Keith Hersh, BCBA

My Vincent Milletich Project seems to have sparked some interest and backlash from the Behaviorist community judging by the comments.

Recently, Keith Hersh, BCBA, stated the following on one of my blog posts:

CS, I don't think you quite understand the relationship between ABA and the JRC.

Matt Isreal is not a behavior analyst.

Allowing him to present at a conference does not mean in any way that behavior analysts are adopting his methods or that, "Matthew Israel really isn't out of the mainstream of ABA, he's right there in the thick of it."

At FABA, we had a presentation by the Big Cat Rescue Society, in which they talked about how they train thier cats to cooperate with medical care. Does this mean that behavior analysts are going to adopt their methods? By your argument, the "Big Cat Rescue Society really isn't out of the mainstream of ABA, They are right there in the thick of it."

For those of you who are confused how Matt could possibly defend what the JRC is doing, you need take into account that formal education in ABA does not teach about the JRC. Responses to Matt somehow allude he knows exactly what is going on at the JRC. Their website and advertising materials indicate that they are following the process that behavior analysts adhere to. Only use punishment, if everything else failed and the behavior is really severe. Then get rid of the punishment ASAP. If this is what the JRC was doing, then possibly, a behavior analyst would methodologically agree with the use of shock. This does not mean that ethically, they would agree, or would ever administer it.

Stop drawing imaginary lines between ABA and the JRC. They don't exist.

This is my response in a sort of point by point response:

"Matt Isreal is not a behavior analyst. Allowing him to present at a conference does not mean in any way that behavior analysts are adopting his methods"

Really? Do you mean those behaviorists who pay to listen to him speak or those behaviorists that he employs?

"Responses to Matt somehow allude he knows exactly what is going on at the JRC."

No, Matt pretty clearly gave the impression that he knew what was going on. He was provided links and gave his endorsement to these practices.

"Their website and advertising materials indicate that they are following the process that behavior analysts adhere to. Only use punishment, if everything else failed and the behavior is really severe. Then get rid of the punishment ASAP. If this is what the JRC was doing, then possibly, a behavior analyst would methodologically agree with the use of shock. "

Do you mean severe behavior where the "student/client" was entrapped by the behaviorist by purposely taunting the "student/client" just so they could administer Level III aversives (Electric Shock) like this from the the NY State Report:

"GED skin shock and restraint are also used together when the Behavior Rehearsal Lesson (BRL) is practiced on a student. The BRL is used when a student exhibits a high risk, low frequency behavior. As described by a JRC staff person, during a BRL, the student is restrained and GED administered as the student is forcibly challenged to do what the procedure seeks to eliminate. If the student attempts to pull away he receives a GED skin shock; if the student attempts to follow through with the high-risk behavior he receives multiple GED skin shocks at closer intervals."

Shocking for behavior that was purposely instigated by the behaviorist? Where have we heard of the above before? Sounds a lot like the treatment Alex received in a Clockwork Orange wherein he is restrained, his eyes mechanically kept open while he watches violent scenes along with what the behaviorist believes is the antecedent, Beethoven's 9th symphony.

"This does not mean that ethically, they would agree, or would ever administer it."

No, doesn't mean they would but some apparently do, and others seem to accept the propaganda without much thoughtful reflection.

Comments

[Interverbal]

Pending a possible invitation from you to leave, my points are as follows:

Yes, I agree that the JRC is run by a behavior analyst.

Yes, it does have behavioral connections.

Yes, Israel does employ behavior analysts.

Yes, their techniques are behavior analytic. I don’t agree with them. I don’t like them. But it is what it is.

Behavior analysts pay to go to conferences. The JRC may present at these conferences. It would be best; to put it so, as opposed to saying that behavior analysts pay to listen to the JRC. Otherwise it is a hint misleading.

You wrong about the A Clockwork Orange bit. You have confused classical conditioning in “A Clockwork Orange” with the operant conditioning used by the JRC. The 9th symphony is not an antecedent. It is actually a conditioned stimulus following its accidental pairing with the unconditioned stimulus (nausea).

Moreover, those who think A Clockwork Orange is really about using classical conditioning on humans massively miss the point of the story.

It is not so much about the "how", it is really about the "why". The politics that backdrape the story and the reasoning of the scientists, the politicians, activists etc.

