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:
