Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
Interesting and rare intervieuw with Stanley Druckenmiller. It touches on a lot of different subjects,mostly economical and markets but also a few political.
This thread doesn't do the whole "I'm gonna dump a massive youtube video on you to watch as homework."
Interesting and rare intervieuw with Stanley Druckenmiller. It touches on a lot of different subjects,mostly economical and markets but also a few political.
This thread doesn't do the whole "I'm gonna dump a massive youtube video on you to watch as homework."
that is a huge deal for Arizona. The AZ GOP has done everything in their power to suppress voting here so dems taking an integral position in getting our elections in order could be huge.
On November 17 2018 05:23 IgnE wrote: i think the bigger question is: what to do with people that no one wants to take care of (the right way)?
Are you under the impression that there is not a set of best practices already in existence?
it seems to me that my question pertains to the execution of ‘best practices,’ specifically to the question of how to execute them when apparently no one wants to
but now that you mention it, i do have serious doubts that anything like a ‘current best practices’ is ‘best,’ or even that it has obtained broad consensus. it seems more accurate to say that we have a list of ‘bad practices’ that bring shame and ignominy
Current best practices is hardly THE best practice possible. It is simply the currently best known method with the resources and conditions that apply. Best practice should improve over time if resources and conditions stay static and you do your job well.
that is a huge deal for Arizona. The AZ GOP has done everything in their power to suppress voting here so dems taking an integral position in getting our elections in order could be huge.
I would never say "done everything in their power." Just because, as we have seen and continue to see, they haven't done everything. Maybe everything short of shooting voters who show up, but that then, would it surprise you if they did?
Abrams gave up her race in GA. Wish she had stuck it out or sued for a new election.
Trump is now threatening a shut down of the government if he doesn't get the money to build the wall. I had actually thought this was a campaign promise he was not serious about and was not going to follow through on. He does know that USA will pay not Mexico now and that it will likely cost 20 billion. He apparently wants 5 billion in 2019 or will shut down the government.
The picture they pulled is also gold. He looks very serious!
His thinking is probably that the election is over and so now the voters won't hold it against him if the government shuts down despite Republicans still holding control over all branches of government. I don't see this as a very effective threat to get the Democrats to play ball.
On November 17 2018 13:06 Plansix wrote: This is accurate. Chase is both terrible and dysfunctional on levels that are rivaled by few banks.
Wells Fargo is literally arguing in the courts right now that their statements to shareholders that they will operate ethically after all their recent scandals and fines should not taken seriously.
With Gil Cisneros defeating Young Kim, Orange County got swept by the Blue Wave. The stronghold of Nixon and Reagan broke with Latino migration, educated Democrat leaning people moving in, and the defection of moderate Republicans. Puts the Dem House gains at 38.
As a behavior analyst who has worked in the special education field for about a decade and at residential facilities for several years, I can say with confidence that the state of care for intellectually and physically disabled individuals, especially those that exhibit aggressive and/or adversarial behaviors, are appalling. Yes both the level of care and efficacy of treatments have made leaps and bounds over the past 100 years, but when baseline is being locked in cages 24 hours a day that’s not saying much.
The resources required to learn the skills to provide meaningful behavior change for these individuals do not come close to the resources being allocated to the providers. The one-on-one or one-on-two staff responsible for providing their personal care, meals, and enrichment throughout the day require only high school diplomas and get paid minimum wage. They are incentivized to do the bare minimum possible (sleeping with sunglasses on in individuals rooms, yelling at individuals to stay in their rooms, etc.) to make their jobs easier. Non-reported abuse (sexual, physical, and neglect) runs rampant, direct supervision is minimal, and the turnover rate in the field is so astronomical (with state mandated employee training so expensive) that agencies are incentivized to turn a blind eye.
That’s not to say that there aren’t genuinely caring staff, and those lucky individuals who receive their care are much more likely to thrive. I feel fortunate that my current place of employment is a cut above the rest in this regard, but they are still far from perfect, and it’s basically a gamble to get a “good” staff member.
TLDR; it’s better than it has been, but you still wouldn’t want to put a family member somewhere if you could help it.
On November 17 2018 05:23 IgnE wrote: i think the bigger question is: what to do with people that no one wants to take care of (the right way)?
