Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Ursus on June 16, 2010, 07:32:31 PM
-
Some pertinent posts from the Lester Roloffs Rebekah Home for Girls Survivors-Cult-mindcon thread are re-posted below.
From this study's title page:
Report of Findings from a Multi-Center Study of Youth Outcomes in Private Residential Treatment (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Ellen Behrens, Ph.D.
Kristin Satterfield, B.S.
Canyon Research & Consulting, Inc.
Salt Lake City, UT
(801) 205-2330
[email protected]
Presented at the 114th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association at New Orleans, Louisiana, August, 2006
August 12, Saturday, 2:00-2:50 PM[/list]
-------------- • -------------- • --------------
Originally posted (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2107&start=1140#p366968) on 16 Jun 2010 15:22:
Sorry to burst your bubble Anne... Read it and weep:
The following Study was presented at the Annual Convention of the
American Psychological Association at New Orleans, Louisiana, August, 2006 .
The study covered about 1,000 kids who graduated from programs and parents of the kids.
There was an independent Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/) which approved the research and audited the study for any conflicts of interest.
Link to Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
So now are you ready to accept that you have stated : Programs help the majority of kids and that you embellished your own story here on fornits at times just to win an argument?
You know you cant win if you challenge me to provide the link.
...
Originally posted (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2107&start=1155#p366970) on 16 Jun 2010 15:31:
Sorry to burst your bubble Anne... Read it and weep:
The following Study was presented at the Annual Convention of the
American Psychological Association at New Orleans, Louisiana, August, 2006 .
The study covered about 1,000 kids who graduated from programs and parents of the kids.
There was an independent Board which approved the research and audited the study for any conflicts of interest.
Link to Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
So now are you ready to accept that you have stated in the past that Programs help the majority of kids and that you embellished your own story here on fornits at times just to win an argument?
You know you cant win if you challenge me to provide the link.
...
Well, off the top of my head (I've only read to page 3 so far).....it says that it was conducted between 2003 - 2005 and was presented in August of 2006. Does not a longitudinal study make, which is a major point that we've been trying to get through your head for a few years now.
But nice try. I'll get back to you after I've read it all the way through. ;) :seg:
Originally posted (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2107&start=1155#p366972) on 16 Jun 2010 15:43:
….Does not a longitudinal study make, which is a major point that we've been trying to get through your head for a few years now.
A few years ago we would hear: “We want proof, show us that programs work”. So various posters provided them with first hand accounts of kids who did well and were set back on a healthy path.
Then they said: ”Well, first hand accounts don't mean squat, the kids could have been brainwashed, we want to see studies”. So we provided them with studies which showed 60 - 80% of the kids succeed in programs and they said “Ha,Ha they are not accurate!! You call that a study? Ppsssfftt…They are merely internal studies. They could have just made that stuff up!”
Then we provided external studies which showed programs to be better than 80% effective and they said: “The studies are no good!! One of the people on the studies use to work in the Troubled Teen industry!!!” Ha,Ha “The entire effort is negated.”
So we provided them with Independent studies which show programs to be 80% effective in getting kids placed back on a healthy path with third party oversight to insure there were no conflict of interests. They said: "Well…well…. Ooommm…..we want long term clinical trials!!!... yeah that’s it Clinical Trials which cover 5 years out. We don’t believe your studies we want clinical trials!”
Lol.
Sorry, anne, I dont really mean to rub it in, but in all fairness it is good to keep pushing for more and better controlled studies. I think we can all agree that the more studies that are done the better everyone will feel that the information is accurate and feel more confident about sending our kids to these places.
...
Originally posted (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2107&start=1155#p366979) on 16 Jun 2010 16:14:
….Does not a longitudinal study make, which is a major point that we've been trying to get through your head for a few years now.
A few years ago we would hear: "We want proof, show us that programs work". So various posters provided them with first hand accounts of kids who did well and were set back on a healthy path.
Then they said: "Well, first hand accounts don't mean squat, the kids could have been brainwashed, we want to see studies". So we provided them with studies which showed 60 - 80% of the kids succeed in programs and they said "Ha,Ha they are not accurate!! You call that a study? Ppsssfftt…They are merely internal studies. They could have just made that stuff up!"
Then we provided external studies which showed programs to be better than 80% effective and they said: "The studies are no good!! One of the people on the studies use to work in the Troubled Teen industry!!!" Ha,Ha "The entire effort is negated."
So we provided them with Independent studies which show programs to be 80% effective in getting kids placed back on a healthy path with third party oversight to insure there were no conflict of interests. They said: "Well…well…. Ooommm…..we want long term clinical trials!!!... yeah that's it Clinical Trials which cover 5 years out. We don't believe your studies we want clinical trials!"
Lol.
Sorry, anne, I dont really mean to rub it in, but in all fairness it is good to keep pushing for more and better controlled studies. I think we can all agree that the more studies that are done the better everyone will feel that the information is accurate and feel more confident about sending our kids to these places.
Wait a minute...
This study was performed on kids from nine Aspen programs, and the primary author is Ellen Behrens. Conflict of interest perchance? Moreover, these programs are not inherently different from one another to any significant degree.
There were two time points: at admission, and at discharge. In other words, the kids are basically still under the influence of the program.
The study consisted of a survey filled out by both kids and their parents. Some examples of discharge questions are "How do you feel about your experience at this program?" and "Compared to when you began the program, how would you describe your problems?"
There was no control group. There was no independent professional assessment of the parent and adolescent self-reports (e.g., by a psych professional not affiliated with the program).
-
Look I don’t expect anyone to accept the studies here on fornits. I really do get that and I am not trying to convince anyone here because it falls on deaf ears. I mean how could you accept that programs help over 80% of the kids that enter them. It would mean the problems you experienced were resolved long ago or isolated and will never be acted upon. You are not interested in the study, your only goal is to find a flaw in it or a negative finding and exploit that fact over all the others and believe it or not I do understand why. I am not knocking you for that.
The fact is that these studies are widely accepted and have been approved by an oversight committee who looks for things like conflicts of interest, questions and group (subgroup) structure, nature of the research etc. You can submit your protest to the oversight committee if you like, Ursus, but neither you, I or anyone else can refute the study based on a few google searches and personal standards.
...
-
I mean how could you accept that programs help over 80% of the kids that enter them.
Yes, how can you possibly accept that percentage as "fact" ... based on exit surveys before the kid is even out of the program. With NO follow-up data. With NO independent oversight. And conducted by a researcher with prior program affiliations.
-
The fact is that these studies are widely accepted and have been approved by an oversight committee who looks for things like conflicts of interest, questions and group (subgroup) structure, nature of the research etc. You can submit your protest to the oversight committee if you like, Ursus, but neither you, I or anyone else can refute the study based on a few google searches and personal standards.
I am sure these studies are widely accepted by the marketing firms who churn out the press releases for future investors, the glossy brochures to glaze the eyes of desperate parents.
And I fully understand who the oversight committee (http://http://www.wirb.com/) is. They do it for pay. For researchers who are in a hurry and who have the bucks. And, all things considered, they do have their place in this world.
But there's a reason that reputable research institutions will not accept Western Institutional Review Board as an oversight organization for later phase clinical trials.
