ODYSSEY TRANSPORT and Dr. Phil?

[Anonymous]

And who do you propose is going to take a kid who is absolutely and completely out of control, who the parents cannot handle, who is heavy into drugs and is a danger to him or herself? There are times when this is necessary, as much as any and all of us would like to think otherwise.

It's time to be realistic about this stuff and rather than criticize everyone and everything find the safest and the best. The kids are sadly going to be sent away, it's just a sickening fact of life. So why not at least find people who are going to make it easier on them.

In a perfect world there would be no programs and there would be no transports. Unfortunately I haven't found that perfect world yet. So for now I think it's best we use some common sense and try to help as much as we can. If that means finding safer programs and safer escorts then maybe that's what needs to happen.

It's not a good situation. Best case scenario - all parents can handle their kids, all families are happy - but be real. Some kids never get the help they need and end up drug addicted the rest of their lives. That's not the answer either. There has to be some in-between. If the place is safe with good people it's sometimes a whole lot better than what the kids have at home. Sad as that is.

Ok let's be just as realistic as you propose.  First off, the vast majority of kids that are sent away are 1) not so far out of control 2) very highly unlikely to be drug addicted the rest of their lives, as more often than not, they are minor drug users that will mature with age and be able to stop on their own.  Go ahead and say I'm wrong, since I'm sure you know all too well.  I was sent to one of these programs....it failed....miserably....and in fact made any drug use more extensive as a result of the PTSD caused by the experience.  Only because of maturity and personal motivation did I stop......but was still never an addict....nor will I be for the rest of my life.  

As far as these programs being "safer than what the kids have at home"......well then the kids shouldn't be getting sent away...the parents should be getting locked up.  I find it appaling that anyone looking out for the best interest of a child would say that these places are in any way helpful.  It's a load of mindfucked bullshit.  These places do NO GOOD.  

As far as "these kids are sadly going to be sent away"....the only reason this is actually a given at this point is because of money hungry "educational consultants" or "therapists" that get paid off this shit to promote the programs and the escort services.....and we can't forget the select group of parents that actually know what they're getting into and send their kids willingly.....again these fuckers should be locked up.

Yet, the vast majority of parents are conned by consultants, therapists, and schools, as well as the programs themselves that these places are safe and truly in the best interest of their child.  If these same parents all knew the truth behind the lies they would likely never do the same.  Putting this once again (Geraldo and Maury in the 80's and 90's) on national television is just more advertising for an industry already turning profit in the millions.  


It's a sad sad day when those looking out for our children....our future....are so blinded by stupidity and greed.  Fuck PURE  Fuck CAICA......you should all burn in hell

[Anonymous]

Well said Anon.  It's bullshit to justify the referral business as something that is "sadly" needed or necessary when everybody knows the real reason these programs exist is because they are money-makers.  Huge profit margins.  10 minute conversation with a parent to sell them their brand of programs and KA CHING.

The least PURE CA CA could do is stop assuming others are as stupid as they are.

[Anonymous]

BM is dangerous, whether it's in a regulated facility or otherwise.

BM is not inherently dangerous, innappropraitely used it is.

You can modify someone's behavior by using appropraite and benign BM techniques... then there are the blatanly harmful ones.

[Anonymous]

BM is not inherently dangerous, innappropraitely used it is.

You can modify someone's behavior by using appropraite and benign BM techniques... then there are the blatanly harmful ones.

Maybe, but how is that better than real therapy?

I remember a classic example in a BM class I took in college, where an alarm-type device is used to treat bed-wetting in children. The thing wakes them up when it...starts to get wet...the idea being they can get out of bed and do the appropriate thing in the appropriate place.

But suppose little Susie wets her bed because she has terrible nightmares about the fact that mommy's boyfriend is sexually abusing her? This "benign" BM technique might help her stop wetting the bed, but it doesn't really help her deal with her real issues now does it?

[blombro]

Now when we talk about BM are we also to include Cognitive-Behavioral therapy?  There are BM models that do work on a cognitive/educational level.  However, at it's core in its use in residential facilities, is the goal to control the population.  To provide consequences for actions that don't really hurt the kids, but make the lives of the adults miserable.  Like cursing and taking too long to get in a line.

Although try explaining to a kid through CBT why it's important to stay in line (I guess you could always fall back on the old "the importance of following directions")

[Nihilanthic]

Now when we talk about BM are we also to include Cognitive-Behavioral therapy?  There are BM models that do work on a cognitive/educational level.  However, at it's core in its use in residential facilities, is the goal to control the population.  To provide consequences for actions that don't really hurt the kids, but make the lives of the adults miserable.  Like cursing and taking too long to get in a line.

Although try explaining to a kid through CBT why it's important to stay in line (I guess you could always fall back on the old "the importance of following directions")

Captive BM of any sort is still wrong becuase you should only take away rights and freedoms as REQUIRED for SAFETY. If you can do "CBT" (that acronym reminds me of cock and ball torture... hah) then theyre obviously sane and safe enough to NOT BE LOCKED UP 1000 MILES FROM NOWHERE AND KEPT OUT OF CONTACT WITH THEIR FRIENDS AND FAMILY.

What part of dont lock them up is so fucking hard for everyone to grasp? No other group of people condone confinement and isolation like the BM-tards do. The medical community scorns it and people who appreciate freedom and rights and care about the mental impact of that dont condone it either, but a bunch of unprofessional assholes are able to do that all they want.

WHY?

[Anonymous]

I feel safer living in Central Iraq, with mortars being shot at me every day, that I EVER did at Casa by the Sea.

If I woke up tomorrow and was 16 again, I would eat a bullet before going to another program.  Whatever parents are out there can try to justify and defend the program all you want.

Here's a comparison.  Do you know what it is like to be in a modern-day war zone?  You see news reports and read internet blogs.  But you don't really know what it is like.  In the program, you saw it once or twice.  You had phone calls once a week.  But you don't really know what it is like.

[Antigen]

PURE is run by a mother who had a troubled teen?

I have seen no evidence to date to support the notion that Sue's kids were particularly troubled by anything other than having neurotic assholes for parents.

Sorry, minor little semantic rock in my shoe there.

[Antigen]

In a perfect world there would be no programs and there would be no transports. Unfortunately I haven't found that perfect world yet. So for now I think it's best we use some common sense and try to help as much as we can. If that means finding safer programs and safer escorts then maybe that's what needs to happen.

Or we could consider the possability that kids who are at odds with the rigors and strictures of modern society are not at all disordered? We all know things have changed. In my dad's day, a high strung young man might run off and join the French Foreign Legion or Merchant Marines or a traveling circus or some such. We didn't pathologize them or confine them or force our benevolent "help" on them. We let the go out in the wild blue yonder and find out for themselves whether it was they or their circumstance which was in error.

It worked pretty good for producing generations of competent people of good character and ability. Ask the French who gave up on the Panama Canal or the British who couldn't even fend off the crumbling Nazi war machine.

But it's just so much easier to lay it all on the kids because they have no social power or any credibility. Fuckin pussy assed poor excuses for adults, that's all.

[Anonymous]

Captive BM of any sort is still wrong becuase you should only take away rights and freedoms as REQUIRED for SAFETY.

WHY?

But, there are some kids who wish to be in 'captivity' for lack of choices, perhaps because of an abusive family, conflict with themselves, society, etc etc.  So while point taken at this generalization  , this generalization may not apply to all.

In hierachial model of a program, at the exclusion of youth's input, where treatmetn is not youth guided or family driven I think BM can be dangeruous- but not ALWAYS.  

BM can be as simple as have a child, etc write about their feelings that, say, led to them lashing out innappropriately, for instance.  BM, can involve learning and, contrary to most of our experiences- it's not done in an inhumane manner.  BM can be done with care, empathy and support w/o condescension.

[Anonymous]

BM can be as simple as have a child, etc write about their feelings that, say, led to them lashing out innappropriately, for instance.

Nobody with half a brain puts that under the category of 'behavior modification' as it is relevant to this board.

Stop trying to cloud the issue.

[survivor122770]

Captive BM of any sort is still wrong becuase you should only take away rights and freedoms as REQUIRED for SAFETY.

WHY?

But, there are some kids who wish to be in 'captivity' for lack of choices, perhaps because of an abusive family, conflict with themselves, society, etc etc.  So while point taken at this generalization  , this generalization may not apply to all.

In hierachial model of a program, at the exclusion of youth's input, where treatmetn is not youth guided or family driven I think BM can be dangeruous- but not ALWAYS.  

BM can be as simple as have a child, etc write about their feelings that, say, led to them lashing out innappropriately, for instance.  BM, can involve learning and, contrary to most of our experiences- it's not done in an inhumane manner.  BM can be done with care, empathy and support w/o condescension.

 where are these programs? in your imagination

[survivor122770]

dr. phil should be stripped of his degree and forced to go through a program such as bethel , ccm or provo. maybe then he wouldnt back these hideous places

[Anonymous]

Captive BM of any sort is still wrong becuase you should only take away rights and freedoms as REQUIRED for SAFETY.

WHY?

But, there are some kids who wish to be in 'captivity' for lack of choices, perhaps because of an abusive family, conflict with themselves, society, etc etc.  So while point taken at this generalization  , this generalization may not apply to all.

In hierachial model of a program, at the exclusion of youth's input, where treatmetn is not youth guided or family driven I think BM can be dangeruous- but not ALWAYS.  

BM can be as simple as have a child, etc write about their feelings that, say, led to them lashing out innappropriately, for instance.  BM, can involve learning and, contrary to most of our experiences- it's not done in an inhumane manner.  BM can be done with care, empathy and support w/o condescension.

Horseshit....BM in no ways would include a child writing about their feelings that led to them lashing out.  That, in fact is a useful therapeutic tool that is often BANNED in many of these programs.  Freedoms of expression or speech are often, if not uniformly stiffled.  If there was truly a form of BM that was conducive with safety, empathy, and support, then it wouldn't be BM.  The entire basis behind BM is negative reinforcement...ie If you do X punishment will follow in one form or another.  Essentially, this does nothing but temporarially change someone to fit in to whatever situation they happen to be in, which ultimately fails in the real world, because in no way shape or form does society come down as harshly or as frequently with the punishments.  The reality of life is that you are going to have to deal with problems and issues.  You can't just treat kids like their little Alex in Clockwork Orange or one of Pavlov's dogs.....especially in the formative years of their lives.  All it does is condition them to stiffle their dissent, bottle up problems, and live isolated in a world they should be able to engage in.  This is not only socially damning, but damgerous as well.

[Anonymous]

BM can be as simple as have a child, etc write about their feelings that, say, led to them lashing out innappropriately, for instance.  BM, can involve learning and, contrary to most of our experiences- it's not done in an inhumane manner.  BM can be done with care, empathy and support w/o condescension.

If there was truly a form of BM that was conducive with safety, empathy, and support, then it wouldn't be BM.  The entire basis behind BM is negative reinforcement...ie If you do X punishment will follow in one form or another.

Actually, you're both misinformed. The Guest who mentioned "write about their feelings" seems to have no idea what BM is or how it works. But the second guest who said "the entire basis behind BM is negative reinforecement" is referring only to the subset of BM principles that is used in the Programs for 'troubled teens.'

It IS possible to implement a humane BM program by using only two things -- positive reinforcement and extinction. In the example about "lashing out inappropriately," a humane BM program might look something like this:

Every time the child exhibits the desired behavior, expressing emotion "appropriately" (however that is defined, and it must be clearly defined), the child receives positive reinforcement -- verbal praise, a snack, extra free time, "points" that can be redeemed for something of value, etc. Different things are perceived as rewarding by different people, so the rewards must be varied and individualized.

Every time the child exhibits the undesired behavior, "lashing out inappropriately," (which also must be clearly defined) the behavior is ignored. No punishment, no reward, no attention paid to the behavior at all, because sometimes the reaction of others is itself a 'reward'. Eventually, by repeatedly rewarding the desired behavior and ignoring the undesired behavior, the undesired behavior becomes "extinct."

It's difficult to imagine that any 'troubled teen' BM program would have the patience to implement extinction rather than negative reinforcement. It's much easier, cheaper and perhaps more tempting for the programmies to just beat the kid or deny him or her food, sleep, etc. when he or she "lashes out inappropriately."