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.










Recent Comments