Interverbal defends Matthew Israel, says Israel's action was NOT torture in referring to the behaviorist's methods that killed Vincent Milletich.

The original title of this post was "Critics of Mr. Israel don't know what they are talking about" - B.F. Skinner

Interverbal took issue with the fact that I left out the word "torture". Interverbal thought I was being a bit deceptive because what Skinner said in the article, that I cited, was "The critics who call what he's doing torture don't know what they're talking about." I left out the torture part. He states that by leaving out the word torture that I "radically changed the meaning of Skinner's comment"

Interverbal, myself and others debate the meaning of torture and whether what Israel did could be considered torture or not. The facts are the following: Israel put a helmet and a mask over Vincent Milletich's head, played loud static noise through earphones, injected ammonia spray into the mask which cut off Vincent's supply of oxygen and according to the coroner, Vincent subsequently died from asphyxiation. Asphyxiation isn't a sudden death but a death that typically takes several minutes. According to Wikipedia, "Asphyxiation is used to maim or kill in capital punishment, suicide, TORTURE, and warfare." Interverbal's position is that what happened to Vincent Milletich was not torture.

See discussion with Interverbal here

Here is the original blog post:

In a November 26, 2006 blog by Interverbal, titled "A Less Punishing World: Contradictions in Behavior Analysis, Autism, and Punishment, linked on Neurodiversity.com, Interverbal wrote the following:

This paper reviews the research in punishment for specific behaviors of autistic children. I propose that the rationale for punishment contradicted previous behavior analytic research. I will juxtapose these against the arguments of B. F. Skinner who advocated against punishment.

In 1972 the American Humanist Society awarded B. F. Skinner, their "Humanist of the Year" award. It was dedicated for his efforts to show how "a less punishing world" was possible. It was a controversial choice to say the least. Skinner was after all, the man who had authored a book called "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" that had come out just the previous year (Skinner, 1971).

Skinner (1953) was strongly anti-punishment. He opposed it for five reasons. (1) Its ineffectiveness in decreasing inappropriate behavior (Skinner, 1953; Skinner 1971; Skinner, 1974; and Skinner, 1985). (2) Considerations that the negative behavior being punished is not operant, but caused by some other process (Skinner, 1953). (3) The production of side effects (Skinner, 1953). (4) The ethics of using punishment when other techniques are viable (Skinner. 1953; Skinner 1971; Skinner, 1974; and Skinner, 1985). (5) The quality of life that aversives adversely affect (Skinner, 1953; Skinner 1971; and Skinner, 1974).

With apologies to the opinion of many, B. F. Skinner was not THE behavior analyst; he was however the first among his peers to provide ethical precedent and not just the pragmatic consideration in his analysis of punishment. I argue that knowledge of the history of behavior analytic research into punishment is important as it discloses inconsistancies, in particular when compared to the ethical based arguments of Skinner.

Punishment in the behavior analytic sense, is not the same as in the broader English sense. In behavior analytic sense, punishment is: Any stimulus event or condition, who's immediate response contingent presentation results in a decreased frequency of that response. So, that is the key, it has to immediately follow a behavior and it must be shown to decrease the behavior. Punishment in the broad sense of the word, might be to take a toy away. However, if that doesn't decrease the behavior, it isn't punishment in the behavior analytic sense. On the flip side if a teacher showers a child with praise, and that praise decreases the response that delighted the teacher, then the praise is punishment, in that case.

Review of Literature

Skinner's argument that punishment doesn't work has largely been rejected by the behavior analytic community, based on other research. It has been informally noted that Skinner disliked punishment based operants and he may have overlooked relevant facts. This might be so, but it is also a psychogenetic fallacy, to imagine Skinner's thoughts and use this to explain his actions away. In any case the behavior analyst quickly adapted and adopted punishment.

In a November 19, 1985 New York Times article about the death of 22 year old Vincent Milletich, Mr. Skinner, sought out as an expert on Behaviorism by the reporter, was quoted defending Mr. Israel's use of aversives by stating the following:

Professor Skinner said: ''I don't like punishment at all. But some people are temporarily out of the reach of positive reinforcement, and a small amount of punishment may help bring them within reach of therapy.'' He also defended Mr. Israel, saying, ''The critics who call what he's doing torture don't know what they're talking about.''

Mr. Milletich died after having been restrained by his wrists and legs, a helmet with a mask put on his head, and bombarded with static noise and ammonia vapor. Mr. Milletich died at the Behavior Research Institute (Judge Rotenberg Center).

Unbeknownst to the author of the NY Times article, as well as to nearly all modern day students of Skinner, is that Skinner himself instructed Matthew Israel on using these techniques and in fact it was Skinner who should have been held responsible, along with Israel, for the death of Vincent Milletich. B.F. Skinner believed in extreme aversives and the old man was the one who told Israel to use the helmet, vapor spray and restraints that caused the micro environment of oxygen depletion that resulted in the asphyxiation death of Vincent Milletich.

