Author Topic: Way more kids praise programs than attack them, why is that?  (Read 30170 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Joel

  • Guest
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
« Reply #30 on: March 01, 2010, 06:58:20 PM »
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
« Last Edit: October 07, 2010, 07:01:25 AM by Joel »

Offline Whooter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Way more kids praise programs than attack them, why is that?
« Reply #31 on: March 01, 2010, 07:35:48 PM »
Quote from: "Joel"
Quote
The rating system would not be constructed to insure the safety of children, like you said this would be impossible. Just like the rating system for the movie industry cannot insure that kids will not be scared or harmed. But they at least do the best they can. The rating system would help to guide parents to make a better decision.  If, through your experience, you feel Tranquility Bay is a safer and less abusive place for a child than ASR or Aspen Ranch then your information would be part of the equation which builds the rating system and this would be passed onto parents who visit Fornits. This wouldn’t have any effect on the programs themselves at least this wouldn’t be the initial intent.

Whooter,

Rating systems are useless because they don't reflect what takes place behind the scenes.  There are other reasons.

Hey, Joel, its okay.  I respect your opinion.  I personally think a rating system is better and safer than just telling parents that all programs are the same.



...
« 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 that?
« Reply #32 on: March 01, 2010, 09:21:35 PM »
Quote from: "Joel"
Accreditation is a selling gimmick.
Also for insurance purposes. It behooves a program to qualify for health insurance payments since it broadens the spectrum of clients it can enroll.
« 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 that?
« Reply #33 on: March 01, 2010, 09:29:24 PM »
Quote from: "Whooter"
The rating system would not be constructed to insure the safety of children, like you said this would be impossible. Just like the rating system for the movie industry cannot insure that kids will not be scared or harmed. But they at least do the best they can. The rating system would help to guide parents to make a better decision.
Now what would happen if fornits had a rating system with which to access the credibility of its posters?  :D



Jes' sayin' ...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
-------------- • -------------- • --------------

Offline FemanonFatal2.0

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 548
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Way more kids praise programs than attack them, why is that?
« Reply #34 on: March 02, 2010, 01:12:10 AM »
Quote from: "Whooter"
Quote from: "Inculcated"
Which studies were those again? Does the “getting out what they can” necessitate turning off critical thinking and not taking into account factors like how the study was run or who funded the study etc.?

If you were new here I would re post them.  But we all know the studies are valid but rejected here on fornits because of the outcome, let’s not fool each other.  There are plenty of studies which show the effectiveness of various programs.  Even though some of the studies were conducted by research facilities people here rejected them because researchers within the firm had prior experience with the industry they were studying.  If you were going to fund a study of your business would you choose a research firm who had no experience with what you do or one that was familiar with your type of business?

I don't think you could find any research firm that doesn't employ people with experience in the area of the research they are conducting.  We all know this but I think it helps everyone here justify ignoring the facts and maintain a white knuckle grip on the idea that programs never help anybody...

I'm not even going to bother derailing on the qualities Whooter would look for in a program... but I would like to get some clarification on this "research study" subject.
Forgive me for being a bit out of the loop here... I'm reminded of this topic but can't place the name of the school that did this study. Maybe you can fill in that blank and I'll go read into it before I give you my personal opinion but generally, I believe it's common knowledge when a "study" is being conducted by a biased party result will surely vary in favor of the party who is paying to have the research done.
Isn't  that just about the same as fixing an election? Obviously the school prescreens  the participating "subjects" with their opinions already in mind and picked specifically for those reasons, and they also provide the criteria in which the researcher will report on... there is just so much room for tampering that there is no way I could really take any outcome as an absolute FACT.

However, first let's talk about a different kind of study, how about the clinical research that has been done on "behavior modification" and particularly Aversion Therapy. Such practices have been criticized for many years by licensed and knowledgeable professionals, some that have dedicated their careers to this topic. One that particularly comes to mind is the Stanford Prison Experiment, which is the ultimate cautionary tale for the kinds of methods that are readily practiced in MOST of the BM facilities. Considering that this study was created in a prison there are a few areas that may not correlate with conditions in a BM facility, and more importantly many other methods that are unique to this industry that have not been properly studied but I believe the outcome of facts stay constant... when you create this kind of an environment, things often become corrupt  and abusive not because initial intentions aren't good but because cruelty is an unfortunate aspect of human nature.

The problem is that the system currently set in place, or more accurately a majority of the techniques employed by these places are antagonistic of this particular nature, in many ways bringing the abusiveness out in people even despite good intentions. Putting it simply, and maybe solely from my experience but these methods are actually teaching people that it is okay to hurt someone as long as you can justify it, and in the same way, accepting abuse because someone forces you to believe you deserve it. I just don't think that's a healthy way of thinking... and I find Ursus' quote to actually refer to this subject more so than to you personally, because in the grand scheme of things the whole doctrine of the BM industry is really just this big fat elaborate lie that everyone involved is just trained to adopt, leaving no breathing room for analytical thinking.

Lets also touch on another point you mentioned here, violence. I know that there are varying degrees of what is referred to as "restraint" in programs, even some that employ a strict hands off policy, but in my experience violence was something they used as part of their everyday behavior modification strategy. What it really boils down to is that programs employ a type of "negative enforcement" or punishment system which effectively keeps kids in line for fear of being physically, emotionally or even sometimes sexually assaulted. Notice I said the word "effectively", and I think this explains why a program and a handful of supporters may come to the conclusion that a program like this would technically "work" because it does produce a result... mind you a cruel and misguided result but a result none the less.
So herein lies that age old question, that in which both sides have been warring over for some time now... Do programs really work?

However  one also needs to question what kind of long term effects such reprogramming can create... Can the fear of being punished by a program really carry on into adult decision making? To effectively warp the perception skills of the subject to the point where they will always do as they are told or does it actually create a lingering and global sense of fear of authority. However in my experience, I've only seen it push kids with already vulnerable psyche (as many troubled and or addicted teens are) into a complete adverse reaction. I think if a real study was done in this area the actual outcomes would be so varied that one would simply need to succumb to the conclusion that every child is different and will have different psychological reactions to the same treatment.

Common sense would lead most to realize that using the one-program-fits-all approach is typically not going to "work" for a minority of the subjects in placement, that would be expected in any similar setting but add to that the massive amount of mismanagement that tend to plague these places, and you're going to end up with a significant majority of the said public that are simply being imprisoned and not being rehabilitated. You may find a few here or there that can accredit their time in the program as the defining moment they stopped being a "bad kid" but can you really say that it was these draconian methods that created that change or might the same result occurred if the same child were sent on a "therapy cruise" for a similar span of time? Considering that the only option these kids had was to abstain from their previous troublesome behaviors, what knowledge would they really have about making responsible decisions when they got back into the real world?

None, absolutely no comprehensive skills are taught, (which in my opinion completely defeats the purpose of a program in the first place but thats neither here nor there) and that is why I am of the opinion that the program doesn't work because it does not teach. It does not instill healthy life skills and it does not give them any practice at making any choices on their own. Instead it just throws them out on the street and says... "not our problem" and this is the main reason so many survivors have quickly turned back to drugs and many other unhealthy behaviors after leaving and even graduating the program. Once the initial threat of being sent back to the program is at bay, and when there are no viable coping skills or will power techniques to fall back on its really only a matter of time before there is a relapse.

Another point I'd like to touch on before I will have to publish this novel is what exactly constitutes a success story? and how would you know the difference between a genuine program's influence and the general progression of maturity? In many instances staying "sober" is the only criteria that is considered, especially in home-made consumer reports like that of the aforementioned "research studies". Well how would you go about judging someone's personal life 1, 5 and 20 years after treatment? Do short periods of relapse count? Would the subject be assumed to have been a full blown addict at the time treatment was sought? Are any pre-existing mental disorders factored in? Can one become a moderate user of legal or even moderately illegal substances and still be considered a success? I don't think that any paid general researcher would have half the amount of insight into this particular category in order to factor in all the grey areas nor the resources to conduct such an elaborate study. No, the only outcome to such a report could only be based on whether the provided subjects are either back on  the bottle or not and despite the obvious fact that the program would not be willing or able to provide a large enough populous in order to properly report an accurate statistic, the problem remains that most people who were hurt or simply NOT helped would not be asked to participate in such a study.

 I'd LOVE to see a proper research study done, in fact I recently conducted a mini survey myself, centralized on Darrington Academy by simply reaching out to former students on MySpace and facebook and asking them a few basic questions. I did my best to make the initial group invites as un-biased as possible, citing that although the page is affiliated with an advocate group, all opinions and personal experiences would be respected and encouraged to be discussed. The outcome was an absolute landslide in unsatisfaction. Now does that small percentage I could reach and hear from speak for all of the people who have ever attended Darrington Academy? No, and although it's obvious that there were some problems, considering it was investigated and shut down and Rich Darrington himself has been charged with assault, a generalized study like this would simply not be able to provide an accurate statistic that would lead me to accept that outcome as absolute fact. Because even with insurmountable evidence that a program like this was poorly run and inadequately staffed, there are still those, and many I may add who believe that the program in one way or another helped them.
However I think this speaks of the problem we frequently run into... the subjects perception of their experience. Some can accurately identify that some if not most methods used in the program were un-ethical at best and downright torturous in some cases. However some maintain that the end justifies the means in that despite the backward sedu-psychological methods used against them, they were in some way able to get something good from it. Contrary to what you may believe I can applaud the optimism, but I have always maintained that despite these good people's capacity to forgive, (or in many cases just ignorance) there is no justification for continuing to administer a broken system and furthermore have the audacity to market it as some miracle cure. I honestly just want to shake these people and plead with them just to WAKE UP and face the reality of what has been going on here, it truly baffles me that some people can be so blind or too weak and stubborn to see the truth.

well I'll just conclude with this, unless there is a comprehensive study done, not only on the industry but the underlying psychological methods used in these programs I believe it would be foolish for any of us to take anything else seriously, and especially naive to assume that the kind of marketing scam they are referring to are actual "facts". Actually, thats pretty absurd. lol :beat:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
[size=150]When Injustice Becomes Law
...Rebellion Becomes Duty...[/size]




[size=150]WHEN THE RAPTURE COMES
CAN I HAVE YOUR FLAT SCREEN?[/size]

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Way more kids praise programs than attack them, why is that?
« Reply #35 on: March 02, 2010, 02:00:05 AM »
Funny I did a little mini survey on Darrington,Hidden Lake and Straight here in Georgia with in state folks every testimony was negative so far,  some worse then others. I am not done so I will refrain from saying anymore but I couldn't resist some comment.
 My novice study will be with specifically Georgia residents that attended these treatment facilities. Like I said I am a novice at best and these folks will know who I am and what I am trying to accomplish. I have already shunned about 30% of the folks I've interviewed for various reasons most for inauthentic stories. Facts and emotions are hard to divide sometimes...Sometimes I don't think it matters.
 :shamrock:  :shamrock:
Danny.....
« 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 that?
« Reply #36 on: March 02, 2010, 08:23:31 AM »
Wow that is a novel, FemanonFatal.  Thank you for responding to this subject.  There are so many people out there who just reject these studies out of hand or out of sheer ignorance because they don’t like the outcome and make comments like the researchers were paid off  etc., without providing evidence
Quote from: "FemanonFatal2.0"
Forgive me for being a bit out of the loop here... I'm reminded of this topic but can't place the name of the school that did this study. Maybe you can fill in that blank and I'll go read into it before I give you my personal opinion but generally, I believe it's common knowledge when a "study" is being conducted by a biased party result will surely vary in favor of the party who is paying to have the research done. Isn't that just about the same as fixing an election?

There absolutely is a bias in everyone, I do agree with you.  From the doctors who conducted the Framingham heart study to the person on fornits telling of their own experience inside a program.  Each person will be biased by their personal experiences and ties to the subject at hand.  According to many peoples logic, who have responded here on fornits regarding studies, heart studies should be conducted by people who are not connected to the medical field and have no medical experience at all.  Maybe auto mechanics/engineers can conduct heart studies and the doctors can conduct crash tests on cars.  That would certainly take out some of the bias.
 
Do you think studies of the teen help industry should be conducted by people who don’t have any knowledge of what they do?  Many people here have a hard time with research being conducted by people who have past ties to the industry they are studying.

As to the election comment, I don’t think it is like fixing an election at all unless when a survivor, for example, is telling their story they are so pissed that they omit anything positive and embellish their story in an effort to make the program appear as bad as possible.  Then maybe I could see your point.  But how many people here do you think would be anti-program enough to spin a bias into their story?  I don’t think it would be any more biased then a story from a kid who did well in a program.

As far as research facilities go, corporations pay these research firms to conduct research on the effectiveness of what they do.  This is done everyday on thousands of corporations.  Other than getting the government to pick up the tab I don’t know who else would work for free.  You worked for free when you conducted your study on Facebook but like you said you yourself must be biased because you have connections to the industry so your results need to be tossed out also because the questions may have been biased and the population wasn’t random enough possibly?

Quote from: "FemanonFatal2.0"
Obviously the school prescreens the participating "subjects" with their opinions already in mind and picked specifically for those reasons, and they also provide the criteria in which the researcher will report on... there is just so much room for tampering that there is no way I could really take any outcome as an absolute FACT.

I have never seen where this has been documented or written about.  Where did you get this info?

Quote from: "FemanonFatal2.0"
well I'll just conclude with this, unless there is a comprehensive study done, not only on the industry but the underlying psychological methods used in these programs I believe it would be foolish for any of us to take anything else seriously, and especially naive to assume that the kind of marketing scam they are referring to are actual "facts". Actually, thats pretty absurd. Lol

So based on your conclusion there isn’t anything we can believe because we are all biased and we shouldn’t take any of what we hear about programs seriously until a proper study is conducted, i.e. Everyone is pushing their own personal story.

So, in my opinion, until a proper study “is” agreed upon by people here and  performed we need to rely on the studies that are made available, the kids accounts of their time spent inside a program and feedback from parents who had kids go through the process.

I think this is where we are at right now.  We just all need to decide which venues are the most reliable and base our decisions on them.  This is probably an area where we can most closely agree.



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

Offline Awake

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 409
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Way more kids praise programs than attack them, why is that?
« Reply #37 on: March 02, 2010, 10:14:36 AM »
Quote from: "Whooter"
From the doctors who conducted the Framingham heart study to the person on fornits telling of their own experience inside a program.  Each person will be biased by their personal experiences and ties to the subject at hand.  According to many peoples logic, who have responded here on fornits regarding studies, heart studies should be conducted by people who are not connected to the medical field and have no medical experience at all.  

Do you think studies of the teen help industry should be conducted by people who don’t have any knowledge of what they do?  

..

No that is your logic that you run to. The major difference that you seem to have a hard time keeping in context is that

people in heart studies study hearts. The therapists (or people simply acting like them) in programs proclaim to be experts in how to be 'you'. They think they know how to tell you correctly be yourself. You want to take the 'you' out of self evaluation. You blame personal bias for distorting a viewpoint on a proffession that is focused on the idea of 'individual' and 'self'.

Don't you see how your justifications are in error?

or in your own words, 'Do you think studies of the teen help industry should be conducted by people who don’t have any knowledge of what they do? '
« 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 that?
« Reply #38 on: March 02, 2010, 10:44:07 AM »
Quote from: "Awake"
No that is your logic that you run to. The major difference that you seem to have a hard time keeping in context is that

people in heart studies study hearts.

Agreed … “people in heart studies study hearts “ and people (in research firms) who conduct studies for programs study Programs.  They don’t work for programs, they work for research firms.  Some may have a background working in a program the same as the doctors that study hearts may have a background in the particular field of medicine.

Quote
The therapists (or people simply acting like them) in programs proclaim to be experts in how to be 'you'. They think they know how to tell you correctly be yourself. You want to take the 'you' out of self evaluation. You blame personal bias for distorting a viewpoint on a proffession that is focused on the idea of 'individual' and 'self'.

Don't you see how your justifications are in error?

No, Not sure how this ties in with “Study Results” or the research firms.  The research firms look at the “results” of a business and measure their output.  They don’t work with the children to try to help them or perform therapy on them.  This would alter the study results.  The same as the people studying hearts are not going to interfere with the doctor patient relationship and suggest a patient exercise more.  They just focus on the study itself.  I think you confused one of the concepts I laid out.

Quote
or in your own words, 'Do you think studies of the teen help industry should be conducted by people who don’t have any knowledge of what they do? '

Yes, I think we agree here, I don’t think you would want people with no background in the industry doing a study on it the same as you wouldn’t want a person without any medical background performing a heart study.  It is helpful to have some knowledge of what the firm they are studying does.



...
« 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 that?
« Reply #39 on: March 02, 2010, 02:11:40 PM »
Quote from: "FemanonFatal2.0"
I would like to get some clarification on this "research study" subject.
Forgive me for being a bit out of the loop here... I'm reminded of this topic but can't place the name of the school that did this study. Maybe you can fill in that blank and I'll go read into it before I give you my personal opinion

FemanonFatal, Here is one of the Studies that was being referred to in the earlier post:

Between August 2003 and January 2006, Aspen Education Group participated in the nation's first large-scale study of its kind, measuring the effectiveness of Aspen's private residential programs for teens and their families. The study collected survey responses, both at program admission and then again at discharge, from 993 young people ages 13-18, enrolled in Aspen's residential programs. The study also collected responses from their parents or guardians. The following are highlights that might prove valuable in evaluating your decision to enroll your child in a private residential program.

8 out of 10 teens who came to Aspen residential programs previously participated in individual and/or group therapy.

The majority of teens entering the program were experiencing emotional problems that minimized the individual’s own control of their feelings. Teens were often experiencing high levels of:

Anxiety
Depression
Attention Problems
One Year After Discharge
Teens and parents both reported that the emotional issues the teen experienced were normal. In other words, they were behaving just like any other typical teenager.


Link to Study



...
« 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 that?
« Reply #40 on: March 02, 2010, 02:36:15 PM »
Quote from: "Whooter"
Link to Study
:roflmao: "Funding for this study was provided by Aspen Education Group"

The above link makes you wade through 'bout two pages of Aspen's summary of the "study" before you come to another link, promising you access to the actual study (download) ... but which merely yields yet another glossy Aspen brochure, essentially a repeat of the same material.

In fine print at the bottom of one of these pages of marketing hype, you are informed that you need to contact Aspen in order to get more information or details about the study.

At NO point was I able to ascertain the identity of the researchers, where the research was conducted, and in what eminent peer-reviewed scientific publication I would be able to find said material. This would have been standard protocol had these results been anywhere near up to snuff.

Perhaps I wasn't looking hard enough.  :D

I say, "Bogus schmogus, baby!"
« 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 that?
« Reply #41 on: March 02, 2010, 03:17:40 PM »
Yeah looks like you missed it Ursus its at the bottom of page one... same size print as the rest of the page and they even highlighted it so it pops out of the page.  Here take another look!
Link to Aspen study

To read more about this study, visit Canyon Research & Consulting: Independent research company that conducted the study Western Institutional Review Board: Independent board that approved research and audited the study.


Funding for this study was provided by Aspen Education Group.

Who else would you expect to step in and pay for the study?  You dont seem to be too familiar with independent research firms, Ursus.

Here, Take a look at what WIRB provided (I dont think they work for free either):


The study was subjected to oversight by the Western Institutional Review Board.  This review board insures that the study was conducted in compliance with the Department of Health and Human Services and investigates and resolves such concerns as:

Financial conflict of interest.

The investigator or study staff will be considered to have a financial conflict of interest if the investigator, investigator’s immediate family, the study staff, or the study staff’s family
•  Has a financial interest in the research with value that cannot be readily determined (for example, stock that is not publicly traded);
•  Has a financial interest in the research with value that exceeds $10,000 other than payments for conducting the trial as outlined in the clinical trials agreement;
•  Has a financial interest in the research with value that exceeds 5% ownership;
•  Has received or will receive compensation with value that may be affected by the outcome of the study;
•  Has a proprietary interest in the research, such as a patent, trademark, copyright, or licensing agreement;
•  Has received or will receive payments other than payment for the conduct of clinical research from the sponsor that exceed $10,000 in the last 365 days;
•  Is an employee of the agency or company sponsoring the research;
•  Is on the board of directors of the sponsor;
•  Has a financial interest that requires disclosure to the sponsor or funding source; or
•  Has any other financial interest that the investigator believes may interfere with his or her ability to protect subjects
.

http://www.wirb.com/



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

Joel

  • Guest
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
« Reply #42 on: March 02, 2010, 05:37:19 PM »
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
« Last Edit: October 07, 2010, 07:02:28 AM by Joel »

Offline Whooter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Way more kids praise programs than attack them, why is that?
« Reply #43 on: March 02, 2010, 05:54:37 PM »
Quote from: "Joel"
Whooter,

You support Aspen from what I've read in your replies.  Do you refer children to Aspen type programs and/or assist families who want to place their child in  a therapeutic  boarding school?  I ask these questions in lieu of your support for Aspen.

No, Joel, I dont. If a family contacts me I tell them my experience (which is with Aspen programs) and would refer them to get in touch with Aspen because I know they were successful with my daughter the same as yourself or anyone else would if they had a good experience.



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

Joel

  • Guest
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
« Reply #44 on: March 02, 2010, 06:17:38 PM »
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
« Last Edit: October 07, 2010, 07:03:09 AM by Joel »