The fact is, this study does not look for "success rates" where they are least likely to be, namely, a number of years down the line, when the PSTD sets in, oft times along with worsened attendant behaviors, and when one is no longer under the threat of being sent elsewhere for more remedial behavior modification should one's outlook be significantly less than optimal. But isn't such a later time point more appropriate given the nature of what these programs promise?
Tell me, was this paper ever published? Or was its debut — two and a half weeks shy of the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina — the sole venue for public critique?
-
I mean how could you accept that programs help over 80% of the kids that enter them.
Yes, how can you possibly accept that percentage as "fact" ... based on exit surveys before the kid is even out of the program. With NO follow-up data. With NO independent oversight. And conducted by a researcher with prior program affiliations.
If they did the study at admission and then 5 years out you wouldn’t accept it either. You would argue that the kids got better on their own after they left the program.
The study shows the improvements made from admission until the child left. Did the child improve? Grade point average increase/decrease…depression etc.
Maybe the rate goes from 80% to 90% after 3 years out.. maybe it goes from 80% to 60% 3 years out. That wasn't studied here.
There was an ethics review which looks at conflicts of interest in the event there was a problem with ties to the industry studied.
-
I mean how could you accept that programs help over 80% of the kids that enter them.
Yes, how can you possibly accept that percentage as "fact" ... based on exit surveys before the kid is even out of the program. With NO follow-up data. With NO independent oversight. And conducted by a researcher with prior program affiliations.
Ursus when was the last time you volunteered for a Hyde graduate study. As a matter of fact when was the last time any of us here have been a part of a study since we left our programs.
Why does it surprise you so that the researcher would have program affiliations, does this mean the man/woman cannot have integrity. Who else would be performing this survey, someone with no experience in the TTI at all, then you would negate that finding based on the researcher having no prior experience.
Just asking....
danny
-
I am sure these studies are widely accepted by the marketing firms who churn out the press releases for future investors, the glossy brochures to glaze the eyes of desperate parents.
Of course they do. The marketing firms and investors like to hear anything that is positive and would increase profits. If the report showed a negative outcome we probably wouldn't be reading about it right now.
And I fully understand who the oversight committee is. They do it for pay. For researchers who are in a hurry and who have the bucks. And, all things considered, they do have their place in this world.
People getting paid seems to bother you Ursus. With exception of those on welfare most people in the US gets paid. Payment isn’t a sign of something going wrong or a mistake being made. Its very common and pays for them to hire people, pay the rent, buy computers, conduct research, get the kids to the dentist etc. If they hired some friend of the family to do it for free I think we would be more concerned.
But there's a reason that reputable research institutions will not accept Western Institutional Review Board as an oversight organization for later phase clinical trials.
You would have to tell that to the medical industry…. Temple University…Drexel University… UCLA medical. (Found in 10 minute Google search) I don’t think they would be happy with you calling them non-reputable.
Drexel Medical clinical Studies (http://http://www.research.drexel.edu/compliance/IRB/wirb.aspx)
UCLA Medical (http://http://www.oprs.ucla.edu/human/wirb-use)
TempleU Clinical Studies (http://http://www.temple.edu/ovpr/oct/oct_irb_info.html)
The fact is, this study does not look for "success rates" where they are least likely to be, namely, a number of years down the line, when the PSTD sets in, oft times along with worsened attendant behaviors, and when one is no longer under the threat of being sent elsewhere for more remedial behavior modification should one's outlook be significantly less than optimal. But isn't such a later time point more appropriate given the nature of what these programs promise?
I could choose any heart study at random and do the same thing you are. Lets see the study doesn’t look at patients by nationality… did they consider genetic disorders.. how come they stopped at 15 years? How many patients smoked weed? See what I mean? The questions are endless. They didn’t take everything into account. There is no way they could. The boundary conditions are very well defined in the study, Ursus.
Tell me, was this paper ever published? Or was its debut — two and a half weeks shy of the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina — the sole venue for public critique?
Not sure.
I think the study does a good job in showing how well the child does from beginning to end of the program (which was the design). What you are looking for is how the child does from graduation until say 5 years out. But how does this directly measure the effectiveness of the program? What would they compare it to? I think this would be a great study myself, but I don’t know how it would benefit the industry. How could they take credit for the success 5 years out.. or the failures 5 years out. There are so many other factors which effect the child outside the program which are unknown and out of their control.
...
-
I agree there is far too much lacking to take this study seriously, but even if someone were to, I would point out that the results clearly negate the perspective of the subject and only can speak from the group examining him. A question we should ask is whether or not therapy is ethical if it relies on lying to the subject to maintain the behavior?
We can’t deny the ‘troubled teens’ are not there by choice, and if you review the criteria used to determine the results you will then also see that the criterion for treatment are ambiguous as to who is the patient, the individual or the social body that has exerted control?
For a teen held in a program it will be presented to them as a situation where there is enormous pressure to work toward individual growth and accomplishment, overcoming personal obstacles, spiritual growth and understanding of self. Yet the real goal is to produce results are only concerned with changes in their (the TTI) standards for what represents a positive change in the individual as it suits the social environment.
I look at all the criteria with which they make their judgment and it seems that the analysis of behavior changes can only be cosmetic at best, due to the situation. A subject, like a ‘troubled teen’, is indisputably not individually motivated to endure therapy, and therefore actions in therapy are related to avoidance behavior. This whole study was presented based on perceived changes as to these focal issues:
Depressed, withdrawn, social problems, attention problems, rule breaking behavior, Compliance, relationship with parents, communication with parents…
First of all, the ‘subject’ or ‘troubled teen’ is, inherently, based on the TTI situation, not choosing to make these changes, so we cannot consider any of these results to include the true feelings of the teens themselves, but the outward expression achieved from the structure of the environment that is pressuring to produce behaviors that support that result.
And second, these ‘criteria’ take on different meanings depending on the perspective. ‘depressed’ ‘withdrawn’ ‘relationship with parents’… and so on. The suggested meaning here is that the statistical change occurs due to the denial of the ‘patient’, his feelings and ability to freely comment on them, and the resulting relief of tension on the parents and program. These results necessitate lying to the patient as to the intent of the treatment.
.
-
I am sure these studies are widely accepted by the marketing firms who churn out the press releases for future investors, the glossy brochures to glaze the eyes of desperate parents.
Of course they do. The marketing firms and investors like to hear anything that is positive and would increase profits. If the report showed a negative outcome we probably wouldn't be reading about it right now.
Does a glossy brochure make the results any more credible or seemingly postive?
And I fully understand who the oversight committee is. They do it for pay. For researchers who are in a hurry and who have the bucks. And, all things considered, they do have their place in this world.
People getting paid seems to bother you Ursus. With exception of those on welfare most people in the US gets paid. Payment isn’t a sign of something going wrong or a mistake being made. Its very common and pays for them to hire people, pay the rent, buy computers, conduct research, get the kids to the dentist etc. If they hired some friend of the family to do it for free I think we would be more concerned.
Nope. You sure do make a lot of presumptions 'bout folks, don't you? People getting paid does not bother me. It's when that potentially interferes with the veracity of the results that my fur gets a lil spiky. Does it interfere here? I honestly don't know. I'm bringing it up as a potential concern, that's all.
