Hacker News Reader

This all pretends like there’s somehow no causality to many of these kids being “difficult”. I’ll even give that in some cases there is just some condition that makes a kid incredibly out of control despite actual loving supporting parents, but I would wager you can find environmental causes in most cases.

My experience with friends who have gone to places like this is that the kids by and large were under extreme emotional neglect from a very early age, and visiting a “troubled teen” facility is that it catalyses and forever imprints a childhood completely filled with trauma. It destroys forever the possibility of a relationship with the parents. Kids are often not told where they were going or being rushed away in the middle of the night, with drill sergeants and harsh punishments and rural facilities designed to present escape. It’s psychological torture to “break” a child as one would a farm animal.

Parents are sacrosanct in this country and there is no actual community to give much in terms of help. Peoples suburban homes are their castle and nobody knows how much neglect or abuse is going on behind closed doors until the kid shows up at school with a “behavior disorder”. Simply put: people who are completely incompetent to care for another human being much less an immature one’s emotional or physical or developmental needs get full legal protection. I think this is underappreciated in society since everyone who is a parent experienced many difficulties and they imagine all the ways things could go wrong. They are usually being charitable to the other parents though - the bar at which a child develops a secure emotional attachment is not that high.

> This all pretends like there’s somehow no causality to many of these kids being “difficult”.

I didn't get that from the above comment. They were just asking people to listen to the stories individually, and to consider that culture can influence the choices parents make. Parents' choices can be misguided, and as you say, they need guidance too.

> My experience with friends who have gone to places like this is that the kids by and large were under extreme emotional neglect from a very early age, and visiting a “troubled teen” facility is that it catalyses and forever imprints a childhood completely filled with trauma.

That may be. I don't think that disagrees with the above comment.

> I didn't get that from the above comment. They were just asking people to listen to the stories individually, and to consider that culture can influence the choices parents make. Parents' choices can be misguided, and as you say, they need guidance too.

I suppose I felt like it paints a fairly rosy picture of the "trouble teen" industry. "Resorts" with ski passes and mountain biking would seem to be the exception (and an extremely well heeled one at that) rather than the norm. I feel like in some ways the narratives that conservative "tough love" industries foist on parents is that their childrens emotions are unmanageable intrinsically rather than a relatively predictable outcome from parents who themselves were raised in a cycle of abusive and nullifying behavior.

That said there is a percentage of the bell curve of "troubled teens" who really did have a better than average upbringing in terms of getting physical and emotional needs met. The problem is that for many parents there's a self-perception that that number approaches 100%, when in fact its quite clear from the children's own experience that they were experiencing extreme levels of neglect. There's a vast gulf between the self perception of incompetent/traumatized parents and the actual needs of children, and I wanted to highlight that.

> I’ll even give that in some cases there is just some condition that makes a kid incredibly out of despite actual loving supporting parents, but I would wager you can find environmental causes in most cases.

It seems wrong to single out environmental causes as dominant. There are parents with multiple children who all did fine except one. Anyway, we know it's a complicated mix of genetics and environment and either factor can be decisive.

> Parents are sacrosanct in this country and there is no actual community to give much in terms of help. Peoples suburban homes are their castle and nobody knows how much neglect or abuse is going on behind closed doors until the kid shows up at school with a “behavior disorder”. Simply put: people who are completely incompetent to care for another human being much less an immature one’s emotional or physical or developmental needs get full legal protection. I think this is underappreciated in society since everyone who is a parent experienced many difficulties and they imagine all the ways things could go wrong. They are usually being charitable to the other parents though - the bar at which a child develops a secure emotional attachment is not that high.

Parents are much less sacrosanct in the US/UK than anywhere else.

No one actually knows how to raise children. We have decided to let parents experiment on their children and this seems correct to me. The more we mandate certain parenting techniques, the more it will become clear that the "science" behind child-rearing is not reliable. We'll be screwing up children uniformly instead of haphazardly. I think it's better to let parents do their best. This leaves us with some children who were over-disciplined and some who were under-disciplined and this is a better outcome than everyone being screwed up in the same way.

>> There are parents with multiple children who all did fine except one.

Isn't that highly subjective? I know of cases in which children literally broke with their parents. Two siblings turned out "fine" (social and parents definition), the one that broke with them didn't (parents' definition again). turned out the "troubled" one finished school on top of class (not that I would take that a true measure so) after leaving home aged 16, that kid actually did turned out more then fine IMHO. Working and helping kids with similar, and even harder, backgrounds is tough and valuable work.

The terms "troubled" and "fine" are highly subjective. And shouldn't be basis for any abusive measures. Unless they are illegal, in which case there are laws (which have to be revisited every once in a while. Also prisons seem to be better places then some of those tough love programs).

It's not subjective to say drug addicts, criminals, or people who died in drunk driving accidents didn't turn out well.

I think parents should implement "tough love" themselves as necessary and sending your child to one of these programs is, in general, a failure of parenting.

> Parents are much less sacrosanct in the US/UK than anywhere else.

By what measure? Cultural relevance or actual legal authority?

> No one actually knows how to raise children.

We have a much better idea now about how to meet the developmental needs of children than ever before, I think almost anyone would argue. We have studies on the outcomes of things like corporal punishment. We have the ACE study and it’s effects. So many other foundational developmental science has been done in the last 30 years.

> I think it's better to let parents do their best. This leaves us with some children who were over-disciplined and some who were under-disciplined and this is a better outcome than everyone being screwed up in the same way.

I certainly won’t argue against that but I would argue that having people have at least a cursory education on child rearing might be something that would help. As a survivor of abuse it’s very difficult to allow for the idea that nothing further could be done for kids in similar positions.

> By what measure? Cultural relevance or actual legal authority?

Both. Wales made corporeal punishment illegal recently. That would be unthinkable in most of the world. In most Asian cultures, children have a lifelong obligation to their parents. In the US, once you're an adult, you're on your own and it's not uncommon to have limited contact with your parents.

> We have a much better idea now about how to meet the developmental needs of children than ever before, I think almost anyone would argue. We have studies on the outcomes of things like corporal punishment. We have the ACE study and it’s effects. So many other foundational developmental science has been done in the last 30 years.

We might know more than we used to but we know very little. I suspect the vast majority of these studies have no predictive power.

> I certainly won’t argue against that but I would argue that having people have at least a cursory education on child rearing might be something that would help. As a survivor of abuse it’s very difficult to allow for the idea that nothing further could be done for kids in similar positions.

I think your experience ("survivor of abuse") probably informs your views more than supposed advances in science of child development. And the same is true for me: the fact that my parents were/are wonderful and my father hit me occasionally explains my views here.

There is such a thing as abuse, it should be illegal, and it's a serious problem. But we're in danger of demonizing discipline and reasonable physical punishment. My experience is that discipline and love aren't opposites, they should coexist and when you don't have one, you're going to have trouble.

> Both. Wales made corporeal punishment illegal recently. That would be unthinkable in most of the world. In most Asian cultures, children have a lifelong obligation to their parents. In the US, once you're an adult, you're on your own and it's not uncommon to have limited contact with your parents.

Isn’t this the parents rather than the kids? Parents who expect their children to take care of them even in Asia may tend to treat their children better.

> We might know more than we used to but we know very little. I suspect the vast majority of these studies have no predictive power.

Look up the outcomes of the ACE study, it’s one of the most predictive statistical studies ever created when it comes to many outcomes, including premature death, substance abuse, imprisonment and even bodily health outcomes. It’s extremely important.

> And the same is true for me: the fact that my parents were/are wonderful and my father hit me occasionally explains my views here.

Studies have shown that hitting children either is neutral or harmful. That it was neutral doesn’t mean on measure it’s not tending towards harmful. The more a child is hit the more developmental problems arise. Nearly any cohort controlling for other factors, striking a child has worse outcomes. There is data to back this up.

> But we're in danger of demonizing discipline and reasonable physical punishment.

Let’s not conflate the two. A time out is not the same as teaching a child they will be hit if they don’t obey. Parental authority is not infallible.

> My experience is that discipline and love aren't opposites, they should coexist and when you don't have one, you're going to have trouble.

I agree with this point and am not arguing for no discipline. The context of this thread is being labeled a troubled teen and being forced to go to a “discipline” prison.

>Wales made corporeal punishment illegal recently. That would be unthinkable in most of the world. In most Asian cultures, children have a lifelong obligation to their parents.

China banned corporal punishment during the communist revolution of 1949, and is about to enact new laws that strengthen enforcement in rural areas and send offending parents to reeducation facilities. Japan banned it in 1947, and passed another law more explicitly banning it in 2020.

Still you are right in that compared to most of the world, the US/UK gives less authority to parents. But compared to other developed countries with similar GDP, they are still very traditional.

>the fact that my parents were/are wonderful and my father hit me occasionally explains my views here.

I'm sure many people have the same experience, but frankly I don't understand why this would lead you to conclude that hitting a child is reasonable. People cannot be divided into "good people" and "abusers"; everyone is capable of both types of behavior under the right circumstances. We can always use more research, but we have studied this topic enough that you should not be relying so much on personal anecdotal experience instead of peer reviewed research. We have large, well controlled studies that consistently show that corporal punishment contributes to developmental problems and is an ineffective method of promoting good behavior.

Answer me this: is there any type of evidence you would accept? If you were to design a study to determine whether corporal punishment is helpful or harmful, what method would you use? How big would the study have to be? How strong of a correlation would you need to see to believe it?

Do you really think these studies are "well-controlled"? If the studies showed the opposite result, would your opinion be different?

> Answer me this: is there any type of evidence you would accept? If you were to design a study to determine whether corporal punishment is helpful or harmful, what method would you use? How big would the study have to be? How strong of a correlation would you need to see to believe it?

If some mad scientist does an interventional study I would take that seriously. Can't happen, of course.

I'm not "in favor of corporeal punishment". I just don't accept the evidence that it's bad. I don't think questions like this are answerable with observational studies. Like my original post said, my view is that parents are inevitably going to experiment on their kids and that's the way it should be. There's a line somewhere, but spanking isn't over it.

> We have studies on the outcomes of things like corporal punishment

Really, though, if you understand what a study is, and the principles it must live up to to avoid inaccurate conclusions, wouldn’t you have to say that the effects of corporal punishment is almost impossible to study?

To do it right they’d need to get rick and mortys help to bounce between dimensions.

(I am sorry you suffered abuse, and I too wish more could be done to stop it).

I'm not saying anything is infallible, but the vast majority of what we know around corporal punishment is that it is ultimately harmful for everything other than obedience. It elicits aggressive behaviors in the children.

A metaanalysis that addresses some of what you're saying: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3447048/

How is this comment necessary? Many things are studied without the ability to "bounce between dimensions".

I have a question. Do these programs exist in other countries? A cursory search (I honestly am not sure what I should be looking for) couldn't find any here in Australia. Is this a uniquely American thing? Surely not, I assume. If it's not, do these programs have the same horrible stories coming out of them elsewhere, and if they don't, does that not paint a picture that the approach taken in the US isn't a good one?

I freely admit to being pretty ignorant about all this. I do not have the best view on these "programs" though, from everything I've seen.

> Do these programs exist in other countries?

Yes, they exist in India. The usual purpose is to force kids to study.

India has coaching centres which are worse than jails for kids where they are coached to crack JEE (Elite college entrance exam) and other competitive exams.

You can find all sort of abuse happening in these.

Stack class ranking, subtle gender separation, and some verbal & physical abuse is common in most schools outside of few urban centres though.

Public stripping and getting kids dehydrated outside in hot temperatures was a thing few years ago but it might have stopped now, I hope.

A very common theme is the utter discard of any "growth mindset". And students are increasingly not only ranked within the same class, but thereon the classes themselves are ranked - where the best instructors are assigned to the best classes -> students. The ultimate incentive here for the school is to land 5-10 very smart students that will "top" the national exams bringing pride and most importantly, a lot of applications to the institution.

YMMV as the thread states, but it is undeniably a feature of these schools.

These are quite different in spirit to the kind of schools that OP posted. Parents aren't sending their kids to the coaching centres to straighten them out. They all want their kids to do well in studies, and unfortunately, this is all they care about. In some sense, these schools are like boarding schools; some kids shine, some get traumatised for life.

These institutions are nothing like coaching institutes. Read up a bit about these for ex: elan.

Found this within two clicks after searching "Troubled Teens Australia":

https://teenchallenge.com.au/our-program

Seemed scary at first to me (for example, they only allow a single 10-minute phone call per week to friends and family during your stay, and religion + teens makes me think of the Christian Brotherhood shit), but people swear by it on Reddit.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/18/the-shadow-pen...

The latest episode of Darknet Diaries[0] talks about Adam being sent to a Behavior School in Australia, so they do exist in Australia and this is not a US only idea. Therapeutic Boarding School[1] is also a term used to describe them.

[0] https://darknetdiaries.com/transcript/113/

[1] https://australian-children.com/therapeutic-schools/

I france, this allegedly doesn't exist, but we have some private schools that use some of the tactics GP and OP describe (especially isolement). Mostly highschools aimed to late teens, "luckily".

They might do better on test, so there is that, but they also have classes of 20 max, unlike most public and most other private but les stringent schools. I think this is 90% of their success (i can elaborate on that but this is personnal anecdata, not a all something to be taken seriously)

> some students thought it was abusive to require skiing and mountain biking two days per week (I disagree)

The question of whether this is abusive or not depends on the consequences for refusing to go.

Do kids lose TV privileges for a day if they refuse to go? Then I'd say it's not abusive.

Are kids locked in a room if they refuse to go? Definitely abusive.

>Are kids locked in a room if they refuse to go? Definitely abusive.

I don't disagree, but also consider the entire picture. Some of these people end up being the ones that get raging drunk, and into head on collision with a family of 4 killing them all. How the heck do you try to prevent something like that when all the warning signs are there?

> How the heck do you try to prevent something like that when all the warning signs are there?

Surely not by preemptive incarceration.

GP said:

> Do kids lose TV privileges for a day if they refuse to go? Then I'd say it's not abusive.

I don't agree. Coercing kids into physical sports is abusive. In general, using coercion (including denial of "privileges" that non-inmates consider a right) is both abusive and probably doomed.

This kid was surely troubled; but why? He didn't talk much about how his parents treated him. All we know is that their response to the trouble was to dump him in an institution. My guess is that his behaviour was a rational response to being brought up in a home where he was denied love and affection.

> My guess is that his behaviour was a rational response to being brought up in a home where he was denied love and affection.

I wish this were always the case but statistically this would be a miracle. There is a non zero number of humans born that no matter what we do they will not work with the society that works for the rest of us.

That’s the root of this issue. How do you help the ones that can be helped, and what do you do with those that can’t be helped. I imagine we’ll need a much more sophisticated understanding of genetics before we can answer that.

You know who else tried to predict future compatibility of certain people based on genetics? We are as much a product of our genes as we are of our environment. Nothing justifies any of those measures described in the NYYT article and by others in this thread. Nothing, period. If people commit crimes, we have a justice system (no matter how fucked up those can be, not even talking about prisons). For those truly having mental and psychiatric issues, we have corresponding hospitals (again, those can be, and are, pretty abusive themselves). And none of those should be above critical investigations.

As a society we have to accept that some people don't want to cooperate. As long as nobody is harmed (up to the justice system to decide) we have to accept that too.

> We are as much a product of our genes as we are of our environment

Don’t our genes dictate how we respond to our environment?

> Don’t our genes dictate how we respond to our environment?

"Dictate" is much too strong. Genetics and environment interact in complex ways, that aren't well understood.

I detest the idea that some people are just bad, and were always going to be bad. It seems to be an idea that attracts religious fundamentalists. I struggle with the idea that literally all psychological problems are the result of trauma; but I do think most of them are.

Some kids seem to be able to largely shake off trauma on their own; others need help. My guess is that it's much harder to help a 30-year-old deal with childhood trauma than it is a 12-year-old. But that doesn't mean the 30-year-old is "bad to the bone".

>I detest the idea that some people are just bad, and were always going to be bad.

I think some people (children really) have a propensity to be bad, but it can be corrected. When and how it's corrected has a lot to do with success. It has to be worked on early and properly, or it could make the problem worse. Like you I'm not comfortable with the idea that any child is irredeemable.

>I struggle with the idea that literally all psychological problems are the result of trauma; but I do think most of them are.

I agree, much of it is trauma, but some of it isn't. I think drug and alcohol dependence seems to be passed down quite a bit, which is also a significant source of detrimental behavior. I have it in my family but it seems to have dodged me.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4056340/

>Abundant evidence indicates that alcoholism is a complex genetic disease, with variations in a large number of genes affecting risk.

>I think some people (children really) have a propensity to be bad

That's... incredibly simplistic. When you're describing actions as good or bad you've already lost the truth.

A child can have poorly informed priorities. They can be sociopathic. But if your local government is experiencing an armed revolution, you're going to envy that lack of care for society.

Blanket characterizations like 'bad' and 'good' might have been useful in the third grade, but accurate and specific diagnoses that bring accurate and specific treatments are the only way to solve this problem.

>You know who else tried to predict future compatibility of certain people based on genetics?

Jesus, a Hitler reference? Lots of organizations that aren't Hitler diagnose behavior based on genetics, including alcohol and drug abuse prevention and modern medicine. Your parents have cancer? Well predictively you might have a higher chance of getting it too. Your parents are smart? We should test you for the gifted program.

>Nothing justifies any of those measures described in the NYYT article and by others in this thread. Nothing, period.

Nobody is justifying it, read what you are replying to.

>As a society we have to accept that some people don't want to cooperate. As long as nobody is harmed (up to the justice system to decide) we have to accept that too.

Most of the time people are harmed, not just the troubled individual but the family of 4 they crash into and kill on a drunken joyride. What tools do parents have to prevent that? That's the whole point of the discussion.

>> Most of the time people are harmed, not just the troubled individual but the family of 4 they crash into and kill on a drunken joyride. What tools do parents have to prevent that? That's the whole point of the discussion.

Answer: None. Because it can happen, all the time. Whether those kids are 16, 18, 25 or 53. Also, it is a pretty specific example...

EDIT: Just because it hits home, genetic prevalence of cancer is something completely different from behavior and how people work in a society. Don't even think of comparing those. The former is your body turning on you, the latter is society deciding you are "troubled" and need "fixing".

>Just because it hits home, genetic prevalence of cancer is something completely different from behavior and how people work in a society.

>You know who else tried to predict future compatibility of certain people based on genetics?

Both can be predicted genetically. You insinuated predicting outcomes in genetics was bad somehow because Hitler did it. It wasn't a great argument, you should just own up to it.

≥Don't even think of comparing those.

You ain't my daddy. You think you're the only person with experience with cancer? Everybody, and I mean everybody has a cross to bear.

>The former is your body turning on you, the latter is society deciding you are "troubled" and need "fixing".

You shouldn't minimize mental health issues, many of these troubles can be the result of that, at least in part. Killing a family of 4 in a drunken joyride isn't just society deciding you are troubled, it has real world consequences. You seem to have some emotional block to thinking about this rationally.

For risking a pointless dispute on forum, I'll comment one more time. No, I didn't make a Hitler comparison. Owning up to it? Sure, look up the history eugenics, its use through history and you'll find that the Nazi's use of it was the worst but by no means the only or first occasion where this approach (it doesn't matter that we can analyze genomes now) utterly failed.

And no, future compatibility with society cannot be judged on genetics, hell we have hard times predicting stuff like cancer and other diseases based on genetics. And those are much more driven by genetics than behavior. Using proven things like cancer to justify BS theories like "eugenics" is, IMHO, unacceptable.

I have no emotional block whatsoever, at least none that I'm diagnosed with. Drunk driving happens, reckless driving happens, people die in accidents. The solution there is driver training, strict rules around legal alcohol and drug limits. None of these will prevent those accidents from happening. Because you don't have to be "troubled" (how I hate that attribute...) to drive drunk and kill a family of 4 (or whatever number you can think of). One bad decision is enough.

Generally speaking so, if Hitler thought something is a good idea I think it is fair to assume it wasn't until deliberate analysis showed otherwise.

>No, I didn't make a Hitler comparison.

Why did you even bring it up then? Nobody from my comment down was talking about eugenics that I can see, until you introduced it to the discussion. It's like you are arguing against an imaginary person in your head.

This is the comment you replied to with your eugenics/not-Hitler argument:

>I wish this were always the case but statistically this would be a miracle. There is a non zero number of humans born that no matter what we do they will not work with the society that works for the rest of us.

>That’s the root of this issue. How do you help the ones that can be helped, and what do you do with those that can’t be helped. I imagine we’ll need a much more sophisticated understanding of genetics before we can answer that.

What does eugenics have to do with that comment?

>future compatibility with society cannot be judged on genetics

Nobody said this but you.

>Using proven things like cancer to justify BS theories like "eugenics" is, IMHO, unacceptable.

Nobody said this either. Who are you even arguing with?

>Because you don't have to be "troubled" (how I hate that attribute...) to drive drunk and kill a family of 4 (or whatever number you can think of). One bad decision is enough.

No, but I would argue people with "troubled" childhoods have a much higher propensity to cause societal damage like killing a family of 4 in a drunken joyride.

You are either trolling, or not mentally present. Either way, please refrain from commenting further.

In case of the latter:

>What does eugenics have to do with that comment?

rajin444 is stating that an understanding of genetics would allow us to rehabilitate people that "will not work with the society that works for the rest of us." This implies that socially desirable behavior can be genetically coded, which has been debunked by the failure of eugenics.

>>future compatibility with society cannot be judged on genetics

>Nobody said this but you.

You had said in a previous comment:

>>Just because it hits home, genetic prevalence of cancer is something completely different from behavior and how people work in a society.

>>You know who else tried to predict future compatibility of certain people based on genetics?

>Both can be predicted genetically.

Which implies that you think future compatability can be judged by genetics.

>>Using proven things like cancer to justify BS theories like "eugenics" is, IMHO, unacceptable.

>Nobody said this either. Who are you even arguing with?

You commented this earlier:

>Your parents have cancer? Well predictively you might have a higher chance of getting it too. Your parents are smart? We should test you for the gifted program.

In this comment, you explicitly compare the use of genetics in a.) cancer and b.) screening for intelligence.

I am inclined to think that you are trolling, especially considering that you are repeatedly using an appeal to emotion in the form of a hypothetical traumatic event. Please stop.

> I wish this were always the case but statistically this would be a miracle.

I certainly live around a whole lot of miracles.

> There is a non zero number of humans born that no matter what we do they will not work with the society that works for the rest of us.

How normalized emotional and physical abuse and neglect is in families would absolutely shock you then, as well as the outcomes.

An infographic from the foundational ACE (adverse childhood experiences) study showing outcomes of neglect, abuse or traumas in childhood: https://vetoviolence.cdc.gov/apps/aces-infographic/home

Do you have a source for your statistics?

>> How the heck do you try to prevent something like that when all the warning signs are there?

>Surely not by preemptive incarceration.

You aren't suggesting any solutions.

>Coercing kids into physical sports is abusive.

You shouldn't dilute the term abusive like that.

>In general, using coercion (including denial of "privileges" that non-inmates consider a right) is both abusive and probably doomed.

I don't think you have kids, you're looking at it from the child's perspective, not a parent's. You haven't really promoted any solutions, just saying things you shouldn't do, leaving a parent with zero tools whatsoever other than to just let the kid be wild. I've seen the results of that, it's quite destructive as well. It's ultimately the parents' responsibility to raise children, and at least in the US, they get zero help and mostly criticism for how they do it, mostly from people who don't have children themselves.

What do you do if you suspect your child is the next Adam Lanza? What do you do if you are as financially constrained and have nearly zero help as a parent in the US? Some variation of "pull yourself up by your bootstraps?"

> You aren't suggesting any solutions.

I'm not a child psychotherapist (but I was married to one). But I believe that in the case of children, and possibly with adults too, providing a warm, supportive environment for the subject to explore their feelings and behaviour is at least part of a solution.

> You shouldn't dilute the term abusive like that.

What's your threshold for calling something "abuse"? At my school we had to play Rugby Union. In one year, several kids in my class were hospitalised with gashes caused by metal boot-studs in the scrum. My son had flat feet; running literally caused him pain.

> I don't think you have kids

I think you think too much. I have two adult kids, and two grandchildren.

> just saying things you shouldn't do, leaving a parent with zero tools

Well, the subject is the consequences of using incarceration as your parenting tool, so that's not surprising.

I'm not suggesting that parenting is easy. And I'm certainly not going to point at some doctrine or methodology, and say "everyone should do it this way". People are people, and they're all different. There's no "right way" of dealing with people. But neglecting children, and then punishing them because they act up, is the "wrong way".

> This particular story tells us little about these schools – it describes the perspective of a student, a client.

Accounts of people who were clients or experienced X tell a lot about X. Not a little. When we take accounts of people who experienced it as a little, that ia when we are missing the most important perspective. And that is when abuses escalate.

Yes, good experience matters as múch as bad ones. But bad ones dont tell "a little".

> help a kid who is on the cusp of life in prison, undergoing their 8th overdose, or being repeatedly raped and subjected to prostitution/exploitation

One of these things is not like the others. One of them is much more likely to happen in an institution.

>it describes the perspective of a student, a client.

The student is not the client. The student didn't pay for it. The student didn't ask to be there. The student isn't the one for whom incentives and interests align.

It's an interesting doublespeak to use for someone who is effectively interred - a prisoner, basically, but extralegal in that they weren't convicted to them. I think anyway, I'm sure there's plenty of these camps that actually are court mandated.

> I'm sure there's plenty of these camps that actually are court mandated.

That may be, but in those cases you would be talking about behavior problems that resulted in problems with the law, trial, guilt and conviction.

Those cases are per definition a sub-set of the much larger group of people that are innocent, don't get in trouble with the law, don't go to trial, aren't convicted, but still are sent to these internment facilities.

If these facilities were limited to kids that are actually mandated by court to go there, then it would be a VERY different story.

> Stories about these institutions get conflated into a mess that scarcely resembles the reality.

Why do you say that, and then why is your story different in that respect?

We cannot, in the face of evil-doing, remain forever in a state of hesitation, saying 'we don't know'. We need think critically, accept our uncertainty, and yet at times draw conclusions and act.

> For example, some students thought it was abusive to require skiing and mountain biking two days per week

Those are strawpersons. Who is saying it? It is not at all what is described in the OP or in the other stories by HN commenters.

> The next story you hear will probably contradict it but also be truthful, and we should listen.

The stories here in this HN discussion agree with the OP.