General Interest > Feed Your Head
Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
DannyB II:
--- Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction" ---"Study" vs "magazine article." Most people understand the difference. Studies are peer-reviewed if they are credible and magazine articles are fact-checked if they are credible.
The last post is a long song and dance that ultimately simply admits that there are no peer-reviewed published studies of the TTI, nor any clinical trials of their methods. Just read between the rhetoric. After forty or more years of operation, you'd think someone would want to answer their critics...but...no.
FWIW, there was no "independent oversight" of the industry whitepaper presented as a "study." There was only third party review of the questionaire questions. These were given to kids still in the program who risked not being allowed to leave if they said they weren't helped or didn't improve. The bias and flawed methodology of the so-called "study" are why it wasn't submitted for peer review as all serious studies are. This is also why no follow-up was done a year out either. With no reason to "fake it" the former attendees wouldn't reliably report what the "researcher" was fishing for. The whole thing is bogus on its face.
--- End quote ---
You have absolutely no evidence or actual on hands on person that can verify what your saying. This is just coming out of your head otherwise (made up) because it sounds good.
Bla Bla Bla........
DJ, you resort to the same tactics to prove your points, so please.
As far as your explanation of studies vs. mags, no kidding. This was not the point,
the point was, you readily accept Maia S. mag articles no problem yet you grill the
shit out of others, for articles they bring here.
Your a hypocrite, so just stop digging, set the shovel aside and climb out.
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction" ---"Study" vs "magazine article." Most people understand the difference. Studies are peer-reviewed if they are credible and magazine articles are fact-checked if they are credible.
The last post is a long song and dance that ultimately simply admits that there are no peer-reviewed published studies of the TTI, nor any clinical trials of their methods. Just read between the rhetoric. After forty or more years of operation, you'd think someone would want to answer their critics...but...no.
FWIW, there was no "independent oversight" of the industry whitepaper presented as a "study." There was only third party review of the questionaire questions. These were given to kids still in the program who risked not being allowed to leave if they said they weren't helped or didn't improve. The bias and flawed methodology of the so-called "study" are why it wasn't submitted for peer review as all serious studies are. This is also why no follow-up was done a year out either. With no reason to "fake it" the former attendees wouldn't reliably report what the "researcher" was fishing for. The whole thing is bogus on its face.
--- End quote ---
Sorry, DJ, but you cannot bury the facts. The study was independent and it was overseen by an independent third party. If you see flaws with this you need to contact the oversight committee and if they agree with you then you can come back and report it to us.
When your opinion is presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association like this study was then maybe it will carry some weight. But until then we need to go with the studies that are presently available.
...
psy:
Whooter. Once again you claim to have posted independent, peer reviewed studies without actually having done so. No program can honestly claim a 80% success rate and any one that does is lying. Any honest addiction professional will tell you that.
And you keep posting the Behrens study. Jesus christ. That's been blown to shreds time and time again. It wasn't independent. It was a study that was funded by Aspen and conducted by a former staffer who currently refers to Aspen programs. Can that get any further from independent?
Here's a post I have bookmarked blowing the study away:
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=28834&start=0
And let's get back to Maia. Great article. I don't agree with everything she said but mostly I agree. Programs can easily make bad habits worse by indoctrinating kids into the idea that such bad behaviors are a part of their being, a disease, and cannot be changed. It teaches that whatever you do in life, your ability or inability to avoid drugs/alcohol is not a choice but something that is fated to be by a higher power. It's a doctrine that teaches the futility of the exercise of free will. Like Maia says "fatalism". One is supposed to "let go and let god (interpreted through your program representative)" because the exercise of free will is futile. It gives kids an excuse to give into their desires because they are told they are beyond their control (without the holy program).
Because they're also told those who are on drugs cannot control their behavior and are not responsible (it's the disease), they're also encouraged to act out, knowing that later they can simply follow the steps and be absolved of their sins. Personal responsibility goes out the window. Healthy feelings of guilt over hurting others goes out the window. Any amends are a selfish act of self "healing" or self preservation rather than out of genuine remorse. It's sick. It's bad enough when people are duped into it. It's even worse when kids are forced into it and have this crap shoved into their heads which, as Maia points out, is causing very very real damage. The philosophy is poison.
**which no matter how much Maia wants to pretend, is fundamentally inseparable from AA and it's relatives.
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "psy" ---Whooter. Once again you claim to have posted independent, peer reviewed studies without actually having done so. No program can honestly claim a 80% success rate and any one that does is lying. Any honest addiction professional will tell you that.
And you keep posting the Behrens study. Jesus christ. That's been blown to shreds time and time again. It wasn't independent. It was a study that was funded by Aspen and conducted by a former staffer who currently refers to Aspen programs. Can that get any further from independent?
Here's a post I have bookmarked blowing the study away:
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=28834&start=0
--- End quote ---
You and a few others were not able to find any conflict of interest no matter how hard you tried. Your own link shows that, psy. Your "Blown to shreds" is in your mind. There was a third party oversight committee which watched over the study and insured there was no conflict of interest. If you feel you found one then you need to present your evidence to the committee in order to convince anyone outside of yourself and fornits. The study was presented at the APA convention. Once you have successfully argued your point in front of them and get the blessing of the oversight committee then you can come back and we will discuss the studies validity. But until then the study remains solid in everyones view.
Also this isn’t about addiction. These are kids, psy, 99% imo haven't had time to become fully addicted to anything. Some may have drug issues but addiction problems these should be addressed at rehabs where the kids can be properly detoxed, not Therapeutic programs or wilderness.
The study measures success of the kids getting back on track, into school and with their families. I think you might have misunderstood or misread.
...
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "psy" ---
And let's get back to Maia. Great article. I don't agree with everything she said but mostly I agree. Programs can easily make bad habits worse by indoctrinating kids into the idea that such bad behaviors are a part of their being, a disease, and cannot be changed. It teaches that whatever you do in life, your ability or inability to avoid drugs/alcohol is not a choice but something that is fated to be by a higher power. It's a doctrine that teaches the futility of the exercise of free will. Like Maia says "fatalism". One is supposed to "let go and let god (interpreted through your program representative)" because the exercise of free will is futile. It gives kids an excuse to give into their desires because they are told they are beyond their control (without the holy program).
Because they're also told those who are on drugs cannot control their behavior and are not responsible (it's the disease), they're also encouraged to act out, knowing that later they can simply follow the steps and be absolved of their sins. Personal responsibility goes out the window. Healthy feelings of guilt over hurting others goes out the window. Any amends are a selfish act of self "healing" or self preservation rather than out of genuine remorse. It's sick. It's bad enough when people are duped into it. It's even worse when kids are forced into it and have this crap shoved into their heads which, as Maia points out, is causing very very real damage. The philosophy is poison.
**which no matter how much Maia wants to pretend, is fundamentally inseparable from AA and it's relatives.
--- End quote ---
...... but to keep it in perspective, the group that was studied (at least in part) were kids who smoked pot and had a good relationship with their family.
In a 2003 paper, Jose Szapocznik, chair of the epidemiology and public-health department at the University of Miami, found that teens who used marijuana but still had healthy relationships with their families saw those relationships deteriorate — and their drug habits increase — when they were assigned to peer-therapy groups.
Many kids in programs today are struggling with family issues and not responding to local services. Their issues typically go beyond just smoking pot.
...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version