Personally, I'm not entirely sure that WIRB is in a position to assess whether this is a credible study or not. Based strictly on population percentages, it's unlikely that any of its personnel have been through a program, and hence would not be likely to spot the studies' blind spots. And I'm also not so sure that they are in a position to even be concerned with that issue in the first place. From my apparently less than savvy perspective, it would appear that WIRB's role is mostly focused on making sure that all human subjects have filled out all the proper consent forms, all researchers maintain regulatory compliance, etc. etc.
But there's a reason that reputable research institutions will not accept Western Institutional Review Board as an oversight organization for later phase clinical trials.
You would have to tell that to the medical industry…. Temple University…Drexel University… UCLA medical. (Found in 10 minute Google search) I don’t think they would be happy with you calling them non-reputable.
Drexel Medical clinical Studies (http://http://www.research.drexel.edu/compliance/IRB/wirb.aspx)
UCLA Medical (http://http://www.oprs.ucla.edu/human/wirb-use)
TempleU Clinical Studies (http://http://www.temple.edu/ovpr/oct/oct_irb_info.html)
Yup. Got me here. The first one *I* had found was Tufts (http://http://tnemcirb.tufts.edu/?pid=70), which will not allow WIRB review for anything other than Phase III clinical trials which are industry (for-profit) sponsored or non-federally funded foundation sponsored studies. I guess I was wondering about the Phase IV trials... I had researched this long ago, when you first started talking about this study (which is the exact same one you've been bringing up for a year it seems), and I had forgotten the reason for said limitations (hence not stated, and ha! on me).
The fact is, this study does not look for "success rates" where they are least likely to be, namely, a number of years down the line, when the PSTD sets in, oft times along with worsened attendant behaviors, and when one is no longer under the threat of being sent elsewhere for more remedial behavior modification should one's outlook be significantly less than optimal. But isn't such a later time point more appropriate given the nature of what these programs promise?
I could choose any heart study at random and do the same thing you are. Lets see the study doesn’t look at patients by nationality… did they consider genetic disorders.. how come they stopped at 15 years? How many patients smoked weed? See what I mean? The questions are endless. They didn’t take everything into account. There is no way they could. The boundary conditions are very well defined in the study, Ursus.
Those parameters do not address the heart (!) of Behrens' study in the least bit, and are certainly not analogous to the concern I brought up re. lack of meaningful time points. You also forgot to bring up your chemotherapy analogies...
Tell me, was this paper ever published? Or was its debut — two and a half weeks shy of the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina — the sole venue for public critique?
Not sure.
I think the study does a good job in showing how well the child does from beginning to end of the program (which was the design). What you are looking for is how the child does from graduation until say 5 years out. But how does this directly measure the effectiveness of the program? What would they compare it to? I think this would be a great study myself, but I don’t know how it would benefit the industry. How could they take credit for the success 5 years out.. or the failures 5 years out. There are so many other factors which effect the child outside the program which are unknown and out of their control.
I agree that over time well past program it becomes more and more difficult to assess matters, but that *is* when the long term damage generally begins to show up. I imagine that that is when the long term benefits should show up as well, for those individuals who allegedly benefit from these programs. Since the first credo of behavior health professionals is "First, Do No Harm," you would think this would be a concern for Aspen ... given that they market themselves as "behavior health professionals."
-
Nope. You sure do make a lot of presumptions 'bout folks, don't you? People getting paid does not bother me. It's when that potentially interferes with the veracity of the results that my fur gets a lil spiky. Does it interfere here? I honestly don't know. I'm bringing it up as a potential concern, that's all.
You brought up the money issue. Most people in the world would assume everyone gets paid for what they do.
Personally, I'm not entirely sure that WIRB is in a position to assess whether this is a credible study or not. Based strictly on population percentages, it's unlikely that any of its personnel have been through a program, and hence would not be likely to spot the studies' blind spots.
Ha,Ha,Ha (I suspect you are joking, but I will bite) so if someone from WIRB had previously worked for a program you would feel more comfortable? Lol. You are concerned if an employee has worked for the industry and then you are concerned if none of the employees have a background in the industry. So you try to discredit the study either way?
And I'm also not so sure that they are in a position to even be concerned with that issue in the first place. From my apparently less than savvy perspective, it would appear that WIRB's role is mostly focused on making sure that all human subjects have filled out all the proper consent forms, all researchers maintain regulatory compliance, etc. etc.
All these are good questions. They have vast experience overseeing clinical studies for the medical industry. I am sure they do a little more than review consent forms. But I think we both know that.
Those parameters do not address the heart (!) of Behrens' study in the least bit, and are certainly not analogous to the concern I brought up re. lack of meaningful time points. You also forgot to bring up your chemotherapy analogies...
The time points are meaningful to the industry because they define the boundary conditions of the program. Anything outside of that are subject to other effects not under the control of the program and therefore would not clearly credit the program.
The Chemotherapy analogy I don’t believe applies here.
I agree that over time well past program it becomes more and more difficult to assess matters, but that *is* when the long term damage generally begins to show up. I imagine that that is when the long term benefits should show up as well, for those individuals who allegedly benefit from these programs. Since the first credo of behavior health professionals is "First, Do No Harm," you would think this would be a concern for Aspen ... given that they market themselves as "behavior health professionals."
It’s a much cleaner and more exact study to show how the child has progressed under the programs care. Once they loss control of the child then how would they assess which external force was responsible for the child going back to being depressed. Was it an uncle who raped her or a boyfriend who left her. What controlled group would they compare these kids to? Could they compare the program kids to the average cross-section of society and compare suicide rates, high school dropout rates? Would it be accurate to report a suicide as a programs fault if the child killed himself 6 months after graduation? What if he had been molested by a teacher 3 months after graduation or started on a new medication 5 months after graduation? Or his parents got divorced right after graduation? How is this measured?
I think the “First, Do no harm” Applies to the time period that they have the child. There is no reason to believe that these children are being harmed long term. I have never seen any reports on this, so why would this be considered? I suspect this was fabricated here on fornits to justify all the 80% of the kids who graduate and move on to college and thus lose track of their progress, assuming to themselves that at some point they will fail.
...
...
-
This was one of the significant findings of the study:
What Parents And Their Teens Told Researchers: The majority of teens entering the program were experiencing emotional problems, including higher levels of:
• Anxiety
• Depression
both parents and teens indicated the teens' emotional problems had been reduced to a normal range. Aspen's programs helped teens develop a better sense of self, providing the confidence to be less susceptible to peer pressure and other outside influences.
For anxiety and Depression the kids were brought well within the normal range by graduation time.
(http://http://www.aspenranch.com/images/emotional_graphic.gif)
...
-
I mean how could you accept that programs help over 80% of the kids that enter them.
Yes, how can you possibly accept that percentage as "fact" ... based on exit surveys before the kid is even out of the program. With NO follow-up data. With NO independent oversight. And conducted by a researcher with prior program affiliations.
If they did the study at admission and then 5 years out you wouldn’t accept it either. You would argue that the kids got better on their own after they left the program.
Why do you insist on telling others what they think and "would say"?
The study shows the improvements made from admission until the child left. Did the child improve? Grade point average increase/decrease…depression etc.
Well, of course they "improve" (read, conform) while they're in a program....they have no choice. It's what all that programming/confrontation/breaking down does to the psyche and the effects of that during the rest of their life that bothers me.
Maybe the rate goes from 80% to 90% after 3 years out.. maybe it goes from 80% to 60% 3 years out. That wasn't studied here.
