Do you think thought reform programs create arrogance with the peer group/level structure, or do arrogant people simply take better to the program environment? I ask because I have noticed all survivors of the TTI I've ever seen on the internet who defend/justify their programs, regardless of what their STATED attitudes toward them are , inevitably reveal themselves to be confrontational, condescending programmees, who will spout program lingo/thought terminating cliches whenever their beloved program is the least bit threatened by a comment on the internet. In some of the program groups I've belonged to if someone suggested they suffered some long term negative consequences of the program like PTSD, family trouble, etc. they would get immediately pounced on by these people telling them "LOOKS LIKE YOU LEARNED ACCOUNTABILITY!" "WHY DON'T YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU DID TO GET SENT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!" "YOU'RE PLAYING VICTIM, GET OVER IT!" "WHY DON'T YOU TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELF AND MOVE ON!"
That's a very interesting question. One that I have pondered myself over the years, through an evolving set of lenses, hence yielding an evolving set of conclusions and insights, with the later ones not necessarily superseding or canceling out the earlier ones.
That is, it's complex. I don't think there is a simple or easy answer to this.
In general, I don't think these programs really do much about changing a person's essential character. That's kinda more of a long term metamorphosis, although there can be, and I'm sure that there
are, exceptions. Kids at Hyde who tried to live their lives by common sense ethics or some moral code still did and do just that; kids who were master manipulators and pathological liars continued and continue to be ... just that. Program or no program.
That said, one thing that
group peer pressure, as it is practiced in programs, can do and does quite well, when it's
directed to confront and inflict ridicule and moral repudiation on individuals deemed in need of changing their attitude or conforming their behavior to be more in line with the goals of the program, is
to teach the process and practice of the invalidation and disparagement of thoughts, beliefs, and experiences not in keeping with that of the group. This "education" seems to adsorb to kids' psyches regardless of what "the group" is then or later defined or understood to be.
This cuts both ways, of course.
The other weird thing I noticed is that a lot of them claim they didn't like the program, that they thought the thought reform aspects were stupid and didn't have an affect on them, and that they invariably claim to have MOVED ON. I don't remember ever being specifically told to MOVE ON after the program and not think about it, although we were told to do that with rape, childhood abuse, etc. What it seems to do is actually convinced the programmee that nobody cares about their suffering, that the "mature" way to deal with bad memories is to not think about them/pretend they didn't affect you. That ends up protecting the program, because if it takes 5-10 years (or longer, or never) for a person to shake those messages off, they get away with all the abuse by convincing kids to "move on" from it.
Geeezz... Ya sure you didn't go to Hyde? (Just kidding...) There is a fairly large contingent of Hyde School "survivors" who, although they express disgust over Hyde's hypocrisies and make endless fun of the kool-aid guzzlers...
also attack and ridicule anyone who doesn't share in their macho "if it doesn't kill me, it makes me stronger" mentality, as well as (and especially) anyone who thinks the place effected some
serious long term, perhaps even
permanent, damage on some kids.
"Move on," get over it already," "what could have
possibly been so bad," etc. These are the kinds of comments that are made about kids who were raped, kids who were physically assaulted, kids who suffered bone fractures and weren't given medical attention, kids who were denied their meds as a means of harassment and intimidation, kids who were labeled to be scapegoats of community ridicule, etc. etc. These so-called "survivors" are still
goose-stepping to the beat of 616 High Street (some of them in their 50s even), whether they know it or not. It's pretty sad.
It is also a pretty telling indictment of what entails a "success story" at Hyde School. Whatever happened to the concepts of empathy or tolerance of those different from us? What kind of world would Hyde create, if they could, where only the "unique potential" of those deemed compliant is recognized, yet others, no less deserving but who do not fall in line with the desired personality type, are branded as suffering from a "character disorder."
Essentially this is a chicken or egg question. Were people who felt they were superior to others before the program cling to it because it gave them an outlet to tear other people down, or did the program create these sad souls who then became attached to this way of relating to people and years later are still trying to justify their change to themselves?
My guess is that there are candidates for both of the above, as well as a range in between.