[CS]

"Moreover, those who think A Clockwork Orange is really about using classical conditioning on humans massively miss the point of the story.

It is not so much about the "how", it is really about the "why". The politics that backdrape the story and the reasoning of the scientists, the politicians, activists etc."

It's a hint misleading to suggest I was doing a full film review rather than referencing a scene in the movie. The scene (the Ludovico Technique) I refer to was much discussed in the press/public and still is today. It is an important part of the film. Your correct that it is classical conditioning. In both the JRC case and the film's, the subjects are restrained and powerless while being "conditioned", which is more my point than a "set of terminology".

I notice the BCBA certification of two of these behaviorists remain intact despite the fact that they allowed their employer to lie to the public about their professional status (calling themselves psychologists). These same behaviorists are under a consent decree not to mislead the public again. Guess who makes up the human rights committee's at JRC (forced upon them by the way by a court judgment) that approve the "research" with these aversives? None other than JRC's self-selected committee.

[Interverbal]

Not my intent to mislead CS. It was more of a general comment about the tale, than a specific criticism.

And as to the antecedent bit?

[Matt Brodhead]

Interverbal, thanks for the tech-check on the antecedent really being a neutral stimulus that becomes a conditioned stimulus :-) People erroneously classify almost everything as an "antecedent".

Also, the author of A Clockwork Orange developed the "conditioning" method well before it was employed by behavior analysts. Interesting.

[Matt Brodhead]

CS,

The methods used by JRC and those in A Clockwork Orange are completely different. At JRC, the shock is an aversive stimulus that comes after the behavior, and decreases the frequency of that response. In A Clockwork Orange, the shock is paired with whatever comes up on the screen, making that a conditioned stimulus (paired with nausea, pain etc). The conditioned stimulus, elicits the nausea, and what comes after the behavior is irrelevant and has no effect on that behavior. They are two completely different concepts.

[Matt Brodhead]

P.S. I may have confused the the stimuli presented during the "conditioning scene" in A Clockwork Orange. However, they are still two different concepts, regardless.

[CS]

"At JRC, the shock is an aversive stimulus that comes after the behavior, and decreases the frequency of that response."

In the example I gave above, JRC instigated (caused the behavior on purpose) so they could shock.

How many years Matt should someone be shocked? How many times is too many in a day? Would you shock someone 5000 times in a day?

[Keith Hersh]

Points well made, but lets clear up a few things.

CS: "Really? Do you mean those behaviorists who pay to listen to him speak or those behaviorists that he employs?"

The BCBA's he employs did not learn in any way to utilize the GED in their formal education. Nor did they learn it from attending a a professional conference. Employing 4 BCBA's hardly puts the JRC methods, "in the thick of it (ABA)."

There are no chapters in ABA books teaching how to use a GED. The presentations at ABA conferences are what could be considered informative, meaning, they are simply saying what they (the JRC) are doing, and presenting data on how it works. As Interverbal mentioned, the statement about paying to see the JRC presentation is somewhat misleading. The JRC has presented at some of the conferences, and some who attend the conferece will attend that presentation. I am fairly certain that after the recent discussions at FABA and ABA, it is unlikely that the JRC will be doing future presentations at any ABA conference. (I may stand corrected, but I am pretty darn sure!)

Weather or not these individual's took a job at the JRC after seeing one of the presentations at a behavior analysis conference remains unknown.

CS: "No, Matt pretty clearly gave the impression that he knew what was going on. He was provided links and gave his endorsement to these practices."

From other posts, Matt was obviously not aware of the audits done by the NYSED. Had he been aware that their findings indicated:

"JRC employs a general use of Level III aversive behavioral interventions to students for behaviors that are not aggressive, health dangerous or destructive, such as nagging, swearing and failing to maintain a neat appearance."

"There is limited evidence of comprehensive functional behavioral assessments (FBAs), in accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), being conducted at JRC and limited evidence of the collection of data relevant to FBAs."

"Behavioral Intervention Plans (BIPs) are developed to support the use of aversive behavioral interventions with limited evidence of students “being faded” from the electric skin shock conditioning devices or other aversive interventions."

then I do not beleive Matt would have made the statements he did. But then again, Matt posts here, so there is my invitation for response.

The information on the JRC website, likely where Matt got his info from, certainly doesn't make it clear that these issues exist at the JRC.

KH:"This does not mean that ethically, they would agree, or would ever administer it."

