Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > The Troubled Teen Industry
Teen Trouble - Josh Shipp - EXPOSED
blombrowski:
I was actually expecting a little more from you. The one consistent motif throughout the industry is that young people should take accountability for their actions, and accept responsibility for the results that those actions bring.
Leaving aside the hypocrisy, and lack of role modeling on this issue, here's the danger in not publicly addressing the issue. While there are programs that have evolved, there are programs that most certainly have not. As I recall as recently as 2011 there was a Washington state based psychologist defending MBA's use of pulling tree trunks - he was defending a practice that the State of Oregon found to be abusive. Without a public discussion of what in 2013 is antiquated treatment, practicioners will continue use outdated methods. And I don't expect that the free market will be very effective in weeding those people out in a timely manner, for that very same reason that the profession hasn't declared it to be an antiquated technology.
It's not that I would expect the industry to flaggelate itself over its past abuses, it's that I would expect in light of everything that's happened over the last seven years, that there would be more of a paper trail of people who work in the parent choice industry talking about how the industry evolved, and exactly why it needed to evolve. Particularly, if we are to believe that the those who are now in their late 20's and 30's who talk about how they were abused as youth isn't indicative of where the field is today.
If you can point me to articles where this kind of critical analysis has occurred, it would be much appreciated.
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "blombrowski" ---I was actually expecting a little more from you.
--- End quote ---
I really dont have the time I use to have to respond.
--- Quote ---The one consistent motif throughout the industry is that young people should take accountability for their actions, and accept responsibility for the results that those actions bring.
Leaving aside the hypocrisy, and lack of role modeling on this issue, here's the danger in not publicly addressing the issue. While there are programs that have evolved, there are programs that most certainly have not. As I recall as recently as 2011 there was a Washington state based psychologist defending MBA's use of pulling tree trunks - he was defending a practice that the State of Oregon found to be abusive. Without a public discussion of what in 2013 is antiquated treatment, practicioners will continue use outdated methods. And I don't expect that the free market will be very effective in weeding those people out in a timely manner, for that very same reason that the profession hasn't declared it to be an antiquated technology.
--- End quote ---
Oh boy , here is where my opinions get me in trouble.
Personally I would not take the governments word over a professional psychiatrist. Physiatrists are the enemy of the government because they cost them money and always want to extend treatment past the 30 day limit. I would easily trust the word of a psychiatrist versus a government burocrat with no knowledge in the area.
I dont know anything about pulling logs or why this would be considered abusive, or if pulling a load of rocks would be more abusive or less abusive. I would have to read the report. I am not sure how this could be measured. If a child was forced to write a book report on a book he read and if it wasnt done he would not eat that night then that would be abusive, in my opinion, but writing a book report isnt abusive. The same with pulling a tree trunk. If, for example, a child can pull the tree trunk 30 feet in under 1 minute then he could break the “all time record” and it would be good for his self esteem. He would get bragging rights and build up his muscles, build up and appetite and focus on something other than his depression. It may give the child something to work towards.
--- Quote ---It's not that I would expect the industry to flaggelate itself over its past abuses, it's that I would expect in light of everything that's happened over the last seven years, that there would be more of a paper trail of people who work in the parent choice industry talking about how the industry evolved, and exactly why it needed to evolve. Particularly, if we are to believe that the those who are now in their late 20's and 30's who talk about how they were abused as youth isn't indicative of where the field is today.
If you can point me to articles where this kind of critical analysis has occurred, it would be much appreciated.
--- End quote ---
I am not convinced that there are all that many kids who were abused by these programs. I wish there was a way to better measure these result via outcome studies. I know that Aspen performed many studies in the past to help better measure their successes and there were a few independent studies done all of which tilted towards positive results. I am with you that we need more critical analysis of this industry but am unsure where this would start.
...
psy:
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---Hey, Zen, I hope all is well. Here is my 2 cents.
I dont think Josh shipp should be judged based on if he is on “our side” or someone else’s side. Josh works for what he believes in. He was abused as a child and struggled with addiction and because he was helped by adults he was able to overcome many of his problems. Just like Jacqueline Danforth and many others he wanted to give back and help others to succeed in life. I don’t think they should be criticized and beaten down for trying to help others.
--- End quote ---
This is the crux of the issue right here. He believes he was helped by his treatment and took it upon himself to treat others in turn. It doesn't matter whether the treatment was objectively helpful in comparison to say, a control group. All that matters is that he believes he was helped.
In the same way a child of an abusive parent can justify his abuse as "it made me the man I am today", so many "professionals" in the industry are simply repeating the treatment they received in the blind faith that it's objectively helpful. There is no science to back the belief up. All that's there is dogma.
Not all kids who were abused by their parents grow up and say "i'll never treat my kids that way" in the same way that not all kids who were abused or mistreated in programs recognize what happened to them as wrong. Often they see it as having been necessary, or even good. It's in this way programs spawn. To give just one example, a client from Kids went on to start AARC in Canada. It doesn't matter that Kids was shut down due to it's abuse. The guy believes what happened to him to be the only way to save kids, and is determined to bring his righteous faith to the unwashed infidel masses.
psy:
--- Quote from: "blombrowski" ---But other than some writings by Tom Croke, I haven't seen anything that even reads like an excuse (i.e. well, back in the 90's CEDU was the best thing going for us since medical psychiatry wasn't effective at getting our kids to grow up fast enough, but now we know we can achieve forced maturity without torturing kids).
--- End quote ---
Yet even he continues to refer kids and young adults to CEDU clones. To me it sounds like little more than an attempt at obfuscation. To superficially acknowledge mistakes of the past and pretend those mistakes are no longer the practice when we know from places like MBA that very little if anything has actually changed.
psy:
There is a good Vice article on the industry that mentions Josh Shipp, Aspen, and others. I'm starting a new thread here as I think it deserves it's own thread.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version