On 2005-10-05 11:38:00, Dysfunction Junction wrote:
NIH is not going to "come out any minute" and declare anything a "scam," nor did I assert they would.
You are correct. I misread your post.
What I said was that there has been definitive research done by NIH (and several other unbiased research agencies) that irrefutably proves that programs like Hyde ("Emotional Growth" or "Character Building" - call it what you like) don't work. The research has already been completed and is published for public consumption. Perhaps you should read some of the studies before you comment out of ignorance (no offense, but you clearly aren't an expert in this field).
Gosh, would love to take your word on this, especially since you are the expert, but do you mind providing a site? I am certainly happy to read any irrefutable proof! Funny thing to me is, psychology is a soft science, and anyone who was really in the industry would pretty much never use a term like "irrefutable proof" on a topic like this.
I do indeed have a different opinion on "seminars" which are simply LGAT's called by a different name.
Sorry, I don't know what LGATs are or what them means to you. Please say more about this.
Well, I submit that many people "don't get it" because "it," on its face, doesn't make any sense and therefore wouldn't be "gotten" by most.
I'm sure I won't come close to capturing this, but "it" in this context somewhere along the lines of the notion that people with a common purpose of shedding light on their lives and making them better can accomplish this in a group context by disclosing personal/family "secrets", and getting help and support in healing whatever wounds or disfunction they now manifest.
I also think it's a bit odd that you continually tell people that they are "off topic" when they ask questions about you. This is also a typical response from "program people." I believe I asked you some legitimate questions, but you declined to respond and shifted the focus to me and some "tactics" you imagined I am employing to divert discussion.
Um, you responded to my post about the value of seminars by asking much broader questions that weren't about seminars. And yes, I consider that diversionary, and had no intention of responding to what seemed to be fairly rhetorical questions. My comment was in essence, we can't have a discussion here if the topic keeps changing.
The topic of this thread is "Follow Up Questions on Hyde." Well, I asked you some follow up questions on Hyde and you declined to respond. Could you please go back to my last post and respond to the questions I posed?
Ok, better for a separate stream, but here goes.
Why is it that so many others just "didn't get it"?
You question presumes information we don't really have which is the number of people who get it vs. the number of people who don't (as well as the more complicated agreement on which "it" it is that we are talking about. But assuming your question was focused and true, I can think of a lot of reasons this might be, including lack of emotional intelligence, defense of the perceived threat to existing family systems, more profound psychological issues that initially believed in the interview.
I wonder, did you ever think that a one-size-fits-all approach to "therapy" is simply a failed modality?
Actually, I doubt anyone ever thought a character eduction program would be universally applicable--that is why many families aren't accepted into Hyde (and why many leave). My experience is that Hyde was very hands on, intensive and creative in handling many situations differently. I watched Hyde leadership....students and faculty....search their souls for the most appropriate response to whatever circumstances arose, and follow through on that. For sure, there were many standard responses to various situations, but without more detail of which aspects of what you term one-size-fits-all you are talking about, the level of abstraction is too broad to give a more detailed response.
Or do you think that if it worked for you the system must be set up properly and those for whom the program was an abject failure just "didn't get it"? Is it plausible to you that the system doesn't work in general and you are an exception?
I don't claim to have numbers. I do have a long term level of interaction with the school and have seen innumerable success stories so I know for a fact it worked for more than a few. But I don't think we can really have this discussion without first agreeing on what it was that was supposed to work. If a family felt too threatened by changes it needed to make and closed ranks by leaving, is that not working? I don't think so. From my perspective, the system worked.
Indeed, the parallels to your claimed field of expertise should be obvious. Why does psychotherapy not work for so many people? At least a partial answer is that fundamentally, change threatens many people on such a core level that their limbic system goes into fight or flight. And then they either work through that or stay stuck. That's why I am suspect of people who say they are angry 30 years later because Hyde screwed up their lives. Its possible their were grievously wronged, but no one, parents included, should accept such a statment without more information on that persons facts, because if they didn't "get it" then, there is a good chance they still don't "get it" now, and that their failure to "get it" has resulted in limiting their potential, and so they just want someone to blame.
You can call this a rote answer or anything you want, but it comes from my personal experience both at Hyde and working intimately with the psychotheraputic field.
I also have to say, if you really are a professional, I am surprised this isn't more obvious to you.
Anyway, DF, can we start with you presenting your irrefutably proof that the NIH has stated that the Hydes of the world don't work. If so, I think that should be fairly compelling for everyone, including me.