Author Topic: Way more kids praise programs than attack them, why is that?  (Read 26315 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ursus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8989
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Way more kids praise programs than attack them, why is t
« Reply #195 on: June 30, 2010, 10:15:38 AM »
Quote from: "Whooter"
You can gain quite a bit of information by pulling a small sample. If you have 500 people and you interview a small sample of say 13, then there are statistical tables which will tell you how confident you can be in your results… i.e 90%, 95%, 99%, 99.9% etc. and the degree of error you can expect to be built into your results (i.e. +/- 5%). Thats the strength of statistics, you don't need to sample everyone to gain a perspective!

Ursus I held off in responding to give yourself a chance to edit your post. You must be very unfamiliar with statistics if you think using percentages is a flaw of some type. They go hand in hand.
No, I am not unfamiliar with statistics. When you have such a small sample size that 2 individuals giving different answers can skew the results by as much as 12% either way, I'd say that your conclusions carry a pretty large margin of error. Perhaps I have a bias for seeing my tables presented in terms of raw data so that I can determine that for myself. I can always use a calculator to get those pretty percentages!  :D

Of course, the biggest flaw of that study is the highly skewed nature of the sample itself, which, by virtue of the method of selection, is not representative of the population it purports to speak for. Sure, a small sample number can give you an indication of what's going on in a larger population but... only IFF they are representative of that larger set.

In the Shapiro study, the 17 students surveyed were all preselected on the basis of (a) having actually graduated the program, as well as (b) deigning to return the survey in the first place. The ones who did return that survey may well have been highly motivated to do so, e.g., for reasons of satisfaction with their time in program. No surprise then, that Shapiro reported that they were.

If I recall correctly, there were well over a hundred students who did not return their surveys of the 151 kids who graduated during the two-year period selected for screening. Moreover, there were an additional 40 students who were also scheduled to graduate, but who did not. These latter students were not contacted.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
-------------- • -------------- • --------------

Offline Whooter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Way more kids praise programs than attack them, why is t
« Reply #196 on: June 30, 2010, 11:21:21 AM »
Quote from: "Ursus"
Quote from: "Whooter"
You can gain quite a bit of information by pulling a small sample. If you have 500 people and you interview a small sample of say 13, then there are statistical tables which will tell you how confident you can be in your results… i.e 90%, 95%, 99%, 99.9% etc. and the degree of error you can expect to be built into your results (i.e. +/- 5%). Thats the strength of statistics, you don't need to sample everyone to gain a perspective!

Ursus I held off in responding to give yourself a chance to edit your post. You must be very unfamiliar with statistics if you think using percentages is a flaw of some type. They go hand in hand.
No, I am not unfamiliar with statistics. When you have such a small sample size that 2 individuals giving different answers can skew the results by as much as 12% either way, I'd say that your conclusions carry a pretty large margin of error. Perhaps I have a bias for seeing my tables presented in terms of raw data so that I can determine that for myself. I can always use a calculator to get those pretty percentages!  :D

Those are arguments you need to take up with Shapiro.  Maybe she can provide the tables or explain to you why they are not needed in her report.

Quote
Of course, the biggest flaw of that study is the highly skewed nature of the sample itself, which, by virtue of the method of selection, is not representative of the population it purports to speak for. Sure, a small sample number can give you an indication of what's going on in a larger population but... only IFF they are representative of that larger set.

In the Shapiro study, the 17 students surveyed were all preselected on the basis of (a) having actually graduated the program, as well as (b) deigning to return the survey in the first place. The ones who did return that survey may well have been highly motivated to do so, e.g., for reasons of satisfaction with their time in program. No surprise then, that Shapiro reported that they were.

If I recall correctly, there were well over a hundred students who did not return their surveys of the 151 kids who graduated during the two-year period selected for screening. Moreover, there were an additional 40 students who were also scheduled to graduate, but who did not. These latter students were not contacted.

Well you need to define the boundary conditions of the study.  If you are conducting a heart study you would want to follow only those people who completed the program (highly skewed).  If you were doing a study of the effects of a new drug you wouldnt want to include those who went off the drug early if you were measuring the effectiveness of a 30 day regimen.  The same applies to the Shapiro study.  They were very clear on how the population was gathered.  I believe we discussed the survey results earlier and found that it is typical to get a 25% - 35% response from surveys.  So the response is not off the radar.   People who return the surveys are those who have something to say and want to be included (whether good or bad).  I don’t see how this skews the data at all.