Contrary to Interverbal's analysis that Professor Skinner was "strongly against punishment" and the "behavior analytic community abandoned Skinner's argument", B.F. Skinner was not only an advocate of extreme aversives, but he was literally the architect of the aversives that led to the death of Mr. Milletich.

To be Continued....

Comments

[Socrates]

Speechless...

[rose]

What little psychology I had, I never did cling to Skinner. It seems to be a matter of the soul's existence. Even animals have an edge that doesn't seem to match behavioral ideas; or maybe I'm just anthropomorphically inclined. But I have stories of fishes,dogs showing "sympathy". Sympathy has no part in Skinner's world, in my ignorant opinion.

[alyric]

"B.F. Skinner was not only an advocate of extreme aversives, but he was literally the architect of the aversives that led to the death of Mr. Milletich."

Got any link for this because from what I've read this statement doesn't seem right. In other words, I think the bone of contention for Interverbal is that Skinner was a part of what JRC gets up to. I don't think he was for aversives and I have read the standard behaviorist spiel, which lists the likely outcomes of punishment, none of which are therapeutic.

I'm no fan of Skinner - in my opinion he was a charlatan, who could say one thing and contradict himself two minutes later. It was hard to pin down exactly what he believed most of the time but on this he was consistent. Punishments only place was as a short term strategy to enable another strategy to get off the ground. This is not what JRC is doing, obviously. So, I would like to see where you put Skinner into the picture. Just the fact that Israel studied under Skinner isn't enough. Heck half the axe murderers with an education studied under someone. Also, it would be far more beneficial, if the reason for this spiel is to shut down the JRC, to make it very very clear that Israel has no support for his position in the academic literature. Israel and the supporting parents have survived thus far for a number of reasons.

1. Israel says that he's doing 'behavior management/modification' and says this is SOP as far as the profession goes, just beefed up for intractable clients. My argument with Interverbal is on this point - behaviorists one and all should be standing up and denouncing this as utter rubbish and self serving rubbish at that. Israel's use of severe shock is because it's the cheap option, not the therapeutic option. He's in it for the money, and only for the money. Naturally he's going to try to justify what he does any way he can. Why would anyone expect such a person to be honest about it?

2. Parents will support Israel no matter what he does because their greatest fear is that their children will come home again. Naturally, they are going to play the desperation card to the hilt, because desperation justifies any measures. I think this is economics 101. For every need there is a potential supplier. Israel saw the need very early.

If we're serious about doing something about JRC, then we need to write to the behaviorist journals and the BCBA crowd and ask them why they are not doing anything about JRC practices. I volunteer Interverbal to write the letters since he knows all the right people:)

[LEA]

Hi Aluric/ CS

If we're serious about doing something about JRC, then we need to write to the behaviorist journals and the BCBA crowd and ask them why they are not doing anything about JRC practices. I volunteer Interverbal to write the letters since he knows all the right people:)

I would really agree with this- But when I questioned Dr. Partington about his responsibility as a scientist to raise his concerned alongside other scientists, he seemed to say that the legal network under which Israel was operating were too strong and too many.

Also, I find so incredible that Israel has managed to have some papers support his practice published- the data are flawed and unethical and someone should ask explanations for these publications to be accepted too.

I doubt that electric or ammonia spray can be used in the UK, but I have increasing evidences of aversive punishment strategies to manage challenging behaviour, including near permanent physical restrain in school environment alongside a systematic failure to meet the individual’s need.

This is broad and pervasive issue.

[CS]

Alyric,

You'll have to wait for the follow up about Skinner (don't want to spoil it). My guess is that the "proof" won't satisfy the Skinner apologists as it won't be a "smoking gun" just an accumulation of circumstantial evidence.

However, let me ask you this. In the NY Times article, Skinner was asked to comment on the widely held view that what happened to Vincent was torture and that Israel uses torturous means to modify behavior and Skinner defended Israel by stating that critics didn't know what they were talking about. If Skinner didn't support physical aversives, would he have supported Israel's methods like he did in that article?

[alyric]

"Skinner was asked to comment on the widely held view that what happened to Vincent was torture and that Israel uses torturous means to modify behavior and Skinner defended Israel by stating that critics didn't know what they were talking about. If Skinner didn't support physical aversives, would he have supported Israel's methods like he did in that article?"

Looks like vintage Skinner to me. His pronouncements on aversives were consistent but that would not stop a Skinner from taking the tack that the hoi polloi (us) couldn't possibly know what Israel was really doing because we were not trained behaviorists and didn't understand the lingo and therefore would misunderstood the process. The man was a purveyor of humbug. As a small treatise I got for Xmas put it - con artists know when they are lying because they know what the truth is. Humbug merchants have no interest in truth at all. Whatever their gambit is, it serves one purpose - their own glory. Wouldn't surprise me if Israel always knew that this stuff was humbug. He, however is the ultimate swindler. Have you ever noted the dearth of real psychologists and real teachers at JRC?