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.
This is a project I am putting together to recreate the circumstances of Vincent Milletich's death. Various state governments have a 30 year unsuccessful track record of shutting down The Judge Rotenberg Center. I intend to use the final video along with written evidence of why I believe international pressure is necessary to shut down JRC. Final film copy along with documented abuses will be submitted to Amnesty International for it's consideration to take on JRC.
I have begun to order materials and props to recreate Vincent's death. The project will be well documented using press accounts and court records showing the last minutes of Vincent's life. If you have any information that you feel is pertinent to this project please contact me. My email is listed in the about section.
Update:
I thought I would post young master Matt Brodhead's defense of the Judge Rotenberg Center. You can find it here. Also, JRC's destroying of probable incriminating evidence in a law enforcement investigation found here.
According to his profile, Matt is a 1st year graduate student studying Behavior Analysis at Western Michigan University.
You may ask why I would link to a blog post that I might find offensive by its very nature (supporting extreme physical aversives against children). I post it because I think Matt's view of JRC is exactly what Matthew Israel's extensive propaganda machine conveys to the public and contradictory information about the ethics and honesty of clinicians working at JRC, which there is ample evidence of here, and here, is not persuasive for a 1st year grad student in Behavior Analysis. Matt's post could easily be confused for a PR release for JRC. I don't think Matt is alone in his views nor necessarily in the minority of behavior analysts.
Interesting discussion over on Michelle Dawson's TMob website. This was recently posted about Matthew Israel.
I mainly read here and seldom write.
My name is Sharon and I'm from Israel.
We had a visit here of Dr Matthew Israel last week. Apparently it was a private visit but the local ABA community here could not resist it and invited Dr Israel to lecture about JRC's methodology. The lecture took place at the Zisnman College for Physical Education & Sports within the Wingate Institute and it was organized by the Center for Behavior Analysis in the college together with the Israeli association for ABA.
The invitation/brochure to the lecture presents JRC as using "full implementation of ABA science" with "direct" and "exact" teaching to "help people in high risk".
About Dr Israel it is said that he has "deep knowledge of the ethical, clinical and legal aspects of the issue in North America".
The lecture and the way Dr Israel was presented in front of educators etc. here in Israel are now the subject of letters exchange and criticism here.
Prior to this, the secretary of the local behaviorists association here in Israel, Mr. Michael Ben-Zvi, has been scheduled to take part in the first conference to be held here in Israel by the Israeli autistic selp-advocacy group.
Because Dr. Israel's lecture has been coordinated by the local behaviorists association and after Mr. Ben-Zvi did not express any rejection of JRC's methods and after a letter from Dr Eitan Eldar (head of the ABA program in the Zisman College) failed to do the same thing the Israeli selp-advocacy organization ACI informed Mr. Ben-Zvi that his participation is ACI's (Autistic Community of Israel) symposium (to be held at July the 23rd in Raanana ) is canceled.
Prior to Dr. Israel's lecture (in the Zisman College) the Israeli web site "Special Place" which advertised the lecture in its on-line board decided to take it off after it received information regarding JRC's methodologies.
The Israeli national autism society, Alut, still has not responded to a letter concerning the publication of Dr. Israel's lecture by its family support center (Bet-Loren).
Matthew Israel really isn't out of the mainstream of ABA, he's right there in the thick of it.
I get a kick out of watching folks from the Judge Rotenberg Center spend their time searching the web for any blog that might mention their dungeon. I guess in between applying shocks for such behavior as flapping and rocking, Matthew Israel finds time to surf the web at taxpayer expense. Perhaps the next behavior conference he attends some of the conference attendees can ask him why he wastes his time doing this. Knowing that the old sadist is out there viewing my site, he can sure dispute Skinner's connection to the methods that killed Vincent Millitech.
Glad though that he clicked out on my link to posautive.org. Maybe a little bit of that rancid heart of his will soften a bit when he sees the hundreds of positive videos made about and by autistic people there.
It's been my experience that behaviorists are quick to recoil and become defensive with inquiry that challenges their "science". From my observation, behaviorist's reaction to skepticism is very similar to the alternative/biomed advocates. Both groups become very wed to their respective dogma's that they will ignore fundamental questions of ethics if it interferes with the ability of the dogma to prosper and survive.
Because I agree with Interverbal when he states; "Advocacy, no matter how worthy the cause, needs to be factually accurate. No real service is done in its absence." I want to examine the accuracy of the behaviorism and biomed communities.
Both groups cite as evidence studies, anectdotes and faux terminology to support their positions. The behaviorists use Lovaas' 1987 study and his unique 47% indistinguishable criteria (which has never been replicated independent of Lovaas' small group of behaviorists) to sell their "services". Especially Lovaas' students like McEachin and Leaf who have created large multinational corporations citing their own results as proof of their efficacy. However, they conveniently leave out from their marketing materials the fact that the children in that study were never randomized and were subject to physical aversives. Is that honest or is that protecting the dogma of behaviorism? Do scientists leave out very relevant facts (no randomization and the use of physical aversives) in discussing their results with prospective customers? We expect salesman to leave out inconvenient facts. But scientists?
Biomed uses equally worthless and unproven evidence such as "recovered children" as evidence yet these children presented don't seem "recovered" or non autistic at all, they simply appear like older autistic children.
If you challenge the biomed/recovery groups, many will respond by saying "your attacking parents", your "too high functioning", "your a pharma shill", "you want to hurt kids", and "science has proven mercury causes autism". All this is dogmatic.
If challenged, both groups simply recoil like a viper ready to strike rather than acknowledging that perhaps they could be wrong. This isn't how science works. In science, nothing is considered a certainty, its only our best educated conclusion given the knowledge we have now. For instance, and I don't mean to pick on Interverbal here, but when I stated that ABA has caused PTSD in autistics (based on information supplied to me by 2 autistics who had been diagnosed with PTSD as a result of undergoing ABA as children) and that there aren't any studies that have been done to look into possible complications from ABA such as PTSD, his response wasn't what I would expect from a curious and science based person.
Me:
"The field hasn't done any studies that I know of that look at PTSD in those that went through ABA"
Interverbal:
"Nor should they. There is no real suggestion of an ABA-PTSD connection. The suggestion there could be, was made and continues to be echoed mostly by those in the pyschodynamic paradigm. There are lots of genuinely good criticisms of behavior analysis and ABA in autism specifically. A possible PTSD connection isn't one of them. This is the type of comment that behavior analysts laugh off and correctly so."
Based on Interverbal's representation of behaviorist's views, there is no need to accumulate empirical data in order to draw a scientific conclusion. We can actually draw a conclusion without studying a hypothesis (ABA in very young children can cause PTSD) at all. That's not scientific, that's a dogmatic response. Behaviorists as he stated would simply laugh off the possibility that being subjected to thousands of hours of very structured ABA in children as young as 2 years old would have no negative emotional residue which could possibly cause PTSD. No need to study because it cannot possibly occur. One would think that those interested in human behavior would be curious about how their "therapy" might affect the emotional well being of autistics?
And like the biomed/recovered kids videos, behaviorists also have their dishonest videos such as Lovaas' promotional video from 1988 entitled "Behavior Treatment of Autistic Children" that "documented" his 1987 study. Below is a video I made criticizing the promotional video "Behavior Treatment of Autistic Children".
The video includes two subjects, Ricky and Pamela. Ricky and Pamela's stories are presented as case studies in what can happen to a child when ABA is cut off during the 2 years of recommended "therapy". Ricky and Pamela are shown as children who started off as relatively non-verbal, constant tantruming, self stimulatory and unresponsive but rapidly respond to Lovaas' 40 hour a week "therapy" of intensive ABA. When ABA was cut off, they "regressed" back into their autism. What the video failed to reveal is that in order to elicit the responses appearing in the video, both Ricky and Pamela were subjected to slaps on the face and electrified floors. The video makers knew that this portion of Ricky and Pamela's story would not "sale" very well to the general audience for this video and thus they conveniently left it out. I consider the act of omission of important facts dishonest. During this same time period, Lovaas was building his ABA "empire" to provide and charge for "services" in hopes that desperate parents wouldn't bother to check the facts. While no proof of motivation and certainly circumstantial, I do find it deliciously suspicious that Dr. Lovaas opened his business shortly after his 1993 follow-up publication and the publication of the best selling book "Let Me Hear Your Voice" by Catherine Maurice. The National Autistic Society writes on it's website "In recent years there has been renewed interest in the Lovaas method following the publication of Let Me Hear Your Voice, so I'm not alone in tying the two together. I can only imagine parents then, like now, were beating down the doors of Lovaas' office to grab onto the latest recovery fad. Therefore, it is my contention that Lovaas' disciples have every motivation to promote his study, to promote the 47% myth, to minimize and omit important facts (physical aversives) all of which have led parents down a 2nd money pit avenue known as behaviorism. No different from the biomed/recovery crowd. Its all about protecting the dogma and none of it stands up to scrutiny. Both "industries" (biomed and behaviorism) have a totalitarian view of autism. If a group "dedicated" to "remediating" autism refuses to acknowledge that their profession or industry has abused and tortured autistic people (chelation deaths/electrified floors/electric shocks/physical aversives/lupron/etc. ad nauseum), then they are not interested in truth, but in preserving a dogma.
Noam Chomskey is a professor of linguistics at M.I.T. and perhaps one of the most engaging and prolific intellectuals of the 20th century. In 1971, The New York Review of Books published his essay "The Case Against B.F. Skinner". Chomsky makes the case that Skinner's theory of Verbal Behavior isn't really science but a sort of secular dogma (dogma is my interpretation). In light of my ongoing conversation with Interverbal, I thought the passage below selected from "The Case Against B.F. Skinner" summed up the impasse I have with Interverbal, that is that I don't believe verbal behavior is a science but a set of terminology, like Chomsky, that is unscientific, even devoid of common sense in its use of terminology. Perhaps this is one reason why we view the word torture so differently.
The libertarians and humanists whom Skinner scorns object to totalitarianism out of respect for freedom and dignity. But, Skinner argues, these notions are merely the residue of traditional mystical beliefs and must be replaced by the stern scientific notions of behavioral analysis. However, there exists no behavioral science incorporating empirically supported propositions that are not trivial and that apply to human affairs or support a behavioral technology. For this reason Skinner's book contains no clearly formulated substantive hypotheses or proposals. We can at least begin to speculate coherently about the acquisition of certain systems of knowledge and belief on the basis of experience and genetic endowment, and can outline the general nature of some device that might duplicate aspects of this achievement. But how does a person who has acquired systems of knowledge and belief then proceed to use them in his daily life? About this we are entirely in the dark, at the level of scientific inquiry.
If there were some science capable of treating such matters it might well be concerned precisely with freedom and dignity and might suggest possibilities for enhancing them. Perhaps, as the classical literature of freedom and dignity sometimes suggests, there is an intrinsic human inclination toward free creative inquiry and productive work, and humans are not merely dull mechanisms formed by a history of reinforcement and behaving predictably with no intrinsic needs apart from the need for physiological satiation. Then humans are not fit subjects for manipulation, and we will seek to design a social order accordingly. But we cannot, at present, turn to science for insight into these matters. To claim otherwise is pure fraud. For the moment, an honest scientist will admit at once that we understand virtually nothing, at the level of scientific inquiry, with regard to human freedom and dignity.
There is, of course, no doubt that behavior can be controlled, for example, by threat of violence or a pattern of deprivation and reward. This much is not at issue, and the conclusion is consistent with a belief in "autonomous man." If a tyrant has the power to require certain acts, whether by threat of punishment or by allowing only those who perform these acts to escape from deprivation (e.g., by restricting employment to such people), his subjects may choose to obey -- though some may have the dignity to refuse. They will understand the difference between this compulsion and the laws that govern falling bodies.
Of course, they are not free. Sanctions backed by force restrict freedom, as does differential reward. An increase in wages, in Marx's phrase, "would be nothing more than a better remuneration of slaves, and would not restore, either to the worker or to the work, their human significance and worth." But it would be absurd to conclude merely from the fact that freedom is limited, that "autonomous man" is an illusion, or to overlook the distinction between a person who chooses to conform, in the face of threat or force or deprivation, and a person who "chooses" to obey Newtonian principles as he falls from a high tower.
The inference remains absurd even where we can predict the course of action that most "autonomous men" would select, under conditions of extreme duress and limited opportunity for survival. The absurdity merely becomes more obvious when we consider the real social world, in which determinable "probabilities of response" are so slight as to have virtually no predictive value. And it would be not absurd but grotesque to argue that since circumstances can be arranged under which behavior is quite predictable -- as in a prison, for example, or the concentration camp society "designed" above -- therefore there need be no concern for the freedom and dignity of "autonomous man." When such conclusions are taken to be the result of a "scientific analysis," one can only be amazed at human gullibility.
Skinner confuses "science" with terminology. He apparently believes that if he rephrases commonplace "mentalistic" expressions with terminology derived from the laboratory study of behavior, but deprived of whatever content this terminology has within this discipline, then he has achieved a scientific analysis of behavior. It would be hard to conceive of a more striking failure to comprehend even the rudiments of scientific thinking. The public may well be deceived, in view of the prestige of science and technology. It may even choose to be misled into agreeing that concern for freedom and dignity must be abandoned, perhaps out of fear and a sense of insecurity about the consequences of a serious concern for freedom and dignity. The tendencies in our society that lead toward submission to authoritarian rule may prepare individuals for a doctrine that can be interpreted as justifying it.
The problems that Skinner discusses -- it would be more proper to say "circumvents" -- are often real enough. In spite of his curious belief to the contrary, his libertarian and humanist opponents do not object to "design of a culture," that is, to creating social forms that will be more conducive to the satisfaction of human needs, though they differ from Skinner in their intuitive perception of what these needs truly are. They would not, or at least should not, oppose scientific inquiry or, where possible, its applications, though they will no doubt dismiss the travesty that Skinner presents.
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.
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 manwas 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.
Recent Comments