Fornits

Fornits Home for Wayward Web Fora
An open discussion about the troubled parent industry

To be honest I don't know if this is such a good thing. I would much rather have Whooter here spreading his lies where they are checked and he continually makes himself out as a complete fool. He will find a new place to spread his filth and lies. Hopefully he has the intelligence to worm around the ban.

The only good that will come out of this is that Whooter is probably going through a complete mental breakdown not being able to post. I imagine the withdrawals from a purely mental addiction that is this severe would be worse than dropping smack.

Perfect time for you to try out some behavior modification Whooter, why don't you sign yourself up for that adult program in Costa Rica, maybe if you put yourself through a program they will let you come back, of course you would be giving up and changing teams but what the hell, your stupidity was only working for us anyway, in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't be much of a change.

There is a special seat in hell reserved for people like you Whooter, why don't you take some of your new found time off and read about it in Dante's Inferno. I think justifying, supporting, and advocating child abuse, torture, and murder is worse than commiting the crimes yourself. I am a big believer in Karma, and I imagine you will suffer in this lifetime as well, probably some sort of horribly painful terminal illness. When that happens Whooter I hope the words of Gonzotherapy ring in your head, "I told you so Whooter, you shouldn't have been such a worthless sack of shit," over and over...

It's been real Whooter. :fuckoff:

As I am waiting for a response back from the review board, I think that a few things still can be said about how this study was conducted and what the information she has presented here actually means. I do not think in any way that the questions asked and the answers recorded are wrong, I don't beleive that she completely shirked her medical duty to present accurate information.

The real problems contained within the study is the absence of data from further down the road. As most of us who have gone through these programs recognize, the damage done isn't apparent for several years following discharge. I know personally that I thought the program I was in was good for me for several years following my release; and this of course was a program that was shut down, along with many of its sister programs in the late 90s early 2000s, for extremely abusive conditions.

 Also she made the assumption that teens and parents of teens released against program recommendations lied in their responses and underreported problems because of the confrontations they had with staff about early release. Basically she is saying that these parents and teens are liars because her original hypotheses was incorrect. (great science!!!)

If you were to go that far in making that assumption, I believe you would also have to assume that graduates of the program are liars as well. I mean who has greater motivation to lie about their progress than the person whos freedom depends on it? How many convicts tell the parole board, "Hey man, as soon as I get out of here I'm gonna kill, rape, and steal the first chance I get."

The data is not the problem here, it's the lack of complete data, and some of the inferred evidence. Also, the methodology of programs is to only move up and graduate the kids who would score higher on these specific tests. You will not graduate a program without convincing the program that you are "all better now."

If I was to take a thousand kids and wanted to change their behavior, any behavior. Say I wanted all these kids to eat a pound of brussel sprouts every day; if I took these kids and beat them every day unless they showed their love for the sprouts, and forced them to eat brussell sprouts and tell me how much they love them, and tell me how great brussell sprouts are. If I told them that until they could show me that they really loved brussell sprouts, they would be stuck in my crazy brussell sprout camp. And I spent a year with these kids watching their every move, making sure they didn't write home and talk bad about the sprouts, or tell anyone else they didn't like them, or ever gag on their sprouts. And if they did they would get a beating and be back to sprout level one, I guarantee you I would have some sprout lovin' little bastards.

Now if I did a study and documented who didn't like sprouts at the beginning and who didn't like sprouts at the end, I would get positive results, does that mean my methods are ok? Does that mean that years down the road many of these kids aren't going to have a giant sprout chasing them around in their nightmares.

This study doesn't prove anything that psychology hasn't known for many years, if you encourage one behavior and discourage another, behavior will change. What the study doesn't cover, but should if it wants any kind of real recognition, is what are the longterm effects of this sort of behavior modification. Is it a good way to change a behavior, ask any child psychologist, or even a dog trainer for that matter, positive reinforcement works much better than discipline.

Quote from: "The gatekeeper"

Quote

Whooter wrote:


The wilderness programs are a hell of a lot safer than they were 10, 20 30 years ago and a lot more effective.

How would measure effectiveness?

I would measure it by assessing the child upon arrival, again at discharge and then again 6 months or a year out.  With a large enough population you could tell how successful the program has been.



...

Don't you think that it would be more effective to assess them 3 or 4 years down the road. These programs are supposed to be life changing. A year out doesn't really show anything, I mean at 100 grand a person, don't you think there should be lifelong change and not just a years worth?

