Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > The Troubled Teen Industry

Second Nature Wilderness Program

<< < (66/73) > >>

Lain the Odd:
Because if someone does name names, no one 'gets their butt in jail'. In an absolute worst case scenario, they go work at some other program. And usually not even that.

Anonymous angry SN supporter - I'm not going to entertain your arguments in general anymore, they've sort of lost the novelty of feeding the troll.

As a closing note, while I was in Utah, i'm not divulging anything else because I don't care to become some investigation. I will, however, note that I can't make this shit up - and if I could, what reason do I have to? You, on the other hand, are either on some program's payroll or just a straight-up troll. You have to be providing the proof you so exalt, not me. kthnx.

Anonymous:

--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---
--- Quote from: ""Dysfunction Junction"" ---
--- Quote ---You guys can't keep making assumptions that sending a kid to WT or TBS is the first thing a parent does the first time their kid smokes a joint or snorts a line.
--- End quote ---



I've only gone by what you said.  I haven't assumed anything really.  I've read what you wrote and commented on what you said.



In any case, I think you are quick to insult others due to what you perceive to be an attack on you when people ask questions and ask you to justify what you say with facts.  It's a touchy subject and people don't like to go into details.  I understand that to an extent.



I have said it before that I'm glad that your kid is doing better.  Who could be upset with a happy, functioning child?



What I object to is that places that use these types of "programs" don't tell the truth about their approach to "treatment."  Now. I'm not saying that your program has done this - I wouldn't know.  What I do know, however, is that they advertise that they can treat various psychological/social disorders.  They advertise that they are successful, yet there is not a single shred of evidence to support this claim.



I can say this universally about all of these programs simply because I stay current on the research being conducted and there is not a single, solitary clinical trial for "wilderness programs" that indicates that they can successfully treat anything whatsoever. Current research indicates that these programs are at best ineffective and at worst damaging.  



Mental health treatment must always be conducted under the least restrictive conditions possible.  This is a general rule of the discipline.  Sending a child to one of these programs against their will is counterintuitive the "least restrictive" philosophy.  



Their going voluntarily is rare and is usually coerced or in some cases the children are "kidnapped" from their beds in the middle of the night by paid "escorts" who handcuff your kid and drag him/her from the house in handcuffs, against their will, to be forcibly transported to the program - for a fee, of course.



My point about this has been that if your kid required out of home placement (dangerous to self or others - well below 1% of all cases) then he/she is in need of a level of care that a WP simply cannot deliver.



I'm not saying that there aren't some people in this industry who have good intentions and are trying to help kids.  



What I'm saying is that these places, based on the least restrictive care model, are accepting children whose placement there is unwarranted (many) or even dangerous (very few).  I'm saying that they're in business to sell a product - like every business sells a product to make profit - and the product they're selling isn't therapy for the kids, it's hope for the parents and it's wrong.





--- End quote ---

Let's get this discussion back to FACTS and away from TheWho's and the single anon parent who has defended SN for two years in this thread.

There is no evidence that shows these programs work, period.  You can't spin it, you can't deny it.  It's as obvious as the nose on your face and TheWho and the AnonAngryDisrespectfulSingleSNSupporter know this.  This is precisely why they try to drag the dialogue into the gutter and drail the thread.  They have nothing to stand on in a fair, level, grounded discussion.  

This is why AnonAngryDisrespectfulSingleSNSupporter resorts to name calling and TheWho resorts to fictitious "data."  They're logically cornered and would have to admit that the only evidence that SN is effective is their feelings.  

TheWho has exactly zero experience with SN; knows nothing of it whatsoever.  Never been there, kid never went there, yet he tries to speak as if he's an authority on the subject.  It's ridiculous at best, desperate manipulation and prevarication at worst.
--- End quote ---


We still haven't got past the fact that the premise that this place was built upon is faulty (to say the least).  This parent and TheWho are just spewing the party line - the same old hackneyed tripe.  "Prove it doesn't work!"  "We don't need studies, just stories!"  (But, curiously, not the stories of the abused or the studies of mainsteam professionals...how...odd :roll: )

These two are shills and a cursory examination of their handiwork reveals this inescapable fact.  A pair of bunk artists, nothing more.

Captcha: "imperative posted"

TheWho:
So it seems we may be at an impasse.  Clinical studies are not automatically performed in all areas.  They are great to have but the lack of them doesn’t dictate a conclusion either way.  To say a program is ineffective because of a lack of studies is ludicrous.  If the parents and kids that pass through the programs find them to be effective then they are!!  The parents and kids that find them to be ineffective are also correct (wilderness doesn’t work for everyone).

As far as abuse goes, we haven’t seen any evidence.  Lain gave us a story about a person who had to walk back down the trail and place a sausage into the food bag, which didn’t seem to be anything to call the police on.

So to recap:  The effectiveness of Second Nature wilderness varies based on the individual from extremely effective to not effective at all, with no evidence of abuse (or negative effects).




...

Anonymous:
The jury is out, Who.

Anonymous:
Unless you're Randall Hinton.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page