That's what we've been trying to tell you for years now. Glad you can finally admit that there have been no longitudinal studies done.
-
I agree that over time well past program it becomes more and more difficult to assess matters, but that *is* when the long term damage generally begins to show up. I imagine that that is when the long term benefits should show up as well, for those individuals who allegedly benefit from these programs. Since the first credo of behavior health professionals is "First, Do No Harm," you would think this would be a concern for Aspen ... given that they market themselves as "behavior health professionals."
It's a much cleaner and more exact study to show how the child has progressed under the programs care. Once they loss control of the child then how would they access which external force was responsible for the child going back to being depressed.
But what is actually being measured is simply the kid's and his or her parents' perception of change between start of program and the conclusion of program. No further. And no deeper.
And while that analysis may be "clean," from a certain perspective, it is also quite shallow. We are not dealing with an analysis on the efficacy of certain vacuum cleaners here (well, perhaps metaphorically speaking, we are!). We're dealing with complex psychological changes that occur in human beings under the duress of a controlled environment. That is, a therapeutic milieu which utilizes thought coercion, and sometimes also physical coercion, to effect a modification of behavior.
I think the "First, Do no harm" Applies to the time period that they have the child.
But that is not the expectation of parents who enroll their children in these programs, is it? After all, we are dealing with "behavioral health" here, and the effects of "therapy" are not expected to miraculously cease the minute the kid is no longer in program, eh?
There is no reason to believe that these children are being harmed long term. I have never seen any reports on this, so why would this be considered? I suspect this was fabricated here on fornits to justify all the 80% of the kids who graduate and move on to college and thus lose track of their progress, assuming to themselves that at some point they will fail.
I beg to differ. *I* feel harmed. Long term. Testimonies of other posters here on fornits attest to same or similar assessments.
The ACE study also attests to long term damage brought about by traumatic childhood events (occurring up to and including age 18 in this study) which have very real, far in the future, long term ramifications on the simple measurable parameters of life-expectancy and frequency of illness or propensity for addiction or other self-destructive behaviors.
-
:beat:
-
:beat:
-
But what is actually being measured is simply the kid's and his or her parents' perception of change between start of program and the conclusion of program. No further. And no deeper.
And while that analysis may be "clean," from a certain perspective, it is also quite shallow. We are not dealing with an analysis on the efficacy of certain vacuum cleaners here (well, perhaps metaphorically speaking, we are!). We're dealing with complex psychological changes that occur in human beings under the duress of a controlled environment. That is, a therapeutic milieu which utilizes thought coercion, and sometimes also physical coercion, to effect a modification of behavior.
That’s what “should” be measured because that is why the child entered the program. There are outwardly apparent behaviors like refusing to go to school, acting out, fighting, running away, anxiety, depression etc. which caused the child to be placed in a program. At the conclusion of the program they measure the same parameters to see if there have been any improvements or not.
Lets say you go to the doctors and tell him that your back hurts after you go up or down the stairs. He may give you some pain killers and he tells you to practice walking up the stairs without bending over (stay straight) and then to come see me again in 6 months. In 6 months he would ask how he feels and if the pain is worse or less. This would be the measurement he would go by to decide if his treatment was successful or if he needs to adjust his treatment.
But that is not the expectation of parents who enroll their children in these programs, is it? After all, we are dealing with "behavioral health" here, and the effects of "therapy" are not expected to miraculously cease the minute the kid is no longer in program, eh?
No, I meant that the program will not harm the child while the child is there. I don’t see how the behavior modification could harm the child after they leave the program.
I beg to differ. *I* feel harmed. Long term. Testimonies of other posters here on fornits attest to same or similar assessments.
The ACE study also attests to long term damage brought about by traumatic childhood events (occurring up to and including age 18 in this study) which have very real, far in the future, long term ramifications on the simple measurable parameters of life-expectancy and frequency of illness or propensity for addiction or other self-destructive behaviors.
Many times the reason the kids are sent to a program is because they have experience stressful events, divorce, adoption issues, or may have a late onset of disruptive behavior disorders, so it would be difficult to isolate the cause and say their stay in the program caused them PTSD. The programs are designed to alleviate these issues and turn them around not compound them.
If there were a way to easily study this or determine the cause of PTSD in children who emerged from a program I am sure the study would be undertaken.
...
-
No, I meant that the program will not harm the child while the child is there. I don’t see how the behavior modification could harm the child after they leave the program.
Therein lies one of your problems.
-
Many times the reason the kids are sent to a program is because they have experience stressful events, divorce, adoption issues, or may have a late onset of disruptive behavior disorders, so it would be difficult to isolate the cause and say their stay in the program caused them PTSD. The programs are designed to alleviate these issues and turn them around not compound them.
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
Then their design is failing. Miserably.
-
No, I meant that the program will not harm the child while the child is there. I don’t see how the behavior modification could harm the child after they leave the program.
Therein lies one of your problems.
Definitely potential for harm, inside, outside, both. There is plenty of reason to connect the Troubled teen industry with psychological trauma.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0)
.
-
No, I meant that the program will not harm the child while the child is there. I don’t see how the behavior modification could harm the child after they leave the program.
Therein lies one of your problems.
Definitely potential for harm, inside, outside, both. There is plenty of reason to connect the Troubled teen industry with psychological trauma.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0)
.
:notworthy: :notworthy:
No wonder Whooter won't go near that thread!!!
-
No, I meant that the program will not harm the child while the child is there. I don’t see how the behavior modification could harm the child after they leave the program.
Therein lies one of your problems.
Definitely potential for harm, inside, outside, both. There is plenty of reason to connect the Troubled teen industry with psychological trauma.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0)
.
Well, I partially agree with you. I think there is potential for harm "anytime" a child is overseen by others outside the family. This includes daycare, public/private schools and programs. I think like Anne Bonney, your vantage point stems from experiences you had with programs 30 years ago or isolated cases. The majority of the programs I am familiar with work directly to reverse any potential issues which would result in long term or short term damage not cause them.
...
-
Well, I partially agree with you. I think there is potential for harm "anytime" a child is overseen by others outside the family. This includes daycare, public/private schools and programs. I think like Anne Bonney, your vantage point stems from experiences you had with programs 30 years ago or isolated cases. The majority of the programs I am familiar with work directly to reverse any potential issues which would result in long term or short term damage not cause them.
Do these programs you speak of use LGAT type tactics on the kids? Do you approve of using such tactics on children?
-
Does anyone want me to post another article for debate or keep debating this TTI study?
Thanks for checking in with us, Joel. I think we are all set for now.
...
-
Well, I partially agree with you. I think there is potential for harm "anytime" a child is overseen by others outside the family. This includes daycare, public/private schools and programs. I think like Anne Bonney, your vantage point stems from experiences you had with programs 30 years ago or isolated cases. The majority of the programs I am familiar with work directly to reverse any potential issues which would result in long term or short term damage not cause them.
Do these programs you speak of use LGAT type tactics on the kids? Do you approve of using such tactics on children?
It's not like if someone answers yes it is some damning answer that only an evil person would subscribe to. LGAT have a proven track record and are used in corporations, government, military, religion, and yes treatment programs. If it didn't work people wouldn't use it. But it seems the term 'LGAT' is another fornits loaded term, that has it's own definition here. Like if asking someone if they support LGAT as a way of communicating in groups, they support nazism or something. Fornits is a strange world to live in I can imagine, at least from an outside perspective it seems this way.
-
Well, I partially agree with you. I think there is potential for harm "anytime" a child is overseen by others outside the family. This includes daycare, public/private schools and programs. I think like Anne Bonney, your vantage point stems from experiences you had with programs 30 years ago or isolated cases. The majority of the programs I am familiar with work directly to reverse any potential issues which would result in long term or short term damage not cause them.
Do these programs you speak of use LGAT type tactics on the kids? Do you approve of using such tactics on children?
It's not like if someone answers yes it is some damning answer that only an evil person would subscribe to. LGAT have a proven track record and are used in corporations, government, military, religion, and yes treatment programs.
Citation please.
If it didn't work people wouldn't use it.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
But it seems the term 'LGAT' is another fornits loaded term, that has it's own definition here. Like if asking someone if they support LGAT as a way of communicating in groups, they support nazism or something. Fornits is a strange world to live in I can imagine, at least from an outside perspective it seems this way.
LGATs are dangerous, especially if it's forced upon someone. I would never voluntarily attend one, but if an adult thinks they can glean some special knowledge from it, fine.....go right ahead. Forcing that kind of emotional intrusion onto a child, especially one that may be troubled to begin with, is deplorable.
-
No, I meant that the program will not harm the child while the child is there. I don’t see how the behavior modification could harm the child after they leave the program.
Therein lies one of your problems.
Definitely potential for harm, inside, outside, both. There is plenty of reason to connect the Troubled teen industry with psychological trauma.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0)
.
Well, I partially agree with you. I think there is potential for harm "anytime" a child is overseen by others outside the family. This includes daycare, public/private schools and programs. I think like Anne Bonney, your vantage point stems from experiences you had with programs 30 years ago or isolated cases. The majority of the programs I am familiar with work directly to reverse any potential issues which would result in long term or short term damage not cause them.
...
So you are saying that troubled teen industry programs take action to protect the teen from double bind situations, which is the context under which they operate? I’d really like to hear how you believe they are doing that. Neither you on the TTI can deny that double binds have the potential for psychological harm, or that the therapy provided, at it’s core, functions as a result of double binding.
It’s all here for your understanding, but if you want to cast it off as inconsequential ….
Hey Whooter, I demand that you feel better about yourself. Grow your self esteem, buddy!
DOUBLE BIND: Mind Control in the TTI
.
-
There is no way to objectively follow these studies. In order to provide accurate statistics, one would have to follow each teenager from the moment they entered the facility, their response to the program on an individual basis (and all must experience the same exact treatment), enter a controlled environment upon their release and made to experience the same situations for a few years. Then, and only then, would we be able to get an accurate account of how well the industry works.
Here is something to consider: a few years ago, I found my best friend from Roloff via the internet. Unfortunately, I found her too late. She had died two years prior and her mother had set up a memorial page. I got in touch with her mother, who told me my friend's story.
After leaving Roloff, she was determined to live a "normal" life. Prior to the homes, her parents had been drug dealers, and she had been a cocaine addict. After leaving, she returned to high school (having to repeat the whole grade she had done at the homes due to a lack of accreditation) and got a job. She lived with her mother, who had gotten out of prison and was also working. Then her father got out, and the drug dealing began again. Long story short, my friend lived her life in and out of prison, battling emotional problems throughout. She was eventually a victim of domestic abuse.
I went to the homes after our pastor recommended it may be the best thing. I was a troublemaker at our Christian school, finding myself at the principal's office at least once a week. My crimes? They ranged from insulting a kid on the bus to carrying a condom to school (although I wasn't sexually active at the time). I did my time at Roloff, then came out to the same Christian environment. Although I rejected Christianity as a result of the Roloff experience, I was still in a loving, supportive environment. In time, the anger went away and I moved on in life without much of a struggle. I am now the person you would see anywhere and not give them a second thought. I'm neither angry or wallowing in sorrow, nor am I extremely successful or powerful. Just your average citizen, I guess.
Am I success story for the homes? I think not. Is my friend a failure for the homes? Again, no. We are products of our environment, circumstances, and choices. We just happened to find ourselves for one year at a teen behavior modification program. Save your studies. All they do is prove bias and give people a reason to argue.
If I had a choice to go back and do my life over, I may skip that one year, though. I didn't enjoy it.
-
There is no way to objectively follow these studies. In order to provide accurate statistics, one would have to follow each teenager from the moment they entered the facility, their response to the program on an individual basis (and all must experience the same exact treatment), enter a controlled environment upon their release and made to experience the same situations for a few years. Then, and only then, would we be able to get an accurate account of how well the industry works.
Here is something to consider: a few years ago, I found my best friend from Roloff via the internet. Unfortunately, I found her too late. She had died two years prior and her mother had set up a memorial page. I got in touch with her mother, who told me my friend's story.
After leaving Roloff, she was determined to live a "normal" life. Prior to the homes, her parents had been drug dealers, and she had been a cocaine addict. After leaving, she returned to high school (having to repeat the whole grade she had done at the homes due to a lack of accreditation) and got a job. She lived with her mother, who had gotten out of prison and was also working. Then her father got out, and the drug dealing began again. Long story short, my friend lived her life in and out of prison, battling emotional problems throughout. She was eventually a victim of domestic abuse.
I went to the homes after our pastor recommended it may be the best thing. I was a troublemaker at our Christian school, finding myself at the principal's office at least once a week. My crimes? They ranged from insulting a kid on the bus to carrying a condom to school (although I wasn't sexually active at the time). I did my time at Roloff, then came out to the same Christian environment. Although I rejected Christianity as a result of the Roloff experience, I was still in a loving, supportive environment. In time, the anger went away and I moved on in life without much of a struggle. I am now the person you would see anywhere and not give them a second thought. I'm neither angry or wallowing in sorrow, nor am I extremely successful or powerful. Just your average citizen, I guess.
Am I success story for the homes? I think not. Is my friend a failure for the homes? Again, no. We are products of our environment, circumstances, and choices. We just happened to find ourselves for one year at a teen behavior modification program. Save your studies. All they do is prove bias and give people a reason to argue.
If I had a choice to go back and do my life over, I may skip that one year, though. I didn't enjoy it.
Great insight, Jaredsmom, thank you for posting you perspective.
...
-
Whooter wrote:
No, I meant that the program will not harm the child while the child is there. I don’t see how the behavior modification could harm the child after they leave the program.
Anne wrote:
Therein lies one of your problems.
Awake wrote:
Definitely potential for harm, inside, outside, both. There is plenty of reason to connect the Troubled teen industry with psychological trauma.
Whooter wrote:
Well, I partially agree with you. I think there is potential for harm "anytime" a child is overseen by others outside the family. This includes daycare, public/private schools and programs. I think like Anne Bonney, your vantage point stems from experiences you had with programs 30 years ago or isolated cases. The majority of the programs I am familiar with work directly to reverse any potential issues which would result in long term or short term damage not cause them.
Awake wrote:
So you are saying that troubled teen industry programs take action to protect the teen from double bind situations, which is the context under which they operate? I’d really like to hear how you believe they are doing that. Neither you on the TTI can deny that double binds have the potential for psychological harm, or that the therapy provided, at it’s core, functions as a result of double binding.