Quote from: "Gonzotherapy"

That is so odd. You mean she didn't tell the APA that she used to work for Aspen Education and as she currently holds Aspen Education as a client, she profits when they profit? How about that Whooter, isn't that just so strange? I mean, her benefitting from these schools wouldn't skew her report at all would it? No, never.

What do you mean doctors were involved in the heart study!  Do you mean to tell me that heart surgeons were actually involved in the "Framingham heart study"?  This invalidates the study.  These people use to work in hospitals.  Conflict of interest !!

See what I mean?  anyway, there was a review board which looks for those types of things. They look at how much money is passing hands, who works (ed) for who.  Why would someone stand up and say "Oh, I use to be a heart surgeon but now I am involved in a heart study"?  People would be saying "why does that matter?  Did you take money from them?"  ... etc.  So to avoid all these questions and confusion they have "review boards" who oversee the study and approve it.  They look for these conflict of interests like you mentioned.  If the review board found a conflict of interest then they would not approve the study, thats their job.



The study was subsequently presented to the APA at their annual convention.



...

Are you really this stupid or are you making a determined effort?

Comparing the two is completely ridiculous.

There is a conflict of interest.

Maybe someone needs to bring it to the attention of the APA.

You forget one thing Whooter, you are old and past your prime. Some of us just got out of the gate. Corruption is the currency of most if not all government organizations. I'm sorry I have no more time to argue with your stupidity today. Finals week.

Are we talking about the same study?  The one which surveyed 1,000 parents and kids and found that up to 85% of the kids were still on a good path after a year?

Lets take another look:

Link

Oh, Good, still intact.

Let me know if you want to take another look at the study or if anyone from the APA takes your position. lol



...

So if I am to understand you correctly, you think that just because someone presents a report that it is automatically declared good valid information. I'd give my left nut to live in the fantasy world you've created here.

Show me a response from the APA verifying their whole-hearted acceptance of this study. I've looked, can't seem to find anyone who has jumped on board with this from the APA.

http://cafety.org/component/content/art ... s-aug-2006
NOTE: This is an ASPEN EDUCATION GROUP funded study. Dr. Behrens is a former employee of an Aspen school - information left undisclosed by Dr. Behrens.

I said nothing about it being fake. In fact I clearly said she did not flat out lie. The study is skewed, it does not address the long lasting effects of the abuse in the programs. It says on discharge kids have better behavior than admittance.

So if I take a kid who throws tantrums and lock him in a closet, and every time he makes a noise I pull him out and beat him with a stick. After a few weeks of this that kid never makes another noise again and never throws another tantrum again, than his treatment is ok and beneficial? I could do a study with a hundred kids and I gaurantee you with these methods their behavior would change. It doesn't make it right and it doesn't make it an ok way to treat someone.

And I restate my previous question, when has any company ever in the history of time paid for something that was detrimental to itself? The only study a company would pay for is one that profits that company.

If you can find one instance of a company that paid for a study that caused said company to go out of business, I will rethink my position.

Until then, stop being stupid. Or at least make an effort. :ftard:

From my experience I think it depends on the kid.  If the child had been honest and consistent prior to entering the program then I would lean towards believing the child.  If the child had a history of lying then of course we would need to side with the staff initially.



...

You disgust me Whooter, you really do. You just let it all hang out here don't you. Programs wouldn't be able to survive if they didn't use the distrust already present between a child and his or her's parents. They are designed to prey on that distrust and exploit it to it's full monetary value. I don't know how you sleep at night.

Ha,Ha,Ha  Yup a "Pulitzer prized" author is going to sign a contract to lie in his book.  Hmmmm...

Are you saying that journalists never lie? If you believe that you are even more ignorant than you appear. And I guarantee that they made him sign a contract. Why would they take the chance of destroying their business? There is no way in hell they would have let him in without guaranteeing that he would not destroy their reputation. The only real footage that has ever been taken from a program is with hidden cameras, like the 20/20 episode on paradise cove.

Oh no she is from Utah, Red flag. I think you convinced all of us, great argument.  lol

...

Yes Utah is a huge red flag. How many programs have been shut down that were based in Utah? All of the WWASPS (which even you have admitted to be abusive) programs and sister companies are based out of Utah. Utah is the only state which has parent rights and not child rights. That means a Utah based program can hold a child against his will.