Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > The Troubled Teen Industry
What if parents spent time in program?
Che Gookin:
--- Quote from: "none-ya" ---I had a boss who spent big $$$ to do the EST thing. It never did any damn good. But he would never admit he wasted his money
--- End quote ---
I've always been bizarrely curious about the whole EST thing. Just too cheap to drop the money to go see it for myself, not sure I could sit still without dropping my pants and mooning the facilitator either.
psy:
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---I would not tolerate that. I don't think it is necessary to bully or belittle people.
--- End quote ---
So you agree that these seminars, as they are used in today's programs, are wrong? For both parents and kids? You consider this bullying -- belittling... abusive?
--- Quote ---I had a family member who attended a seminar called EST in the early 80's, it was a 2 weekend 60 hour course and just listening to what the people had to go through, no bathroom breaks etc. it wouldn't be for me.
--- End quote ---
I've had it verified from CEDU staff (Penelope Valentine, for one), that est and lifeSpring were primary influences in CEDU's Propheets, which form the basis for Aspen's LifeSteps. Would you say that this entire experiment with LGATs was a mistake?
--- Quote ---It wore off in a couple of weeks and all was forgotten. Probably a good exercise in human behavior.
--- End quote ---
Indeed the intended effects do wear off, but not always the unintended effects. Margaret T. Singer (not Sanger) and others called these "casualties". Just to quote "the Lieberman and Yalom studies (19xx) of encounter groups indicated that "the people who experienced negative results in combination with the psychological casualties constituted about 19% ... or for close to one out of five people who participated in these group experiences, the results were harmful"" Given that evidence and the fact both est's successor, Landmark Education and LifeSpring both to my knowledge recommend adults with psychological trauma or difficulty not go through their seminars, do you really think it's a good idea to be putting vulnerable kids who very likely may have psychological issues, through the very same thing (often far worse)?
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "psy" ---
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---I would not tolerate that. I don't think it is necessary to bully or belittle people.
--- End quote ---
So you agree that these seminars, as they are used in today's programs, are wrong? For both parents and kids? You consider this bullying -- belittling... abusive?
--- Quote ---I had a family member who attended a seminar called EST in the early 80's, it was a 2 weekend 60 hour course and just listening to what the people had to go through, no bathroom breaks etc. it wouldn't be for me.
--- End quote ---
I've had it verified from CEDU staff (Penelope Valentine, for one), that est and lifeSpring were primary influences in CEDU's Propheets, which form the basis for Aspen's LifeSteps. Would you say that this entire experiment with LGATs was a mistake?
--- Quote ---It wore off in a couple of weeks and all was forgotten. Probably a good exercise in human behavior.
--- End quote ---
Indeed the intended effects do wear off, but not always the unintended effects. Margaret T. Singer (not Sanger) and others called these "casualties". Just to quote "the Lieberman and Yalom studies (19xx) of encounter groups indicated that "the people who experienced negative results in combination with the psychological casualties constituted about 19% ... or for close to one out of five people who participated in these group experiences, the results were harmful"" Given that evidence and the fact both est's successor, Landmark Education and LifeSpring both to my knowledge recommend adults with psychological trauma or difficulty not go through their seminars, do you really think it's a good idea to be putting vulnerable kids who very likely may have psychological issues, through the very same thing (often far worse)?
--- End quote ---
The present models may have developed from the past, EST, for example but it doesn't mean that they are abusive. My daughter never had to dress up in a french maids outfit nor was she belittled. We need to identify and weed out the abusive programs and have them change their tactics or shut them down for their abuse if they are still operating.
...
blombrowski:
LGATs are not indicated for individuals with a trauma history (and in fact are likely harmful and counterindicated). Many but not all programs utilize LGATs. Many but not all youth who are referred to programs have a history of trauma.
Youth are exposed to LGATs well before it is conceivable that a thorough evaluation can be done to assess if they do in fact have a significant trauma history. I know you put a lot of faith in third-party referrals, and the ability of a good ethical educational consultant to make this determination. I don't think that the educational consultant system nor the evaluative (i.e. wilderness program) system is fined tune enough to distinguish between behavior that has trauma that has a root cause, and behavior that does not.
What I think is reasonable to ask of the industry, is to either take the LGAT out of their toolbox or to make damn sure that they're not applying this tool to the wrong person. For those programs that are dependent upon LGATs as a significant piece of their intervention, this will hurt their bottom line.
psy:
So when your daughter was in ASR, she didn't go through LifeSteps? When was she in ASR?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version