CS: "No, doesn't mean they would but some apparently do, and others seem to accept the propaganda without much thoughtful reflection."

I can't disagree with that at all.... However, again, 4 individual's who work for him, do not make up the majority of the community of Behavior Analysts in any way. Neither are they out teaching other's in the community to use the GED.

I disagree with Interverbal's statement that Matt Israel is a behavior analyst and that his work is behavior analytic. While he certainly applies the principles of beahvior, my grounds for this disagreement is rooted in the argument that the JRC fails to meet two of the Seven Dimensions of ABA: Effective, and Generality. (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1310980&pageindex=6#page)

We can take this discussion somewhere else though, cause it may result in a long one!

Finally

That pic isn't me!!!! That's a different Keith Hersh, and unfortunately, I can't take credit for graduating from UNC! I graduated from FIT (Florida Institute of Technology) in Melbourne, Fl.

[Keith Hersh]

Points well made, but lets clear up a few things.

CS: "Really? Do you mean those behaviorists who pay to listen to him speak or those behaviorists that he employs?"

The BCBA's he employs did not learn in any way to utilize the GED in their formal education. Nor did they learn it from attending a a professional conference. Employing 4 BCBA's hardly puts the JRC methods, "in the thick of it (ABA)."

There are no chapters in ABA books teaching how to use a GED. The presentations at ABA conferences are what could be considered informative, meaning, they are simply saying what they (the JRC) are doing, and presenting data on how it works. As Interverbal mentioned, the statement about paying to see the JRC presentation is somewhat misleading. The JRC has presented at some of the conferences, and some who attend the conferece will attend that presentation. I am fairly certain that after the recent discussions at FABA and ABA, it is unlikely that the JRC will be doing future presentations at any ABA conference. (I may stand corrected, but I am pretty darn sure!)

Weather or not these individual's took a job at the JRC after seeing one of the presentations at a behavior analysis conference remains unknown.

CS: "No, Matt pretty clearly gave the impression that he knew what was going on. He was provided links and gave his endorsement to these practices."

From other posts, Matt was obviously not aware of the audits done by the NYSED. Had he been aware that their findings indicated:

"JRC employs a general use of Level III aversive behavioral interventions to students for behaviors that are not aggressive, health dangerous or destructive, such as nagging, swearing and failing to maintain a neat appearance."

"There is limited evidence of comprehensive functional behavioral assessments (FBAs), in accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), being conducted at JRC and limited evidence of the collection of data relevant to FBAs."

"Behavioral Intervention Plans (BIPs) are developed to support the use of aversive behavioral interventions with limited evidence of students “being faded” from the electric skin shock conditioning devices or other aversive interventions."

then I do not beleive Matt would have made the statements he did. But then again, Matt posts here, so there is my invitation for response.

The information on the JRC website, likely where Matt got his info from, certainly doesn't make it clear that these issues exist at the JRC.

KH:"This does not mean that ethically, they would agree, or would ever administer it."

CS: "No, doesn't mean they would but some apparently do, and others seem to accept the propaganda without much thoughtful reflection."

I can't disagree with that at all.... However, again, 4 individual's who work for him, do not make up the majority of the community of Behavior Analysts in any way. Neither are they out teaching other's in the community to use the GED.

I disagree with Interverbal's statement that Matt Israel is a behavior analyst and that his work is behavior analytic. While he certainly applies the principles of beahvior, my grounds for this disagreement is rooted in the argument that the JRC fails to meet two of the Seven Dimensions of ABA: Effective, and Generality. (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1310980&pageindex=6#page)

We can take this discussion somewhere else though, cause it may result in a long one!

Finally

That pic isn't me!!!! That's a different Keith Hersh, and unfortunately, I can't take credit for graduating from UNC! I graduated from FIT (Florida Institute of Technology) in Melbourne, Fl.

[Matt]

CS,

I have no comment on that due to your complete lack of understanding :-)

As I recommended before, consult a professional if you want answers to disagree with...

[CS]

Matt: "I have no comment on that due to your complete lack of understanding :-)
As I recommended before, consult a professional if you want answers to disagree with..."

Sorry, I thought you claimed to know what you were talking about. By the way, I didn't just pull the 5,000 times shocking out of thin air, its a documented case at JRC. Matt, if you can't answer with maturity, then you shouldn't post on my blog.