Independent Study Shows Success.

[Whooter]

• And, how many years has this "study" been out?

I believe they presented it to the APA in 2006.  It may have come out before then, I dont have an exact date.

It looks like 4 years.



...

[Anne Bonney]

*I* find it noteworthy that neither Behrens nor Aspen has been able to get it published anywhere. That's when it gets some peer review, lol. Maybe they already tried submitting it and... no one wanted it!

Now, there are some publications where you can pay to have your studies published, but there are still certain STANDARDS to be met by the material in question...

 :notworthy:

[Whooter]

What would it gain them if they had the study published?  We dont know if they even pursued this path or not.  From a business perspective it might make more sense to use the study as marketing material vs getting it published.

I am not sure what is involved in the whole process so I couldnt speak as to why they took the path they did.



...

[Ursus]

What would it gain them if they had the study published?

About a 50-fold increase in credibility as far as said results were concerned. The fact that it has not been published, even though they try to present it as if it was (with all the glossy graphs and the like), actually counts against them with savvy readers given that it has been four years and that event simply hasn't happened.

We dont know if they even pursued this path or not.  From a business perspective it might make more sense to use the study as marketing material vs getting it published.

What planet did YOU come from? Are you trying to imply that that these two uses are mutually exclusive? Gah-LEEEEEE. You can bet yer liver-bellied behind that if that study were actually published, that fact would be even more emblazoned on all their marketing propaganda.

[Whooter]

What would it gain them if they had the study published?

About a 50-fold increase in credibility as far as said results were concerned. The fact that it has not been published, even though they try to present it as if it was (with all the glossy graphs and the like), actually counts against them with savvy readers given that it has been four years and that event simply hasn't happened.

We dont know if they even pursued this path or not.  From a business perspective it might make more sense to use the study as marketing material vs getting it published.

What planet did YOU come from? Are you trying to imply that that these two uses are mutually exclusive? Gah-LEEEEEE. You can bet yer liver-bellied behind that if that study were actually published, that fact would be even more emblazoned on all their marketing propaganda.

I actually dont see it that way.  If the study had been published I think it would catch the eye of professionals but it wouldnt make a difference with parents.  Most parents would see the study with the same level of credibility whether it were published or not.

If these programs were being referred to by more professionals then I think they would go after this market, get the study published and get their name under the noses of these professionals.  
The key is to know who your customer is and market specifically to them.



...

[Dysfunction Junction]

What would it gain them if they had the study published?

About a 50-fold increase in credibility as far as said results were concerned. The fact that it has not been published, even though they try to present it as if it was (with all the glossy graphs and the like), actually counts against them with savvy readers given that it has been four years and that event simply hasn't happened.

We dont know if they even pursued this path or not.  From a business perspective it might make more sense to use the study as marketing material vs getting it published.

What planet did YOU come from? Are you trying to imply that that these two uses are mutually exclusive? Gah-LEEEEEE. You can bet yer liver-bellied behind that if that study were actually published, that fact would be even more emblazoned on all their marketing propaganda.

This is what I said all along.  If this work was worth anything scientifically it would have been peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal.  That fact that it was not and that the follow up at one year was done but the results were never released is really the smoking gun that the study is bunk and the follow up showed the opposite of what Aspen and Whooter claim.  Therefore they 86ed it and never showed it to anyone.

Beherens study = unpublished, unreviewed garbage.

[Whooter]

As far as we can see Aspen is quite content with not having their studies published.  I think they work well as a marketing boost and put forth the effort to publish the results would not place the results in front of the people who make a difference in their business.



...

[heretik]

What would it gain them if they had the study published?

About a 50-fold increase in credibility as far as said results were concerned. The fact that it has not been published, even though they try to present it as if it was (with all the glossy graphs and the like), actually counts against them with savvy readers given that it has been four years and that event simply hasn't happened.

We dont know if they even pursued this path or not.  From a business perspective it might make more sense to use the study as marketing material vs getting it published.

What planet did YOU come from? Are you trying to imply that that these two uses are mutually exclusive? Gah-LEEEEEE. You can bet yer liver-bellied behind that if that study were actually published, that fact would be even more emblazoned on all their marketing propaganda.

As I said before Whooter, "everytime you post/speak you leave no doubt". You have no idea just what you want to say. Try this, shut yourself down and try to listen. There are great teachers here willing to help but you must be quiet and be willing to learn.

[Gonzotherapy]

Ha,Ha,Ha Thats funny..... Good luck with finals, we can see that you are still learning.  Study hard my boy and keep your mind open.  I think you will find that the more you learn and the more educated you become the more you will realize how little you know.  Once you start to realize this or reach a certain education level you will cease from calling other people stupid.  You tilted your hand with your attack as you will soon learn as you gain knowledge.



...

After I finish with my BA I plan on going to law school. Trust me Whootbag, you do not want to wish me luck. Also I can guarantee that my level of education exceeds yours, and no matter how far I go, I will never cease to point out to stupid people that they are in fact stupid.

Intelligently pointing out your stupidity has been a complete waste of time. Of course, pointing out the obvious is just as wasteful, but is much less time consuming than systematically exposing the absence of intelligence oozing from your posts.

And regarding your Dr. friend. I noticed that you actually pointed out yourself.

What would it gain them if they had the study published?

We dont know if they even pursued this path or not.  From a business perspective it might make more sense to use the study as marketing material vs getting it published.

I actually dont see it that way.  If the study had been published I think it would catch the eye of professionals but it wouldnt make a difference with parents.  Most parents would see the study with the same level of credibility whether it were published or not.

If these programs were being referred to by more professionals then I think they would go after this market, get the study published and get their name under the noses of these professionals.  
The key is to know who your customer is and market specifically to them.



...

So after all your mad ravings about how this was a genuine unbiased study, you clearly state that it is just a marketing tool.

I will restate my earlier question, can you show me one study that was paid for by a company that ended up discrediting that company and caused it to lose business? Since this has never happened, it kind of destroys the credibility here don't you think? That last part was rhetorical, don't hurt yourself.

[Whooter]

After I finish with my BA I plan on going to law school. Trust me Whootbag, you do not want to wish me luck. Also I can guarantee that my level of education exceeds yours, and no matter how far I go, I will never cease to point out to stupid people that they are in fact stupid.

Intelligently pointing out your stupidity has been a complete waste of time. Of course, pointing out the obvious is just as wasteful, but is much less time consuming than systematically exposing the absence of intelligence oozing from your posts.

And regarding your Dr. friend. I noticed that you actually pointed out yourself.

Oh geesh, here we go again with another poster trying to point out how smart he is.  You should check with DJ before you start bragging about how smart you are.  He bragged for years about MBA’s and Phds until we checked and found out he was making it up.  He contradicted himself and edited posts all over the place to keep his lies straight.
So okay lets get it over with:  “You are smarter than me Gonzotherapy” .  Do you feel better?

So after all your mad ravings about how this was a genuine unbiased study, you clearly state that it is just a marketing tool.

It is an independent study with third party oversight, yes.  You just claimed a little further up how smart you are.  If you owned a company and had a study done of your business via customer feedback and it turned out to be below your expectations you would shove it in a drawer somewhere.  If it turned out to be great you would use it to further build your business.  Most people of average intelligence realize this.  Of course they are going to use this in their marketing.

The cars with 5 star crash ratings put that in their brochure.  The ones with 1 star ratings probably not so much, maybe they focus on their lower price in their commercials.
Do you see what I mean?

I will restate my earlier question, can you show me one study that was paid for by a company that ended up discrediting that company and caused it to lose business? Since this has never happened, it kind of destroys the credibility here don't you think? That last part was rhetorical, don't hurt yourself.

Why would someone advertise or present a study that makes a company look bad?  Wouldn’t you want to burn it?  Lower your price and hope you can stay afloat.  You paid for it.  Keep studying. Gonzo.



...

[Awake]

@ Whooter. I found myself feeling interested in some comments of yours saying  that today’s programs don’t contain the same kind of ‘brainwashing’ tactics (I prefer the term thought reform for certain reasons) and abuses that they did 30 yrs ago in programs like Seed and Straight.

But along with abusive programs like the Seed and Straight you have included Cedu in your list of program models you think have been sufficiently removed from the program mainstream, yet Cedu closed in 2005. 5 yrs ago is not a long time. May I ask what it is about Cedu that makes you personally consider it abusive?


.

[RobertBruce]

If it's published it's subject to further review and criticism. All the more reason they don't want it published. It's nothing more than an obvious advertisement full of junk science.

[Whooter]

If it's published it's subject to further review and criticism. All the more reason they don't want it published.

This is a good point, Bruce.  They may not want to go through the whole publishing process and then having to defend the study.  The board at Aspen might have voted down the funds to support the effort not seeing any return on investment.  That is another way to look at it.


 

It's nothing more than an obvious advertisement full of junk science.

Well I dont agree with you here, the study itself was solid.  They surveyed about 1,000 parents and their children.  the study was conducted by an independent research firm and they hired a review board to oversee the study and approve it.



...

[RobertBruce]

Well I dont agree with you here, the study itself was solid. They surveyed about 1,000 parents and their children. the study was conducted by an independent research firm and they hired a review board to oversee the study and approve it.

The marketing tool was done by a ed con who makes her living sending kids to be locked up in places like Aspen. I realize who I'm talking to when I ask this, but do you truly not see any conflict on interest in this?

[Whooter]

Well I dont agree with you here, the study itself was solid. They surveyed about 1,000 parents and their children. the study was conducted by an independent research firm and they hired a review board to oversee the study and approve it.

The marketing tool was done by a ed con who makes her living sending kids to be locked up in places like Aspen. I realize who I'm talking to when I ask this, but do you truly not see any conflict on interest in this?

I think that you want to see a problem with it because of your position on the industry.  I remember friends coming up with reasons why it was okay to still smoke cigarettes because most of the people conducting the cancer studies were doctors and therefore had a conflict of interest.  Many worked in the medical industry prior to being involved in the studies. "These guys worked with smokers for christs sake!" they would say, "Of course they would find health issues with smoking!"  
The flaw in your argument is that the study was overseen by WIRB which is a review board which looks specifically for conflict of interests that that would bias the study.

I remember presenting a study by a student from Colgate University and the responses on fornits were :"The girl has no program experience how would she know what questions to ask?"  lol
Do you see what I mean?



...