Are you under the impression that there is not a set of best practices already in existence?
it seems to me that my question pertains to the execution of ‘best practices,’ specifically to the question of how to execute them when apparently no one wants to
but now that you mention it, i do have serious doubts that anything like a ‘current best practices’ is ‘best,’ or even that it has obtained broad consensus. it seems more accurate to say that we have a list of ‘bad practices’ that bring shame and ignominy
I think your question assumes too much. First, that it assumes that no one wants to care of the special needs children with the exclusion of other factors, like pay. Or that there are not enough people willing to care for extreme cases of special needs children. Or that the children are so undervalued that the state is unwilling to provide funds to care for them sufficiently. It supposes an economic and or emotional cost assessment on the children and that because of those high costs, no one wishes to care for them.
I do not believe that is the case at all, giving my experience reading about the Judge Rotenberg Center for so many years. I do not believe desire to care for them is in short supply. These children have parents and families who do advocate for them. What they lack is sufficient, sustained advocacy toward legislation that would prohibit the practice and force the Judge Rotenberg Center to change. There are regulations that have prevented its use on new students, but nothing that would outright prohibit it. And because of that, the practice continues.
Current best practice for treatment of autism is 20-30 hours a week of applied behavior analysis (ABA) treatment from a registered behavior technician (RBT, $40-50 an hour average), with board certified behavior analysts (BCBAs) providing around 10 hours a month of supervision ($1000 on average). That brings the cost to about $70k a year. This does not include medical expenses, actual day-to-day care of the individual, or cost of state services in providing residential placement or potential 911 calls.
There is simply NO way that the state can provide funding at levels that can maintain best practice. They’re barely able to provide funding for anything past the essentials. The only individuals receiving best practice treatment are those living at home and who have either rich families who can pay out of pocket, or families that have private health insurance.
EDIT 2 - Electroshock therapy as described in the Judge Rotenberg Center is a relic of behaviorism from the ‘40s-‘60s and I’m shocked (heh) that any state government is willing to provide funding to an agency that utilizes it.
EDIT 2 - Electroshock therapy is a relic of behaviorism from the ‘40s-‘60s and I’m shocked (heh) that any state government is willing to provide funding to an agency that utilizes it.
While it's semantics, i'd like to point out that usually "electroshock therapy" does not refer to torturing kids with electric shocks. Usually it refers to electroconvulsive therapy, which actually does something other than causing pain and punishment.
I know what you meant, but calling it "electroshock therapy" is suggesting that this actually has any merit other than means of punishment. It's literally like whipping kids, it doesn't have any "therapeutic" side effects other than making kids even more aggressive in the long run, and also painting a target on the head of the guy with the button that delivers pain.
While I agree with your point, I was more referring to the idea that similar strategies were actually considered “therapeutic” in the early days of behaviorism; specifically the idea that all you need to do to decrease a behavior is to provide a sufficiently aversive stimulus as a consequence. Nowadays it’s widely acknowledged that “punishment” interventions should only be used as a last resort, and always paired with an intervention that teaches and reinforces an appropriate functionally equivalent skill, or else you run the risk of creating unwanted side effects such as oppositional-defiant or learned helplessness.
That's why i said i know what you meant, because i do.
I just flinch at the idea of calling it "therapy" nowadays. Not that i don't think there's people out there who'd deserve it, it certainly isn't kids that have mental illnesses.
Not to mention that i'd actually disagree with the notion that "punishment" should only be used as last resort, it just has to be proportionate. My nephew for example (which btw had aggression problems too through ADHD, didn't get electrocuted though) responds very well to gadget bans (he's 7).
I do think "punishment" as a form of learning that actions have consequences is important. I disagree that "beating the shit out of your kid" or electrocuting it is that. It's torture, nothing more. I wonder what people would say if, as i said, we suddenly cracked an actual whip. The only reason electroshocks are accepted is because it doesn't cause visual damage, like a whip would do. Might as well waterboard them, why not.
Sidenote, i actually did receive electro shock therapy before as well (just a very different kind, due to an infection i had a partial face paralysis, to preserve nerve and muscles, they contracted muscles etc via electroshocks - not for mental stuff though), and even on the low-ish setting that i received, it was painful as fuck.
On November 19 2018 12:21 m4ini wrote: That's why i said i know what you meant, because i do.