Look, people spoke out and Shapiro collected their responses.  Even if it were just one person we should listen to them.  What if a lone survivor came onto Fornits and said they were abused.  Should we just disregard the person because there are thousands of others who say otherwise or who have not responded at all?  I think we should step back and look at all sides and allow everyone’s opinion be heard.

You criticize her because she was a graduate student and isn’t savy enough to know the programs and what questions to ask.  But when we have a study done by someone who knows the programs and understands what questions to ask you try to discard this as a conflict of interest.  This shows that you may be disingenuous, Ursus, and are not really interested in the facts, rather you only willing to consider one side of the story.



...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Ursus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8989
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Way more kids praise programs than attack them, why is t
« Reply #197 on: June 30, 2010, 12:18:26 PM »
Quote from: "Whooter"
People who return the surveys are those who have something to say and want to be included (whether good or bad).
Folks who may very well have had something to say, and who, in all probability, may have had a higher likelihood of holding less sunny memories of their stay at Academy at Swift River, were conspicuously absent from the sample pool. These folk did not have the choice of returning or not returning the survey. They were not on the mailing list.

Quote from: "Whooter"
You criticize her because she was a graduate student and isn’t savy enough to know the programs and what questions to ask. But when we have a study done by someone who knows the programs and understands what questions to ask you try to discard this as a conflict of interest. This shows that you may be disingenuous, Ursus, and are not really interested in the facts, rather you only willing to consider one side of the story.
No. It is you who is disingenuous, and is not interested in the facts. You are so intoxicated with pushing your marketing spiels and pro-industry platitudes, come hell or high water, that you can't even keep track of who you're criticizing. It would appear you do not even care.

I have repeatedly stated that Shapiro being a student does not, in and of itself, to my mind at least, discount her data. She could have been a sophomore undergrad for all I cared. After all, there's some prof who oversaw her work. And while I'm sure that there are others who may agree with me on this particular point, I have yet to come across their posts, if indeed there are any. And yet, here ya are, calling me "disingenuous" for something I did not do.

Were you actually reading others' posts here for substance, rather than for opportune moments to slip in yet another blatant marketing pitch for Aspen Ed or similar pro-industry schmaltz, it is unlikely that you would have made this mistake. It is also not the first time you've made it with me, let alone with other posters, but I can't really speak for them.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
-------------- • -------------- • --------------

Offline DannyB II

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3273
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Way more kids praise programs than attack them, why is t
« Reply #198 on: June 30, 2010, 01:45:44 PM »
......
« Last Edit: March 27, 2011, 01:22:28 AM by DannyB II »
Stand and fight, till there is no more.

Offline Ursus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8989
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Way more kids praise programs than attack them, why is t
« Reply #199 on: June 30, 2010, 02:03:07 PM »
Yes'm. Let's have some FACTS (as opposed to perceptions) collected by that survey....  :D

    "Of the 49% of students who reported that they planned to be sober following graduation, 5% have been completely sober since they graduated..."[/list]
      "Despite the consensus that drug use in graduates has declined, since graduation, 64% have used marijuana, 12% mushrooms, 12% cocaine, 12% ecstasy, 6% acid, and 6% abused prescription drugs."[/list]

      Self-reporting is a dream, ain't it?? Life is all in the way ya "interpret it," facts be damned.
      « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
      -------------- • -------------- • --------------

      Offline Whooter

      • Newbie
      • *
      • Posts: 5513
      • Karma: +0/-0
        • View Profile
      Re: Way more kids praise programs than attack them, why is t
      « Reply #200 on: June 30, 2010, 02:41:10 PM »
      Quote from: "Ursus"
      Yes'm. Let's have some FACTS (as opposed to perceptions) collected by that survey....  :D

        "Of the 49% of students who reported that they planned to be sober following graduation, 5% have been completely sober since they graduated..."[/list]
          "Despite the consensus that drug use in graduates has declined, since graduation, 64% have used marijuana, 12% mushrooms, 12% cocaine, 12% ecstasy, 6% acid, and 6% abused prescription drugs."[/list]

          Self-reporting is a dream, ain't it?? Life is all in the way ya "interpret it," facts be damned.


          I am happy to see that you have accepted the study and are quoting from it, Ursus, it’s a big step.  There is a little information for everyone if you bother to read it and as you can see these kids have returned to a completely normal range after graduating, well except the 5% who haven't had a beer yet, but they will catch up.

          So much for the brainwashing theory, the study sort of tosses that out the window.  I would have guessed that “every” kid would have gone back and at least tested the waters a bit. The 5% who didn’t try a drink were probably living in a dry town or had no access to alcohol at all.   My daughter went back to her old friends after a few weeks of being home but found she had matured past their life style and found friends closer to her own goals of going to college.  So she partied initially too, but quickly found her own way and kept it in moderation.  If these kids were brainwashed they would have all stayed sober for 3 to 5 years until it wore off.

