Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Brat Camp
'BRAT CAMP' CHANGES LIFE FOR THE BETTER
Anonymous:
--- Quote ---On 2005-08-06 10:48:00, AtomicAnt wrote:
"These programs are all about getting teenagers to behave, right? Have you ever met members of Reverend Moon's Unification Church? I have met several of them. They are all very well behaved, well groomed and respectful.
I doubt most of the parents would approve of sending 'struggling teens' into the Unification Church, but what they fail to see is that the techniques in the teen programs are exactly the same and have pretty much the same results.
The only difference between a cult and these programs is that the programs lack a specific religious affiliation."
--- End quote ---
The teen gulag cults do not fit they classic model of a cult-- a revered leader, a religious-sounding ideology, etc. The gulag cults are "treatment cults", in which instead of worshipping a leader, the members worship a facility or a program, or a method. That doesn't change the fact that these programs are cults.
AtomicAnt:
--- Quote ---On 2005-08-06 10:54:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
--- Quote ---
On 2005-08-06 10:48:00, AtomicAnt wrote:
"These programs are all about getting teenagers to behave, right? Have you ever met members of Reverend Moon's Unification Church? I have met several of them. They are all very well behaved, well groomed and respectful.
I doubt most of the parents would approve of sending 'struggling teens' into the Unification Church, but what they fail to see is that the techniques in the teen programs are exactly the same and have pretty much the same results.
The only difference between a cult and these programs is that the programs lack a specific religious affiliation."
--- End quote ---
The teen gulag cults do not fit they classic model of a cult-- a revered leader, a religious-sounding ideology, etc. The gulag cults are "treatment cults", in which instead of worshipping a leader, the members worship a facility or a program, or a method. That doesn't change the fact that these programs are cults. "
--- End quote ---
And they are also a great scam. I was discussing the idea of a TBS with a co-worker who jumped on it. He said, "It's the perfect scam! Instead of going out and having to recruit members, you convince parents to turn over their kids and actually pay the cult to keep them."
Anonymous:
--- Quote ---On 2005-08-06 11:12:00, AtomicAnt wrote:
"
--- Quote ---
On 2005-08-06 10:54:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
--- Quote ---
On 2005-08-06 10:48:00, AtomicAnt wrote:
"These programs are all about getting teenagers to behave, right? Have you ever met members of Reverend Moon's Unification Church? I have met several of them. They are all very well behaved, well groomed and respectful.
I doubt most of the parents would approve of sending 'struggling teens' into the Unification Church, but what they fail to see is that the techniques in the teen programs are exactly the same and have pretty much the same results.
The only difference between a cult and these programs is that the programs lack a specific religious affiliation."
--- End quote ---
The teen gulag cults do not fit they classic model of a cult-- a revered leader, a religious-sounding ideology, etc. The gulag cults are "treatment cults", in which instead of worshipping a leader, the members worship a facility or a program, or a method. That doesn't change the fact that these programs are cults. "
--- End quote ---
And they are also a great scam. I was discussing the idea of a TBS with a co-worker who jumped on it. He said, "It's the perfect scam! Instead of going out and having to recruit members, you convince parents to turn over their kids and actually pay the cult to keep them."
"
--- End quote ---
I'm glad to hear there are people out there who catch on the real purpose of these organizations. And, yeah, it is the perfect scam. It's a shame so many parents are gullible enough to fall for it.
AtomicAnt:
http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles ... 00004.html
Quotes from article: Loose Screw Awards
Here are 10 faulty concepts from the mental health professions that have yet to disappear. Sometimes their effects have been benign; other times, put into practice, such ideas have harmed many people:
3. Meanest
Correctional Boot Camps
In the late 1970s, government leaders were desperately seeking remedies for the nation's soaring crime rate. One solution, inspired in part by the tough love message coming from mental health professionals, was to establish military-style boot camps where harsh discipline and strict regimens would set people straight. The first adult camps were established in 1983, and by the end of the decade, at least 15 states had opened or were developing similar camps for either adults or juveniles.
Although initial reports were encouraging, by the mid-1990s troubling stories began to appear about abuse and sadism at the camps. In 1998 five staff members at a boot camp in Arizona -- including the camp nurse -- were indicted in connection with the death of a 16-year-old inmate. At the time of his death, his body was covered with cuts and bruises -- 71 in all. The camp was eventually shut down, and 16 of its staff members were added to the state's registry of child abusers.
The biggest problem with boot camps, however, is that they just don't do the job. Recidivism of 60 percent or more is common -- as high as, or higher than, recidivism rates generated through more benign programs. Experts on learning have long known that harsh discipline mainly teaches people to be harsh themselves -- and to hate their abusers -- but that message is getting through only belatedly to the boot camp advocates. As the head of a National Institutes of Health panel that studied "get tough" programs nationwide summed it up a few months ago: "All the evaluations have shown [the programs] don't work."
9. The Breakfast Club Award
Adolescent Angst
With so many bad ideas around, it's certain that some of psychology's worst have yet to be exposed. Adolescent angst is a good example. The idea that adolescence is necessarily a time of emotional turmoil was introduced by pioneering psychologist G. Stanley Hall in 1904 and has been widely accepted ever since. It still provides a rationale for America's massive and deeply troubled juvenile justice system, which handles more than 1.5 million teens a year, and it is also at the heart of a wide range of therapeutic treatments for teens.
But Hall based his concept of adolescence on a faulty theory from biology -- "recapitulation theory," according to which each individual creature, as it develops, relives the evolutionary stages of its species. Hall conjectured that teens were reliving a time of "savagery" in our distant past -- "an ancient period of storm and stress." By the 1930s, recapitulation theory had been completely discredited, but this had no effect on Hall's theory, which had by this time taken on its own life.
Teen turmoil, it turns out, is far from inevitable. In a recent review of 186 contemporary preindustrial societies, researchers found that more than half had no sign of it. Yet the idea that teen angst is unavoidable is pervasive in our culture.
Hall's theory has probably set a vicious cycle in motion: Society responds to teen problems (drinking, drug use, pregnancy and so on) with restrictive laws and treatments, which in turn cause more teens to act out and rebel. The tumultuous stage of life we call "adolescence" is, without doubt, a creation of modern culture, not an inevitable stage of human development, and our own culture has produced far more of it than has any other culture in the world -- in part, perhaps, because of a faulty idea from psychology.
Dr. Robert Epstein is West Coast Editor and former Editor in Chief of Psychology Today. He is currently working on a book called The Case Against Adolescence: Rediscovering the Adult in Every Teen
Antigen:
What about
5. Most Likely to Make Good People Feel Bad
Codependency, Enabling and Tough Love
Love and support are generally seen as good things, but in the 1980s, some substance-abuse writers and counselors claimed that the family members of alcoholics "enabled" alcoholism by being too loving. "Tough love," they insisted, was the only solution. What's more, they said, "co- dependent" enablers were themselves almost certainly victims of sexual abuse when they were children. The abuse lowered their self-esteem, which made them more likely to love and support someone unworthy of their attention. Some also insisted that all adult problems were the result of child abuse, and co-dependency was sometimes defined so broadly that almost any act of love or self-sacrifice could fit the definition. Best sellers like Melody Beattie's Codependent No More and Robin Norwood's Women Who Love Too Much thrust these ideas into the public consciousness, where they remain to this day.
Considerable evidence suggests that the codependency idea is dead wrong. In a comprehensive analysis of alcoholism treatment published in 1990, for example, Stanford University psychiatrist Rudolf Moos and his colleagues came to the obvious conclusion that family support helps ex-alcoholics stay sober. Abandoning a substance abuser in the name of "tough love" can sometimes provoke a relapse, and it's certainly hard on family relationships.
As for the child-abuse idea, it too contradicts the evidence. Not everyone who suffers from emotional or behavioral problems as an adult was abused as a child, and not everyone who is abused as a child necessarily develops psychological problems in adulthood.
Given the choice between dancing pigs and security, people will choose dancing pigs every time.
-- Ed Felton (quoted in www-security about Active-X)
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version