I just flinch at the idea of calling it "therapy" nowadays. Not that i don't think there's people out there who'd deserve it, it certainly isn't kids that have mental illnesses.
Not to mention that i'd actually disagree with the notion that "punishment" should only be used as last resort, it just has to be proportionate. My nephew for example (which btw had aggression problems too through ADHD, didn't get electrocuted though) responds very well to gadget bans (he's 7).
I do think "punishment" as a form of learning that actions have consequences is important. I disagree that "beating the shit out of your kid" or electrocuting it is that. It's torture, nothing more. I wonder what people would say if, as i said, we suddenly cracked an actual whip. The only reason electroshocks are accepted is because it doesn't cause visual damage, like a whip would do. Might as well waterboard them, why not.
Sidenote, i actually did receive electro shock therapy before as well (just a very different kind, due to an infection i had a partial face paralysis, to preserve nerve and muscles, they contracted muscles etc via electroshocks - not for mental stuff though), and even on the low-ish setting that i received, it was painful as fuck.
My mother is a psychiatrist, and there are many myths around electroshock treatment caused by the dramatic effect they can provide in movies. The patients actually want the treatment to get a releaf from the real punishment: their severe mental illness...
Electroshock therapy is a relic of behaviorism from the ‘40s-‘60s and I’m shocked (heh) that any state government is willing to provide funding to an agency that utilizes it.
Not really, it is very effecive against severe depression and other serious conditions. A fairly close family member had the treatment, the complains come when the doctors refuse to give it.
On November 19 2018 02:40 Ryzel wrote: As a behavior analyst who has worked in the special education field for about a decade and at residential facilities for several years, I can say with confidence that the state of care for intellectually and physically disabled individuals, especially those that exhibit aggressive and/or adversarial behaviors, are appalling. Yes both the level of care and efficacy of treatments have made leaps and bounds over the past 100 years, but when baseline is being locked in cages 24 hours a day that’s not saying much.
The resources required to learn the skills to provide meaningful behavior change for these individuals do not come close to the resources being allocated to the providers. The one-on-one or one-on-two staff responsible for providing their personal care, meals, and enrichment throughout the day require only high school diplomas and get paid minimum wage. They are incentivized to do the bare minimum possible (sleeping with sunglasses on in individuals rooms, yelling at individuals to stay in their rooms, etc.) to make their jobs easier. Non-reported abuse (sexual, physical, and neglect) runs rampant, direct supervision is minimal, and the turnover rate in the field is so astronomical (with state mandated employee training so expensive) that agencies are incentivized to turn a blind eye.
That’s not to say that there aren’t genuinely caring staff, and those lucky individuals who receive their care are much more likely to thrive. I feel fortunate that my current place of employment is a cut above the rest in this regard, but they are still far from perfect, and it’s basically a gamble to get a “good” staff member.
TLDR; it’s better than it has been, but you still wouldn’t want to put a family member somewhere if you could help it.
On November 17 2018 05:23 IgnE wrote: i think the bigger question is: what to do with people that no one wants to take care of (the right way)?
Are you under the impression that there is not a set of best practices already in existence?
it seems to me that my question pertains to the execution of ‘best practices,’ specifically to the question of how to execute them when apparently no one wants to
but now that you mention it, i do have serious doubts that anything like a ‘current best practices’ is ‘best,’ or even that it has obtained broad consensus. it seems more accurate to say that we have a list of ‘bad practices’ that bring shame and ignominy
I think your question assumes too much. First, that it assumes that no one wants to care of the special needs children with the exclusion of other factors, like pay. Or that there are not enough people willing to care for extreme cases of special needs children. Or that the children are so undervalued that the state is unwilling to provide funds to care for them sufficiently. It supposes an economic and or emotional cost assessment on the children and that because of those high costs, no one wishes to care for them.
I do not believe that is the case at all, giving my experience reading about the Judge Rotenberg Center for so many years. I do not believe desire to care for them is in short supply. These children have parents and families who do advocate for them. What they lack is sufficient, sustained advocacy toward legislation that would prohibit the practice and force the Judge Rotenberg Center to change. There are regulations that have prevented its use on new students, but nothing that would outright prohibit it. And because of that, the practice continues.
Current best practice for treatment of autism is 20-30 hours a week of applied behavior analysis (ABA) treatment from a registered behavior technician (RBT, $40-50 an hour average), with board certified behavior analysts (BCBAs) providing around 10 hours a month of supervision ($1000 on average). That brings the cost to about $70k a year. This does not include medical expenses, actual day-to-day care of the individual, or cost of state services in providing residential placement or potential 911 calls.
There is simply NO way that the state can provide funding at levels that can maintain best practice. They’re barely able to provide funding for anything past the essentials. The only individuals receiving best practice treatment are those living at home and who have either rich families who can pay out of pocket, or families that have private health insurance.
EDIT 2 - Electroshock therapy is a relic of behaviorism from the ‘40s-‘60s and I’m shocked (heh) that any state government is willing to provide funding to an agency that utilizes it.
Good post. I used to be a support worker in the UK and I experienced a very similar industry. The whole thing is funded by our government but since the tories took over it went down the pan because people with learning disabilities have no economic value.
To get the right standard of care is totally possible, but it requires everyone to do the right thing from the parents/family to the government and everyone in between. Getting good staff on practically minimum wage is a lottery, and if the care provider doesn't want to spend money on good training even having lovely, caring members of staff isn't enough.
The place we should be starting is at least rooting out the bad places, the institutions that torture, bully and inflict misery on the people they are supposed to be caring for.
On November 19 2018 12:21 m4ini wrote: That's why i said i know what you meant, because i do.
I just flinch at the idea of calling it "therapy" nowadays. Not that i don't think there's people out there who'd deserve it, it certainly isn't kids that have mental illnesses.
Not to mention that i'd actually disagree with the notion that "punishment" should only be used as last resort, it just has to be proportionate. My nephew for example (which btw had aggression problems too through ADHD, didn't get electrocuted though) responds very well to gadget bans (he's 7).
I do think "punishment" as a form of learning that actions have consequences is important. I disagree that "beating the shit out of your kid" or electrocuting it is that. It's torture, nothing more. I wonder what people would say if, as i said, we suddenly cracked an actual whip. The only reason electroshocks are accepted is because it doesn't cause visual damage, like a whip would do. Might as well waterboard them, why not.
Sidenote, i actually did receive electro shock therapy before as well (just a very different kind, due to an infection i had a partial face paralysis, to preserve nerve and muscles, they contracted muscles etc via electroshocks - not for mental stuff though), and even on the low-ish setting that i received, it was painful as fuck.
My mother is a psychiatrist, and there are many myths around electroshock treatment caused by the dramatic effect they can provide in movies. The patients actually want the treatment to get a releaf from the real punishment: their severe mental illness...
Electroshock therapy is a relic of behaviorism from the ‘40s-‘60s and I’m shocked (heh) that any state government is willing to provide funding to an agency that utilizes it.
Not really, it is very effecive against severe depression and other serious conditions. A fairly close family member had the treatment, the complains come when the doctors refuse to give it.
Alright, I edited the first post to elaborate that when I say electroshock therapy I’m referring to how it was described as being utilized at the Judge Rotenberg Center.
I have very limited psychiatric experience and can’t comment with any authority on “normal” electroshock therapy as used for depression. Doing a 20-minute touch up on the subject, I’m led to believe that it’s effectiveness is tied to how overriding the stimulus is on the mind. Depressive thinking is typically difficult to dislodge, but the shock plus accompanying memory loss may help to shake it off. In situations where an individual’s life is threatened by entrenched thought patterns, it may be beneficial, although I’d posit that accompanying ECT with a thought-based skill acquisition goal would yield much lower relapse rates. Obviously should only be used as a last resort, as it clearly harms the brain in ways that are not fully understood.
My friend knew a guy who was struck by lightning. He said his personality changed after, like into a completely different person. Maybe his brain got totally rewired after the shock.
On November 19 2018 23:35 riotjune wrote: My friend knew a guy who was struck by lightning. He said his personality changed after, like into a completely different person. Maybe his brain got totally rewired after the shock.
We know pretty much nothing about this subject, and I much less than that. That said: Brain injuries have been known to change personalities in people (I personally know several cases where this has happened), however near death experiences alone can also do that. If you're hit by lightning in the head I'd be hard press to understand how you're even alive, but being hit pretty much anywhere else is often survivable, tho understandably with a deep psychological impact on the victim.
edit: I wasn't even aware I was in the politics thread based on the last couple of posts. How the hell did we get here? O.o