          Other discussion of interest:
          “Parents also found the following areas to have shown additional improvements (p ? .001): trouble making behavior at school, sexual promiscuity, desire to hurt oneself, the impact of alcohol use on daily life, the frequency of drug use, and the impact of drug use on daily life. Students had similar impressions of their own improvement. The frequency of smoking and alcohol use decreased (p ? .05) and the impact of alcohol on daily life also improved (p ? .01). Students found the following additional areas to have shown improvement (p ? .001): getting into trouble at school, skipping school, sexual promiscuity, frequency of drug use, and the impact of drug use on daily life. Twelve percent of ASR students had attempted suicide prior to treatment, and none reported attempting suicide after treatment.



          ...
          « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

          Offline Ursus

          • Newbie
          • *
          • Posts: 8989
          • Karma: +3/-0
            • View Profile
          Re: Way more kids praise programs than attack them, why is t
          « Reply #201 on: June 30, 2010, 02:49:55 PM »
          Quote from: "Whooter"
          I am happy to see that you have accepted the study and are quoting from it, Ursus, it's a big step.
          You are jumping to conclusions again. I guess the power points yet to be addressed today were beckoning with greater immediacy than logic ever can.
          « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
          -------------- • -------------- • --------------

          Offline DannyB II

          • Newbie
          • *
          • Posts: 3273
          • Karma: +5/-0
            • View Profile
          Re: Way more kids praise programs than attack them, why is t
          « Reply #202 on: June 30, 2010, 02:53:06 PM »
          Quote from: "Ursus"
          Yes'm. Let's have some FACTS (as opposed to perceptions) collected by that survey....  :D

            "Of the 49% of students who reported that they planned to be sober following graduation, 5% have been completely sober since they graduated..."[/list]
              "Despite the consensus that drug use in graduates has declined, since graduation, 64% have used marijuana, 12% mushrooms, 12% cocaine, 12% ecstasy, 6% acid, and 6% abused prescription drugs."[/list]

              Self-reporting is a dream, ain't it?? Life is all in the way ya "interpret it," facts be damned.


              So here we go again, Ursus you drank after you left Hyde, I also bet you smoked a joint. Everyone here on this Site practically, smokes pot and drinks. What is your point, you are drifting off again.
              Ursus if you just stop and realize that you lost this debate and submit, then you can move on. ;D
              « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
              Stand and fight, till there is no more.

              Offline Anne Bonney

              • Newbie
              • *
              • Posts: 5006
              • Karma: +0/-0
                • View Profile
              Re: Way more kids praise programs than attack them, why is t
              « Reply #203 on: July 07, 2010, 12:48:09 PM »
              Quote from: "Whooter"

              Danny, its another fornits sham,I have been around enough lawyers to know this guy isnt one.

               :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:


              You've GOT to be kidding, right??  You've been around here long enough to know about the suit against Virgil Miller Newton/Straight/KIDS and to know that Phil won and won big.

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAzfla_LUE0

              Phil Elberg and KIDS

              Phil Elberg is the veteran Newark, New Jersey, lawyer who took on Miller Newton and his controversial KIDS “tough love” teen rehab program. He has been a lawyer for 35 years with a specialty in medical malpractice. Elberg went to court against Miller Newton starting in the late 1990s, representing several former KIDS clients who had experienced horrific abuses. His suits have won $15 million (U.S.) in judgments and settlements. The U.S. Congress’s Government Accountability Office has cited his work in an investigation of American tough love programs.


              http://www.teenhelpindustry.info/

              Ex-employees sue boot camp accused of abuse

              By STEVE ROCK

              The Kansas City Star

              June 3, 2008

              Five former employees of a northwest Missouri boot camp where a child died in 2004 have sued for alleged malicious prosecution.

              The workers had been sued by Thayer Learning Center in a case that eventually was dropped. In that lawsuit, Thayer alleged that the ex-employees made false statements and false allegations to law-enforcement officials and others about activities at the camp.

              In the lawsuit filed Monday, the former employees allege that Thayer sued them to keep them and others quiet, describing the lawsuit against them as an attempt “to keep the truth about their facility secret.”

              The workers’ lawsuit also accuses Thayer of suing them “to hide from the appropriate authorities and parents the fact that … the usual methods used by (Thayer) did indeed and actually constitute child abuse.”

              The case filed in Caldwell County Circuit Court names Thayer Learning Center and the facility’s owner, Willa Bundy, as defendants.

              Bundy and an attorney for the center did not return phone calls Monday and Tuesday.

              Allegations of child abuse at Thayer — about 50 miles northeast of Kansas City in Kidder — came to light after Roberto Reyes, 15, died in November 2004, less than two weeks after enrolling.

              No charges were filed in connection with Roberto’s death, but the FBI recently conducted a preliminary investigation and sent its findings to the U.S. Department of Justice. Officials there are reviewing the case.

              Thayer officials have said that allegations of abuse were “ludicrous and false.”

              In its 2003 lawsuit, Thayer alleged that the workers made false statements to third parties about the center “physically abusing and harming its students” and accused them of violating written contracts by contacting parents, government agencies and law-enforcement officials to discuss specific students and school operations.

              Those contacts, Thayer alleged, forced the school to “have to continually … deny these false allegations” and caused the loss of potential students. Thayer dropped its lawsuit last month.

              In their lawsuit, the ex-employees said contractual agreements could not be used to prevent individuals from reporting abuse. They accuse Thayer of “covering up the fact that they had an unqualified and unsupervised staff engaging in child abuse.”

              Phil Elberg, a New Jersey attorney representing the plaintiffs, alleged by phone that Thayer’s 2003 lawsuit “was clearly intended to scare people into shutting up.”

              The plaintiffs did not specify a dollar amount but alleged that the center’s “outrageous” behavior “showed an evil motive” and therefore entitles them to exemplary damages in addition to actual damages, attorneys’ fees and “such other relief as the court deems just and proper.”

              Elberg said the plaintiffs — Nanette Burge and Candessa Williams of Gallatin, Mo.; Linda Glenn and Janet Traylor of Hamilton, Mo., and Regina Burge of Jamesport, Mo. — would not comment.

              A 2005 investigation by The Kansas City Star showed that, between April 2003 and October 2005, at least seven people reported more than a dozen allegations of child abuse at Thayer to the Caldwell County Sheriff’s Office. A state investigative report obtained by The Star said “it appears that those responsible for the safety … of Roberto Reyes failed to recognize his medical distress and to provide access to appropriate medical evaluation and/or treatment.”

              In a wrongful-death lawsuit filed in 2005, Roberto’s parents alleged that the teenager would have lived had he received competent medical care in a timely manner and that he was dragged, hit, placed in solitary confinement and “forced to lay in his own excrement for extended periods” of time.

              In court filings, Thayer denied those and other allegations. The two sides settled in March 2006 for slightly more than $1 million.

              To reach Steve Rock, call 816-234-4338 or send e-mail to [email protected].


              Quote
              First of all lawyers like to discuss anything and everything, ad nauseum.  Secondly every lawyer I have ever known likes to sit down at the table eyeball to eyeball and have a discussion.  They don’t freak out because someone at the table isn't wearing a name tag and then start talking out of the sides of their mouth.  If he really is who he says he is then he is probably retired and has lost his edge.  He could have sent an assistant to get the names of the outstanding studies.


              Wow......you're even more of a prick than I originally thought.  Phil is indeed an attorney and a damned good one at that.  Take your foot out of your mouth long enough to realize that you are waaaaaayyyyyyy out of your league here.  He asked for the "studies" that YOU were referring to and refused to supply.  Why is that so difficult for you to do?  Are you afraid it wouldn't hold up to scrutiny from a real attorney??
              « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
              traight, St. Pete, early 80s
              AA is a cult http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult.html

              The more boring a child is, the more the parents, when showing off the child, receive adulation for being good parents-- because they have a tame child-creature in their house.  ~~  Frank Zappa

              Offline Whooter

              • Newbie
              • *
              • Posts: 5513
              • Karma: +0/-0
                • View Profile
              Re: Way more kids praise programs than attack them, why is t
              « Reply #204 on: July 07, 2010, 01:24:05 PM »
              Quote from: "Anne Bonney"


              Wow......you're even more of a prick than I originally thought.  Phil is indeed an attorney and a damned good one at that.  Take your foot out of your mouth long enough to realize that you are waaaaaayyyyyyy out of your league here.  He asked for the "studies" that YOU were referring to and refused to supply.  Why is that so difficult for you to do?  Are you afraid it wouldn't hold up to scrutiny from a real attorney??

              Of course I know who he is.  I have seen Mitt Romney posting on here also, Miller Newton and few dead guys.  But my gut tells me that Mitt is a tad busy to be posting here .......... I know lawyers are typically direct with people.  If he had wanted studies from "me" he would have asked "me" for them.  He wouldnt have pretended there was someone else in the room or maybe he would have sent his assistant.



              ...
              « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

              Offline Anne Bonney

              • Newbie
              • *
              • Posts: 5006
              • Karma: +0/-0
                • View Profile
              Re: Way more kids praise programs than attack them, why is t
              « Reply #205 on: July 07, 2010, 02:03:03 PM »
              Quote from: "Whooter"
              If he had wanted studies from "me" he would have asked "me" for them.  


              He did.  And you still refused.  

              How 'bout this.....what if I ask you really, really nicely?  

              Dear Mr. Reuben:

              You've previously written about and refer often to "studies" that have been done that prove the success and effectiveness of programs involved in the TTI (especially Aspen Ed).  Please, oh pretty please with cherries on top will you most kindly post said so-called "study" that you keep referring to?  Surely it can stand up to the scrutiny, right?  And in case I truly did miss it, please direct me to the thread where it is so that I may read it for myself.

              Point of clarification.  I'm asking for the actual study, not someone's "opinion" or "approval" of it.  The study itself please.

              Thank you in advance for your assistance with this most important matter.  I remain

              Sincerely,

              Anne Bonney

              P.S.  Does your income depend on or benefit directly or indirectly on the TTI?  And, please....none of the 'we all benefit from it in some ways if we have insurance' or some such shit.  You know what I'm asking.  You've demanded honesty from others here, I think it's time you "got honest" yourself.  G'head....it'll take a load off.
              « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
              traight, St. Pete, early 80s
              AA is a cult http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult.html

              The more boring a child is, the more the parents, when showing off the child, receive adulation for being good parents-- because they have a tame child-creature in their house.  ~~  Frank Zappa

              Offline SUCK IT

              • Posts: 411
              • Karma: +0/-0
                • View Profile
              Re: Way more kids praise programs than attack them, why is t
              « Reply #206 on: July 07, 2010, 02:34:44 PM »
              By posting Whooter's allegedly real name, I'm sure he feels threatened by your outing of his true identity on a forum of extremists. I suggest Whooter print out this thread, and show it to at least, but not more than 2 lawyers for their review.
              « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
              one day at a time

              Offline Troll Control

              • Newbie
              • *
              • Posts: 7391
              • Karma: +1/-0
                • View Profile
              Re: Way more kids praise programs than attack them, why is t
              « Reply #207 on: July 07, 2010, 02:41:09 PM »
              :feedtrolls:
              « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
              The Linchpin Link

              Whooter - The Most Prolific Troll Fornits Has Ever Seen - The Definitive Links
              **********************************************************************************************************
              "Looks like a nasty aspentrolius sticci whooterensis infestation you got there, Ms. Fornits.  I\'ll get right to work."

              - Troll Control

              Joel

              • Guest
              Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
              « Reply #208 on: July 07, 2010, 02:46:04 PM »
              Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
              « Last Edit: October 07, 2010, 03:57:22 PM by Joel »

              Offline Whooter

              • Newbie
              • *
              • Posts: 5513
              • Karma: +0/-0
                • View Profile
              Re: Way more kids praise programs than attack them, why is t
              « Reply #209 on: July 07, 2010, 03:16:04 PM »
              Quote from: "Anne Bonney"
              Quote from: "Whooter"
              If he had wanted studies from "me" he would have asked "me" for them.  


              He did.  And you still refused.  

              How 'bout this.....what if I ask you really, really nicely?  

              Dear Mr. Reuben:

              You've previously written about and refer often to "studies" that have been done that prove the success and effectiveness of programs involved in the TTI (especially Aspen Ed).  Please, oh pretty please with cherries on top will you most kindly post said so-called "study" that you keep referring to?  Surely it can stand up to the scrutiny, right?  And in case I truly did miss it, please direct me to the thread where it is so that I may read it for myself.

              Point of clarification.  I'm asking for the actual study, not someone's "opinion" or "approval" of it.  The study itself please.

              Thank you in advance for your assistance with this most important matter.  I remain

              Sincerely,

              Anne Bonney

              P.S.  Does your income depend on or benefit directly or indirectly on the TTI?  And, please....none of the 'we all benefit from it in some ways if we have insurance' or some such shit.  You know what I'm asking.  You've demanded honesty from others here, I think it's time you "got honest" yourself.  G'head....it'll take a load off.

              First of all, Anne, The man never asked me for any studies, whoever he was.

              secondly, if it upsets you that people are going to post your identity or find out where you live why do you take enjoyment out of trying to expose other peoples real names?  If someone here found out where you lived wouldnt it bother you if your information were posted here like you seem to be trying to do?



              ...
              « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »