job to lay out clearly what to do, but plenty of people (Deb, Julie, Maia, Ginger, etc) HAVE already, you just dismiss it! Taking your hands the hell off and letting them just grow up, stop sending him here and there, stop forcing, stop MOMMYING and just letting him go learn it the hard way was, is, and will always be an option, regardless of how many fly by night programs spring up and convince people who can afford them that doing so is not an option.

PLENTY of lower and middle class (and upper class people who do not choose to do what you did) families get by just fine, way way more than the minority of people with teenagers with problems who turn to this.

At any rate, I dont want to make you feel like or make it seem like I think you are a bad parent who fucked up, trying to guilt you, because its useless. Making you get all pissed or sad or guilty, successful or not, doesn't do jack about what DOES matter to me - the people being hurt by these places.

I AM saying you made a mistake, I AM saying these places conned you and thousands of other people, I AM saying they are good at it, and I AM saying you probably sent him away way too damn much before the industry got his hands on him, but I'm not saying you are a horrible person or parent. You made mistakes just like everyone else, however you can't hide from the facts that are pretty abundant in this LONG thread becuase you think I'm too mean or think I feel you're... bad, abusive, stupid, or whatever.

Hell, even if I did think that or just said KAREN YOU ARE A BAD PARENT does that change any of the facts? Does that change what these places did to him? Does that change what they did to thousands of people, and are stil doing now?

Does that change how STUPID it is that kids with depression, ADD, ADHD, or just bad social skills, or even abuse/rape victims are getting sent out to live in filth and read iMPACT LETERS around a campfire before spending one of the most important years of their life in a TBS?

NO.

[Oz girl]

Niles- you are a completely different type of person than my son is.
He subjects himself to abuse all the time and would consider it "good". This is a young man who runs 9 miles up a mountain for fun.  If you have ever been on an athletic team, you get the opportunity to do things you don't want to do and push yourself very hard.  This is what he meant by "good abuse".  I know you can't relate to this, but I can because I am the same way.  

oh come now. Everyone knows that there is a difference between the kind of strenght and endurance testing that goes on with a sporting team which kids sign up for and can quit from at any time and a wilderness programme. For every kid that finds the hiking and ewxercise component of a wilderness programme easy, there is another who has a really difficult time and for who it is porentially physically dangerous. Surely Charlie you dont believe that if your son was this boy he could say -sorry gentlemen this is not for me- i think i am just gonna have a bit of a relax now!!!
As someone who coaches a swimming team for teenagers, i know thhat most coaches have to be pretty strict about how far they push the kids and need to pay close attention to whether they can physically handle things. Girls with eating disorders for example can not compete. When in doubt we are encouraged to err on the side of culling unfit kids. Wilderness programmes by definition take kids who are unwilling. Many do medicals but still take kids with eating disorders and drug problems. Just because your son, an athletic boy did not have a problem with this aspect of wilderness does not stop it from being an ill concieved idea!