It’s all here for your understanding, but if you want to cast it off as inconsequential ….
Hey Whooter, I demand that you feel better about yourself. Grow your self esteem, buddy!
DOUBLE BIND: Mind Control in the TTI
Here we have 3 people, 2 of the people went to a treatment program and 1 had a child go to a treatment program. The 2 that went obviously did not have a good experience which was/is not unusual, also what I am seeing through out there posts is 1) that they can not accept that someone else could have a good experience, 2) that they will find whatever evidence there is to substantiate their feelings, 3) that just because the programee did not like their stay at the TC does this always have to necessarily mean they did not receive a decent education, academically and/or therapeutically.
This broad brush painting is robbing fornits of valuable debate and leaving the tenants here ignorant. I know personally several folks who have come here to try and share their experience and read many posts, determined this site does not encourage open debate, so left. Not good folks.
Now I'm sure anyone reading this is probably thinking that I have no room to judge, your right in some respects. But I have never shut anyone down here from saying what they have had to say, I have actually always promoted different opinions, we need them.
Keep your mind open.....There are children dying that need help, their experiences may be different from ours before, during and after. We need to listen and go further then are experiences allow.
This is what makes me angry, I see folks here that appear so intelligent yet can be so ignorant when it comes to understanding separate living experiences. You call the TCI a "cookie cutter" experience, stamping out the same experience but your wrong, wrong because of the participants, their human beings.
You (fornits) are doing the exact same thing, trying to promote a universal experience (cookie cutter) by saying all the the programs in the TCI are destructive. Children are dying they need help.
Awake I know you have found the Double Bind Phenomenon and this is a great piece of info yet does it apply in all TC's without exception. I found at Elan it really depended on the Director and staff, this could change found house to house, at least while I was a employee.
danny
-
I am totally open to considering that there might be some kinds of voluntary programs out there, that can be beneficial to teens.
Why not? There are all sorts of things in the world.
But I say that a TC is a TC. Some may be better then others, but they are flawed by their very design.
Paul
-
Whooter wrote:
No, I meant that the program will not harm the child while the child is there. I don’t see how the behavior modification could harm the child after they leave the program.
Anne wrote:
Therein lies one of your problems.
Awake wrote:
Definitely potential for harm, inside, outside, both. There is plenty of reason to connect the Troubled teen industry with psychological trauma.
Whooter wrote:
Well, I partially agree with you. I think there is potential for harm "anytime" a child is overseen by others outside the family. This includes daycare, public/private schools and programs. I think like Anne Bonney, your vantage point stems from experiences you had with programs 30 years ago or isolated cases. The majority of the programs I am familiar with work directly to reverse any potential issues which would result in long term or short term damage not cause them.
Awake wrote:
So you are saying that troubled teen industry programs take action to protect the teen from double bind situations, which is the context under which they operate? I’d really like to hear how you believe they are doing that. Neither you on the TTI can deny that double binds have the potential for psychological harm, or that the therapy provided, at it’s core, functions as a result of double binding.
It’s all here for your understanding, but if you want to cast it off as inconsequential ….
Hey Whooter, I demand that you feel better about yourself. Grow your self esteem, buddy!
DOUBLE BIND: Mind Control in the TTI
Here we have 3 people, 2 of the people went to a treatment program and 1 had a child go to a treatment program. The 2 that went obviously did not have a good experience which was/is not unusual, also what I am seeing through out there posts is 1) that they can not accept that someone else
could have a good experience, 2) that they will find whatever evidence there is to substantiate their feelings, 3) that just because the programee did not like their stay at the TC does this always have to necessarily mean they did not receive a decent education, academically and/or therapeutically.
This broad brush painting is robbing fornits of valuable debate and leaving the tenants here ignorant. I know personally several folks who have come here to try and share their experience and read many posts, determined this site does not encourage open debate, so left. Not good folks.
Now I'm sure anyone reading this is probably thinking that I have no room to judge, your right in some respects. But I have never shut anyone down here from saying what they have had to say, I have actually always promoted different opinions, we need them.
Keep your mind open.....There are children dying that need help, their experiences may be different from ours before, during and after. We need to listen and go further then are experiences allow.
This is what makes me angry, I see folks here that appear so intelligent yet can be so ignorant when it comes to understanding separate living experiences. You call the TCI a "cookie cutter" experience, stamping out the same experience but your wrong, wrong because of the participants, their human beings.
You (fornits) are doing the exact same thing, trying to promote a universal experience (cookie cutter) by saying all the the programs in the TCI are destructive. Children are dying they need help.
Awake I know you have found the Double Bind Phenomenon and this is a great piece of info yet does it apply in all TC's without exception. I found at Elan it really depended on the Director and staff, this could change found house to house, at least while I was a employee.
danny
I’ll answer with a recently discussed topic in relation to the practices of the Troubled Teen Industry. Does a doctor operate before they practice? If we know we have not yet defined the context under which we are operating, why are we allowing it to practice. The Double Bind in the troubled teen industry is a uniquely real context . I firmly believe we should have a clear understanding of it before we accept using it on our kids.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0)
.
-
I’ll answer with a recently discussed topic in relation to the practices of the Troubled Teen Industry. Does a doctor operate before they practice? If we know we have not yet defined the context under which we are operating, why are we allowing it to practice. The Double Bind in the troubled teen industry is a uniquely real context . I firmly believe we should have a clear understanding of it before we accept using it on our kids.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0)
.
The more I read here the more it becomes apparent that each program is different. I haven’t seen the double bind built into any program. I think I have heard people from elan speak out and agree it was part of their experience or programs from the past, but no one else. Personally I have not seen it. I remember many people in my past who use to send conflicting messages, but not entire institutions.
Programs do have a very defined program under which they operate. Just because they don’t make it public doesn’t mean it doesnt exist. Each program is competing to see who can attain the highest success rate so they are not going to share the process or nuances of their model with competitors.
I think the whole discussion of the double Bind is interesting but I would be careful in trying to assume it is used across the board.
...
-
I am totally open to considering that there might be some kinds of voluntary programs out there, that can be beneficial to teens.
Why not? There are all sorts of things in the world.
But I say that a TC is a TC. Some may be better then others, but they are flawed by their very design.
Paul
Paul I find that to be a rather large assumption. Who here has visited every TC. I visited a TC just last Thursday 6/17/10, and I know personally they are not using a Double Bind method, I also know of others that are not using that method either.
Now you can have manipulative staff that like playing these games, I just don't believe on the whole it is happening every where.
Awake says it is inherent well I'm sure it might have been for her, I also spoke of the method being used in Elan but I also said, that I felt it was isolated and not widespread.
danny
danny
-
:rasta:
-
Really Danny? Which one was that? Or are you just making shit up again?
-
Really Danny? Which one was that? Or are you just making shit up again?
Pile I have never made anything up nor lied ever on this site. So please young man stop acting like you can come close to busting my balls.
Who do you think I am Pile, ya I'm just going to pony up that information. So you can slander the program and myself. No I don't think so. If you do not like me being ambiguous then don't read my posts.
I have always been honest with my affiliations with TC's and will continue to have them, I have many acquaintances in the TCI, jails, prisons, homeless shelters and missions. I am 51 yrs old and have been involved for close to 40 years in one form or another.
Pile you have read my story, I came off the streets of Boston and Providence, dope fiend, criminal and in and out of one institution after another since I was 12 yrs. old. I am not like you, I don't have a problem saying these programs saved my life because they did. If I had stayed in juvie or on the streets I would not be here today, for sure. I learned the game I had to play early in Daytop and Marathon House, so by the time I ended up in Elan for 18 months, I had it down. I call it survival.
Well guess what there are many folks still out there exactly like me and worse, I try and work with them, along with others we try and keep them alive long enough to stay alive. Know what I mean bro. So stop fucking with me and try helping.
Last comment here, just because the TC's kept me alive, doesn't mean that was there intent. I know this all to well. I also will not be involved with sending someone to a place like Elan, Straight, Cedu, Seed or any other TC that is abusing kids. We are a group of individuals who are EX-TC residents that lend are support. If you really want to make a change, then get in the trenches and literally try and save a life.
Not say'in your not doing that know, just say'in.
danny
-
I’ll answer with a recently discussed topic in relation to the practices of the Troubled Teen Industry. Does a doctor operate before they practice? If we know we have not yet defined the context under which we are operating, why are we allowing it to practice. The Double Bind in the troubled teen industry is a uniquely real context . I firmly believe we should have a clear understanding of it before we accept using it on our kids.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0)
.
The more I read here the more it becomes apparent that each program is different. I haven’t seen the double bind built into any program. I think I have heard people from elan speak out and agree it was part of their experience or programs from the past, but no one else. Personally I have not seen it. I remember many people in my past who use to send conflicting messages, but not entire institutions.
Programs do have a very defined program under which they operate. Just because they don’t make it public doesn’t mean it doesnt exist. Each program is competing to see who can attain the highest success rate so they are not going to share the process or nuances of their model with competitors.
I think the whole discussion of the double Bind is interesting but I would be careful in trying to assume it is used across the board.
...
The double bind doesn’t have to be defined in the troubled teen industry as ‘used’ or ‘built in’ with a focus on implicating the true intent of the staff or those running it. Although it is my feeling that double binds were consciously used by many at Cedu, the double bind represents an interactional context. The troubled teen industry, and the TC model represents an overall context for the double bind. At this point there is very common model being used. I’m not going to pretend I know every program, if you can identify a program that is exempt from containing the ingredients for double binding I’m all ears believe me, they should be rewarded for transcending the current model. but if there were a program that functioned outside a double bind context it would truly be a departure from the overall TTI model, and that is why we must apply this analyses to them as a group.
Take a look at the table of contents in these books. You’ll notice these are some recent publications from 2003 and 04.
THERAPEUTIC COMMUNITY: A Practice Guide. Fernando P. Perfas
http://www.amazon.com/Therapeutic-Commu ... 0595280439 (http://www.amazon.com/Therapeutic-Community-Practice-Fernando-Perfas/dp/0595280439/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277052408&sr=8-1#reader_0595280439)
THERAPEUTIC COMMUNITY: A Social Systems Perspective.
http://www.amazon.com/Therapeutic-Commu ... 0595321313 (http://www.amazon.com/Therapeutic-Community-Social-Systems-Perspective/dp/0595321313/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277052408&sr=8-2#reader_0595321313)
Just look over the contents for a moment. I have these books and I can tell you there are quite a few things about the suggested TC model that are questionable. First of all there is a clear statement that at the ‘very heart’ of the TC is the social system. Perfas emphasizes that peoples roles, and the meaning of their interactions are the result of the power of the community and its’ system. So I can clearly tell that there is an important focus on systems theory as the basis for the TC model, and there is plenty of clues indicate that TC’s have adopted their thinking directly from the individuals responsible for Double Bind Theory, family therapy theory, family systems theory, and their large contribution to intervention approaches. Perfas has recognized the TC as being a system that is ‘more than the sum of it’s parts’, a phrasing very common in Double Bind literature and systems theory. Other references to the work of the double bind group are the terms family therapy, family intervention, input, output, feedback, interface.
To be perfectly frank I found his books to be suspiciously absent of any real theory, and had minimal references to important figures in the development of systems explanations for human behavior and interaction. I believe the only reference to someone with a theoretical background in cybernetics and systems theory was Maturana, which doesn’t say much for me when I read a book that is specifically focused on a systems explanation for TC’s. In systems theory, cybernetics, systems psychology you will unquestionably find that Gregory Bateson is by far the most influential person in that area. Not once mentioning Gregory Bateson is a huge oversight in clarifying a systems perspective on TC’s. Although he does say near the end of the book that it does not presume to explain the TC social system completely, who he has decided to focus on is quite narrow in defining where the social systems perspective comes from. In light of this, the Double Bind is a glaring oversight in the TC’s evaluation of itself.
Now, aside from a shallow take on systems theory in TC’s, Perfas is offering a variety of general techniques and approaches to working a TC. The methodology presented can be clearly compared with what has been written on the double bind. For instance, on pg. 41 he describes the use of cognitive dissonance producing methods to heighten the clients internal stress in order to breakdown resistance to change.
On pg. 38 it describes the TC’s approach to intake. He says clients end up in treatment as the result of ‘driving forces, some of them beyond their control.’ And even the rare ‘voluntary’ member is typically there because of social pressures. This being the case, his answer to this is to suggest an intake process of gaining rapport, eliciting information from the client (with intent to use it later for motivating change with cognitive dissonance), and gaining small, incremental agreements from them.
In discussing a certain stage in therapy, he calls ‘the probe’ stage the one where heightened self disclosure is required and there a main focus on getting the clients to reveal ‘psycho sexual’ issues. They are encouraged to talk about their sexuality and sexual experiences and tie them to their self concept and drug issues. If this were the TC practice guide from my day this would certainly explain the inappropriate (to say the least) sexual conversations the staff seemed so eager to get into.
There is too much to go on about when it comes to the potential for double binding here. There are a lot of manipulative techniques. All in all the TC model Perfas is showing looks very much the same as when it started in Synanon and Daytop. Marathon Groups, Encounter Groups, Haircuts, peer confrontation group, privileges, hierarchy, ‘act as if’, attack therapy, gestalt theory, humanistic psychiatry. But really, what needs to be discussed is that the double bind has a clear place in the structure of the TC’ model, and the troubled teen industry. As of yet there have been no efforts to understand the role it plays.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0)
.
-
I remember words being used like "accountability", "responsibility", "initiative", "growth", etc...
and that's exactly how they were used.. was like a game. The words were like inanimate objects. They didn t mean anything. They weren t connected to any full understanding of things. It's like they were raised above reality.
In regards to anything one could say. " Where is your accountability?" or "Where is your growth?", and it didn t mean anything...
and yet at the same time time, it meant only one thing.. " You are wrong. Tell us what we want to hear."
Paul
-
The overall message I always got from that place(Daytop) was..
" The only way to be good, is to accept that you are bad."
Paul
-
No, I meant that the program will not harm the child while the child is there. I don’t see how the behavior modification could harm the child after they leave the program.
Therein lies one of your problems.
Definitely potential for harm, inside, outside, both. There is plenty of reason to connect the Troubled teen industry with psychological trauma.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0)
.
Well, I partially agree with you. I think there is potential for harm "anytime" a child is overseen by others outside the family. This includes daycare, public/private schools and programs. I think like Anne Bonney, your vantage point stems from experiences you had with programs 30 years ago or isolated cases. The majority of the programs I am familiar with work directly to reverse any potential issues which would result in long term or short term damage not cause them.
...
So you are saying that troubled teen industry programs take action to protect the teen from double bind situations, which is the context under which they operate? I’d really like to hear how you believe they are doing that. Neither you on the TTI can deny that double binds have the potential for psychological harm, or that the therapy provided, at it’s core, functions as a result of double binding.
It’s all here for your understanding, but if you want to cast it off as inconsequential ….
Hey Whooter, I demand that you feel better about yourself. Grow your self esteem, buddy!
DOUBLE BIND: Mind Control in the TTI
.
Just checking on your progress Whooter, are you feeling better about yourself yet?
Double Bind: Mind Control in the TTI
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0)
.
-
Just checking on your progress Whooter, are you feeling better about yourself yet?
Double Bind: Mind Control in the TTI
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0)
.
Thanks awake, my self esteem seems to be improving. I had a pretty good day, just hoping tomorrow is a little better.
...
-
Just checking on your progress Whooter, are you feeling better about yourself yet?
Double Bind: Mind Control in the TTI
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0)
.
Thanks awake, my self esteem seems to be improving. I had a pretty good day, just hoping tomorrow is a little better.
...
No, thank you. It's nice to have your recommendation. Tomorrow let's work on developing better friendships around here, ok?
.
-
So far I am reporting a success rate of 100%. The double bind is proving to have successful treatment results.
-
(Transcript of therapy: A participant study)
Awake: Hey Whooter, I demand that you feel better about yourself. Grow your self esteem, buddy!
Awake: Just checking on your progress Whooter, are you feeling better about yourself yet?
Whooter: Thanks awake, my self esteem seems to be improving. I had a pretty good day, just hoping tomorrow is a little better.
Awake: No, thank you. It's nice to have your recommendation. Tomorrow let's work on developing better friendships around here, ok?
…… end ….
So, it’s a new day Whooter. Tell me what’s been going on. Have you been working on yourself?
.
-
So, it’s a new day Whooter. Tell me what’s been going on. Have you been working on yourself?
.
Yes I have, thank you,I had a good day and managed not to get into any arguments with Ursus. He didn’t seem cranky today and we spent the day posting in different areas for the most part. He was busy, as usual, with his cut-and-paste activities and documentation. No name calling and my post count was on target or a little higher with 3 posts (4 counting this one) compared to an average of 2.6 per day so I am feeling good about myself. I had a few trolls on my tail but that is to be expected. All and all I managed to keep the day in perspective.
...
-
So, it’s a new day Whooter. Tell me what’s been going on. Have you been working on yourself?
.
Yes I have, thank you,I had a good day and managed not to get into any arguments with Ursus. He didn’t seem cranky today and we spent the day posting in different areas for the most part. He was busy, as usual, with his cut-and-paste activities and documentation. No name calling and my post count was on target or a little higher with 3 posts (4 counting this one) compared to an average of 2.6 per day so I am feeling good about myself. I had a few trolls on my tail but that is to be expected. All and all I managed to keep the day in perspective.
...
You’re supposed to be working on your friendships here. What I hear you saying is that you are avoiding opening up around here. If you open up a little bit maybe you will get along better with Ursus. Give it a shot! Don’t hold back on yourself, you’re doing great so far.
-
It's been a few days Whooter. How have you been improving on yourself?
-
Whooter, are you paying attention? I asked you a question? ^
-
Whooter, you are posting everywhere but here. I’m wondering if it is because you are finding yourself in a bind interacting with me under my demand that you grow your self esteem?, Although this certainly is not a double bind, as it is in programs for troubled teens.
Well, whenever you’re ready to start feeling better about yourself come on back, or you can keep doing nothing. Your choice, but I wish you cared about yourself enough to put the tiniest amount of effort in.
-
Paging Whooter to the thread.....paging Whooter to the thread.
-
I am going to have to call you out on this one Whooter. You are even displaying the classic symptoms that are presumed under the Double bind theory of Schizophrenia, that is the schizophrenics’ attempts not to communicate.
You don’t want to think the double bind is of consequence when evaluating the troubled teen industry, but it’s the way I say it is. The Double Bind is the stimulus response mechanism that drives the industry and maintains the illusion of success.
I’m still open to your interpretation, so feel better about yourself and show me this isn’t what’s really going on.
DOUBLE BIND: Mind Control in the TTI
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0)
.
-
I am going to have to call you out on this one Whooter. You are even displaying the classic symptoms that are presumed under the Double bind theory of Schizophrenia, that is the schizophrenics’ attempts not to communicate.
You don’t want to think the double bind is of consequence when evaluating the troubled teen industry, but it’s the way I say it is. The Double Bind is the stimulus response mechanism that drives the industry and maintains the illusion of success.
I’m still open to your interpretation, so feel better about yourself and show me this isn’t what’s really going on.
DOUBLE BIND: Mind Control in the TTI
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0)
.
It is very interesting and I very much liked the analogy of the air-conditioner/heater interdependent balanced system. I actually worked a similar problem in my heat transfer course in undergraduate work. The heat pump within your house rarely competes against each other because they operate during different seasons and one is normally turned off.
But if you had them both operating and set to cool at 72 degrees (down to 68 degrees) and heat up to 72 degrees (from 68 degrees) then you would have a continuous cycle and the system would balance itself and find its center a gravity so to speak. If you pulled the limits in closer the units would fight each other until they burned themselves out (unless you regulated or limited output), in which case they would both just continuously run without reaching their pre-set parameters (or goal)
But as you said they would be dependent on each other... let me read your double bind again and see if I can understand what you are saying. it did make sense the first time I read it, but I lost my thoughts on it.
Too tired tonight though.....
...
-
I am going to have to call you out on this one Whooter. You are even displaying the classic symptoms that are presumed under the Double bind theory of Schizophrenia, that is the schizophrenics’ attempts not to communicate.
You don’t want to think the double bind is of consequence when evaluating the troubled teen industry, but it’s the way I say it is. The Double Bind is the stimulus response mechanism that drives the industry and maintains the illusion of success.
I’m still open to your interpretation, so feel better about yourself and show me this isn’t what’s really going on.
DOUBLE BIND: Mind Control in the TTI
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0)
.
It is very interesting and I very much liked the analogy of the air-conditioner/heater interdependent balanced system. I actually worked a similar problem in my heat transfer course in undergraduate work. The heat pump within your house rarely competes against each other because they operate during different seasons and one is normally turned off.
But if you had them both operating and set to cool at 72 degrees (down to 68 degrees) and heat up to 72 degrees (from 68 degrees) then you would have a continuous cycle and the system would balance itself and find its center a gravity so to speak. If you pulled the limits in closer the units would fight each other until they burned themselves out (unless you regulated or limited output), in which case they would both just continuously run without reaching their pre-set parameters (or goal)
But as you said they would be dependent on each other... let me read your double bind again and see if I can understand what you are saying. it did make sense the first time I read it, but I lost my thoughts on it.
Too tired tonight though.....
...
You can feel good about that.
.
-
How are you coming along with your self esteem issues Whooter?
-
You could be feeling better about yourself Whooter, you know it…. In here…… (Awake points to heart) :rose: