The Misbehaviour of Behaviourists The Misbehaviour of Behaviourists - Discussion 001-257 | 258-300 | 301-400 | 401-500 | 501-600 | 601-700 | 701-725 601-650 | 651-700 | previous | next Philip 700 06-09-2004 01:28 PM On http://www.aspergia.com/wforum there is a thread in the Open Discussion Area entitled 'The abuse of Autie children continues (please read!)' which is about the ABA torture of autistic children. Philip 699 06-09-2004 01:06 PM Hi Michelle, I hope your history making appearance in the Supreme Court of Canada went well and your arguments persuade the judges to give the decision we want. If you were feeling nervous and apprehensive beforehand I hope it was less of an ordeal than you may have feared.I would have been very nervous if I had been appearing in any court. I don't want to embarrass you, but I thank you with all being for what you are doing for autistic people. oddizm 698 06-08-2004 10:00 PM http://www.geocities.com/autistry/eugenics.html this is my paper on eugenics again. I added some commas, put in the italics, fixed a few spelling mistakes... still doesn't have proper citations and a bibliography. I'll try to get that eventually..but it does have 2 links to sites with information that illustrate my points. I haven't figured out how to make it more readable, like double spacing would be nice. Oddizm David Andrews AppEdPsych 697 06-08-2004 08:02 PM "might have thought or might have believed" These are elements of what we call attitudes on social psychology. My definition of attitudes might be different from most people's because of my training. David Andrews AppEdPsych 696 06-08-2004 08:00 PM "Behaviourists should deny totally that they have a problem with the nature of a person (their genetics), since they cannot believe in the nature of the person as a basis for the bahaviour of the person." I agree, but they are not good at sticking to their doctrines. "Eugenicists believe that nature is everything. This is the opposite of the behaviourist view (nature is purely incidental)." Yes. "So comparing them is saying that nativism (of which eugenics is a corruption) is the same as behaviourism. That's not a credible position. You can hear Skinner rolling over in his grave at finding himself indistinguishable from Chomsky." Comparing their behaviours and declaring this would be. But I'm comparing attitudes. "I'm not sophisticated enough to care about attitudes." I trained initially in social psychology, so I would be interested in that, by virtue of the training. "I care about what actually happened (not what someone might have said or might have thought or might have believed) and about real human (and non-human) suffering. Turning this suffering into an abstract discussion about "attitudes" is not somewhere I want to go. I'm sure I'm not the only autistic who's been hurt by someone with a lovely attitude." I was hurt and fucked over by the attitudes. The lovely behaviours helped these bastards to sell me down the river. "I have to go to court." Hope it goes well. Really. I'm not trying to pick an argument with you, but I do have strong feelings on the attitudes thing, as an autistic and as a psychologist who got in through social psychology. oddizm 695 06-08-2004 05:29 PM Edited by author 06-08-2004 05:32 PM Hi, As for asking Dr. Lovaas directly if he was invited to come to California by eugenecists or if he merely admired the particular environment that allowed for that sort of fascist directing of behavior (YOU WILL SUBMIT TO STERILIZATION!). I really doubt that that was why he came, though it is a possibility. It is far more likely that he would have been more subltly influenced by a basic attitude, something written between the lines in the brochures about California that he read, something subtle other Doctors told him...something unsaid. Maybe he just liked the warm weather or was desperate to get a glimpse of Marilyn Monroe, or wanted to buy Spencer Tracy's old house. The thing is that he wouldn't be inclined to tell me the truth if his reasons for going to UCLA were anything less than admirable by current politically correct standards. He would be foolish to give me, a stranger, a straight answer that would reflect badly on him. I think that one needs to watch his behavior and use it to decode his motivations. It works often, maybe not always. See what he did, see what he failed to do, figure out what kind of person he MIGHT be. Anyone could do the same by watching the choices I have made in my lifetime. I guess a behaviorist never tries to decode the "why" or "what motivation" so long as the external behavior at a given time in a given room under the watchful eye of the guy holding the clipboard is what is desired. Like the kids would go up and touch the experimenters only because they were afraid of shock, maybe not because the ever enjoyed touching them. There's something in that report that says something like Es gave command "Give hug!" or "Give kiss!" It's a child molesters dream! Or is that just my negative interpretation? I'm not saying that the experimenters were molesters, but they set the kids up to be perfect victims. Oddizm oddizm 694 06-08-2004 05:19 PM Me in court, if I let out the Tourettish palilalic side of me out. - "Do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the trught, so help you-?" "OBJECTION!" "Er, what bit are you obje-" "subJECTION!" "Are you now objecting to me-" "reJECTION!" "Did you say rejectsh..." "dirRECTION!" "Can you just wait your turn-" "conJECTION!" "Do you know nothing of how to be discuh-" "proJECTION!" "Madame autistic! What is the meaning_" "conNECTION" (muttter, mutter...bailiff, will you show ms. oddizm out of the court?) "prediLECTION!" "tranSECTION!" "proTECTION!" .... Lucas 693 06-08-2004 05:03 PM You're off to court now? Oooooh, try to see if you can shout "OBJECTION!" to something! "Do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the trught, so help you God?" "OBJECTION!" "Er, what bit are you objecting to?" "OBJECTION!" "Are you now objecting to me asking what you are objecting to?" "OBJECTION!" "I've had enough..." Michelle Dawson 692 06-08-2004 02:34 PM Behaviourists should deny totally that they have a problem with the nature of a person (their genetics), since they cannot believe in the nature of the person as a basis for the bahaviour of the person. Eugenicists believe that nature is everything. This is the opposite of the behaviourist view (nature is purely incidental). So comparing them is saying that nativism (of which eugenics is a corruption) is the same as behaviourism. That's not a credible position. You can hear Skinner rolling over in his grave at finding himself indistinguishable from Chomsky. I'm not sophisticated enough to care about attitudes. I care about what actually happened (not what someone might have said or might have thought or might have believed) and about real human (and non-human) suffering. Turning this suffering into an abstract discussion about "attitudes" is not somewhere I want to go. I'm sure I'm not the only autistic who's been hurt by someone with a lovely attitude. I have to go to court. David Andrews AppEdPsych 691 06-08-2004 12:58 PM >In theory, behaviourists can't be eugenicists and vice versa. The extreme manifestation of behaviourism is communism (everyone is born equal), not fascism (a manifestation of eugenics). That may be the principle, Michelle, but when someone says that "autistic children have no right to behave as they do" (or words to that effect, as Lovaas actually has!), we are not looking at everybody being born equal; it is actually fascism. Ordinarily, Michelle, I would have no problem agreeing with you; and I feel this could become intractible, but I cannot posssibly let go of this notion that - despite appearances to the contrary - Lovaas's ideas are in fact the same ones as Mengele's were (inasmuch as they are based on the devaluation of another human being to a sub-human status, not worthy of ethical treatment in experimental settings, and having no right to be who one is). Even if the outward behaviours are totally different (yes, I concede that... they were), the attitudes behind them are the same (which, when you look at Lovaas saying that we have no right to be who we are, or behave as we do as autistics, and when you look at Mengele's gruesome horrors they are based on similar attitudes)... well, I think I should be able to rest my case. Lovaas's ideas were based on the prmise that we should not be as we are: as autistic people, we should not exist. That is essentially a very eugenical attitude, even if he has never come outright and said that we should be killed off (which is the only real behavioural difference between Mengele and himself). He's just attempting a post-natal elimination of autism by a very warped version of operant conditioning. Mengele would have don't it pre-natally, by abortion (as happens a lot with foetuses found to have a Downs genotype). But given that people are looking for genetic markers for autism, so that it too can be detected in utero, what do we on this forum think will be the next logical step in the treatment of autism? True, I don't know if Lovaas would support such a path of action, but his attitude of certain people having no right to be who they are (which is, essentially, having no right to exist as they are) does not fill me with confidence that he will oppose such a path of action. If I could find his e-mail address I would ask him. Can't find his address. But I am looking at attitudes, Michelle, and not behaviours, because these are the things that "make the man". And in either case, the attitudes are essentially the same. So, at least allow me that basis upon which to tally these two people if I agree that their respective behavioural repertoires do not tally so well. Because, for me, the ethicality (or otherwise) of any course of action comes from the attitudes behind that course of action. Lucas 690 06-08-2004 11:05 AM Thanks for clearing that up Michelle. Sort of on the subject of Downs babies being aborted, some guy who has pioneered this new way of pre-natal Autism detection has just got an award. I'll see if I can find it. Michelle Dawson 689 06-08-2004 10:21 AM Edited by author 06-08-2004 11:01 AM In eugenics you attempt to ensure defective people aren't born. In behaviourism you welcome everyone who is born (Dr Lovaas' "variability", which he has said is essential) on the grounds that defects, in this case seen as inadequate behaviours, can be fixed. In theory, behaviourists can't be eugenicists and vice versa. The extreme manifestation of behaviourism is communism (everyone is born equal), not fascism (a manifestation of eugenics). Whatever Dr Lovaas may or may not be, from the available evidence, he is not and has never been a eugenicist. Re "someday we can ask Lovaas", you can ask him any day. He is not that hard to speak with. So go ahead and ask. That's a lot more productive than hurling accusations from a distance about what someone may or may not believe (versus his published work). Remove doubt and phone or email him. Eugenics is alive and well. More babies with Down syndrome were aborted than born in the UK last year. Lucas 688 06-08-2004 06:26 AM I thought Lovaas was only the mild, Professor Sir Robert Winston-evil, now I find out that he *might* be neo-Eugenicist, pseudo-Nazi evilness. Would the Eugenics movement have carried on if it wasn't for the second world war? When abouts did the whole thing collapse anyways?(or did it?) David Andrews AppEdPsych 687 06-08-2004 02:47 AM >There's more stuff than this about the connection between Nazi eugenics and California. Maybe someday we can ask Lovaas if he had a particular reason for chosing California...Oh, now I'm being incendiary again. *Ah. I am not alone in my views then! Michelle Dawson 686 06-07-2004 11:50 PM Thanks! "...warning, it's long...", and totally worth reading (twice, so far). oddizm 685 06-07-2004 11:43 PM Edited by author 06-07-2004 11:50 PM I don't know how to do fttp, or whatever it's called, I'll put this up on a web page eventually, but I have to put it in as plain text and go through it and format it. The professor who asked for this is strange, he made fun of using citations in papers, so I don't have things cited properly here and didn't do a bibliography. If anyone wants to know the details of the books cited here, I can get them for you. There are page numbers for one book, Applied Eugenics...if I remember right and the version I had was from 1930 something and included the original 1919 or whatever preface which I quote. There's more stuff than this about the connection between Nazi eugenics and California. Maybe someday we can ask Lovaas if he had a particular reason for chosing California...Oh, now I'm being incendiary again. For the record I believe in both faith and hard scientific fact, its just wrong to parade a belief system (faith in DTT, etc) for science. warning, it's long. oddizm ---- Framing the inferior Rational scientific thinking has been a part of Western culture since the time of the Greeks. Prior to West's adoption of rationality which entered the rest of Europe by way of the Roman conquest, thinking in the West was more frequently governed by superstition. But this is not to say that rational thinking was invented by European Greeks. Mohammed ibn-Musa al-Khwarizmi, (c. 800-847 CE) was a mathematician, astronomer and faculty member at the "House of Wisdom" in Baghdad. It was from middle eastern people like al-Khwarizmi that Europeans learned al jabr or algebra, which Khwarizmi said he learned learned from people in India. Hindu, Semitic, and Greek sources have all been recognized as early inspiration for algebra. Rational thinking, such as is demonstrated in algebra. and the scientific method, which features healthy skepticism, are supposed to be able to produce something closer to "truth" than are intuition and inspiration and for that reason provide comfort to those who use science to grasp realities. The world being the constantly changing and challenging place that it is, humans are in need of a way to grasp realities and to find predictability and order. In the West the way to find order has primarily been through science, at least since the Renaissance. At that time Greek and Arabic texts were discovered by European scholars which seemed to have ignited a furor for rationality. Out of this period comes Gallileo who challenged the Catholic church's hegemony with cold hard facts derived from empirical observation. In the late 1800's Charles Darwin, seeking to find a rational cause for all the different life forms he saw, proposed natural selection the drive behind evolution. His cousin, Francis Galton, was just as passionate, if not moreso, about quantifying and classifying the natural world, including humans. One can see Galton's faith in the power of numbers in his paper delineating his statistical test of the efficacy of prayer as it relates to the life spans of people presumed to have faith and to pray as compared to those presumed not to have faith and not to pray, as well as those who are presumed to be prayed for frequently, such as royalty. Galton coined the word eugenics to denote scientifically based efforts to increase the proportion of persons with better inherited intelligence and energy within a population through selective mating of humans within the confines of marriages. Better, intellegence and energy , of course, as defined by Galton. In his book Hereditary Genius (1869), he used the word genius to describe exceptional ability and qualifies it with hereditary , to make point that genius can not develop in just anyone. This was a new concept. Hereditary Genius is quoted in Darwin's Descent of Man (1871). Galton was impressed with his own ideas of inheritance but had no knowledge of how it works in comparison to current understanding. Gregor Mendel's own statistical data regarding the transmission of physical traits in pea plants was translated into English in 1901, long after Galton wrote Hereditary Genius. To illustrate why Francis Galton is not considered the "father of genetics", as Mendel is; in Galton's studies to derive how traits might be transmitted from parent to offspring he replaced about half of the volume of purebred silver grey rabbits' blood with blood of common lop-eared rabbits, and vice versa, he then bred the transfused rabbits to their own kind to see what kind of offspring they had. He then had to draw the conclusion that the cause of the differences in traits was not the gemmules in blood, an idea promoted by Charles Darwin. Galton wrote, in reference to his own works in print: "Hereditary Genius ... made its mark at the time, though subjected to much criticism, no small part of which was captious or shallow, and therefore unimportant. The verdict which I most eagerly waited for was that of Charles Darwin, whom I ranked far above all other authorities on such a matter. His letter, given below, made me most happy. . . . "MY DEAR GALTON,--... I do not think I ever in all my life read anything more interesting and original--and how Well and clearly you put every point!... You have made a convert of an opponent in one sense, for I have always maintained that, excepting fools, men did not differ much in intellect, only in zeal and hard work; and I still think this is an eminently important difference. I congratulate you on producing what I am convinced will prove a memorable work. ....-Yours most sincerely, (Signed) "CH. DARWIN" ) Darwin's ideas had a huge impact on the Western world, whereas before Darwin, conquest was made in the name bringing God to the heathens, now it could be made in the name of ridding the world of bad breeding stock and in the name of the proper use of inferior beings. Within the tangle of motives of late 19th century Northern European imperialism, there is greed for property, a notion of Nordic or Anglo superiority, fear of grubby natives, lust for people easily used for sex and lurid curiosity of the sex lives of exotic peoples. Mingled with this is the notion that everything is quantifiable by human minds, everything can be measured and comparisons made according to the numbers derived from measurement, and inseparable from this the absolute faith that the measuring devices created by white Europeans and the ideals behind them were the source of accurate measurement. There was little need to rationalize this thinking, why, it was just so obviously true. In the United States and elsewhere the concept of better humanity through better breeding found fertile ground. In 1904 steel magnate Andrew Carnegie organized the Carnegie Institute for Experimental Evolution. And in 1913 Dr. J.H. Kellogg, of breakfast cereal fame, founded the Race Betterment Foundation. whose goals included the "establishment of a eugenic registry that would create a pedigree of proper breeding pairs." In a way not unlike what dog breeders did and still do with their prized pooches, he proposed contests for the offspring of his ideal human breeding pairs and awards for each pedigree. It was a given that the ideal humans were pale skinned, northwestern Europeans, certainly easily distinguished from Slavs and Italians at a glance, one would hope. Nancy Ordover, writes in American Eugenics (2003): "...racism is a visually centered ideology-stereotyping physical and mental characteristics of outsiders and insisting on recognizable, undeniable, immutable differences between "inferior" and "superior" peoples. American eugenicists, armed with charts, photographs, and even human skulls, were there to provide the visual and mathematical support that rendered racism scientifically valid and politically viable. The litany of moral, intellectual, and physical deficiencies of racialized outsiders was no longer mere conjecture, but backed by the creative number crunching of exclusionists and others. Immigrants and their progeny joined the native poor, the physically and developmentally disabled, the sexual outcasts, African-Americans, prostitutes, alcoholics, addicts, convicts, and others as subjects of eugenic and statistical scrutiny. This was inevitable, not only because of a stalwart faith in science and progress, but because eugenicists were motivated by a desire to substantiate and sustain existing social hierarchies and not by legitimate research imperatives. Biologism, in short, served not only to preserve the status quo, but also to evade analyses of socioeconomically generated inequities. (9)" Ordover beautifully describes a multipurpose tool. Eugenically based racism serves the purpose of being an imaginary fix for severe social inequities, it effectively redirects blame for social problems, allows for prurient curiosity of others' private lives and parts, is patently logical and perfectly obvious, rigorously supportable, clean and free of emotion. In the preface to the first edition of his book, Applied Eugenics (1918), American, Paul Popenoe, names Galton as the founder of the study of eugenics, and then says: "...Emphasis has rather been laid on the practical means by which society may encourage the reproduction of superior persons and discourage that of inferiors. We assume that in general, a eugenically superior or desirable person has, to a greater degree than the average, the germinal basis for the following characteristics: to live past maturity, to reproduce adequately, to live happily, and to make contributions to the productivity, happiness, and progress of society. ... The problem of eugenics is to make such legal, social, and economic adjustments that (1) a larger proportion of superior persons will have children at present, (2) that the average number of offspring of each superior person will be greater than at present, (3) that the most inferior persons will have no children, and finally that (4) other inferior persons will have fewer children than now." In the chapter titled, "Negative Eugenics" which is the practice of limiting the production of inferior offspring, he lists nine tools that societies use to limit reproduction, as he says without regard to order of importance, 1) Birth control, which in some societies has included infanticide and abortion. 2) increased age at marriage, 3) surgical sterilization, 4) laws requiring the posting of a notice of intention to wed, 5) physical examination before marriage (which can result in people being advised not to marry, 6) divorce, 7) celibacy, 8) segregation of the undesirables from the normal population 9) capital punishment "which in some societies sometimes has had an important eugenic effect,...(135)" perhaps a new word for eugenically motivated capital punishment could be eugenecide. Popenoe's Applied Eugenics, has many analyses of social institutions and how they can be improved so as to encourage the increase of superior Americans. He examines several religions and states why some are better than others at encouraging eugenics (220). He carefully explains how the school system can be optimized to produce eugenically minded individuals. He states that colleges should be coeducational and places like college libraries and dining halls must not segregate the sexes in any way (214). But he decries the parents who chose to have no more than two children because they want to be able to send each of their children to college and can't afford to send more than two (167). He makes the cogent observation that highly trained men should not be sent to the battle front, but that they can contribute much from the home front. (199) He points out that eugenical prinicples need to be applied to blacks as well as whites in an effort to produce higher quality blacks and further suggests that they should not be forced into competition with white people that is too unfair, but that competition with and help from "the dominant group" acts as a stimulus, and is responsible for much of the progress he has made in thel last century, as compared with the slow progress he has made when left to himself, as in Liberia and Haiti." (303) While making it clear that miscegenation is a terrible thing, he also says that after slavery was abolished, "doubtless some better germ-plasm was added to the negro race through black concubines taken by white men." As one might guess, a man like Popenoe with a clear plan for a better future for humanity was able to influence officials to follow his ideas. Following the Buck vs. Bell Supreme Court decision in 1927 which legalized forced sterilization of undesirable populations. In 3 years approximately 10,000 people had been sterilized without their consent . California was one of 24 states with legislated sterilization. California alone could claim more than two-thirds of that 10.000. At the Sonoma Home for the Care and Training of Feebleminded Children, usually patients were not released to their families unless they had been surgically sterilized first. "Dr. Butler has always had a strong weapon to use in getting consents for sterilization," wrote Popenoe to another eugenicist in 1930, "by telling the relatives that the patient could not leave without sterilization." Popenoe was active in promoting sterilization in California and praised it's successes in sterilizing Californians in the 1930 edition of Applied Eugenics. His influence started in California, but it didn't just stay there. It extended overseas. One who worked with Popenoe on better breeding of Californians was banker and millionaire, Charles M. Goethe. He is quoted as saying, the Mexican is "eugenically as low-powered as the Negro." Goethe kept himself up-to-date on the progress of race politics in Nazi Germany on his annual business trips there. He was a founder of the Eugenics Society of Northern California, a member of the advisory board of the Sacramento Mental Health Association, president of the Eugenics Research Association, a trustee of the Human Betterment Association, and worked closely with Popenoe. He wrote to a fellow American eugenecist with admiration: "You will be interested to know that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program. Everywhere I have sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought.... " Nazi efforts to rid Europe of all inferior people, starting with the handicapped in Germany, and moving on to include Jewish people, Poles, the Romany, homosexuals, and groups opposed to Nazi ideology; for example, communists and Bibelforscher (Jehovah's Witnesses), is frequently thought of by Americans as a purely German invention. But that is not true. Nazi eugenics were not created from whole cloth but arose in a context of European rational thinking, unblinking faith in "science", nationalism, a need for someone to blame for poor economic conditions, the influence of British and American standards of what made a superior human, the influence of previous American successes with legalized sterilization of inferior humans - the state of California providing the aizis with one of the better examples of success in this area. This does not go to prove that there is not such thing as a rational approach to truth, what it does show is how easily people are blinded by the belief that they are being rational when they are really being emotional and irrational. The need to rid a society of the burdensome handicapped is a short-cut to saving money, and in a society that values possession of material goods this seems very reasonable, but it puts all humans in that society in a perilous state. Because the world is so unpredictable, at any moment any person can move from the able-bodied to the handicapped category, from the apparently sane to the apparently insane category, from the apparently intelligent to the apparently feebleminded category, and certainly this DOES happen to everyone eventually, if death doesn't come first. How can such official disdain for the frail inspire confidence in people to trust their government, knowing that that government might, the next day, decide to consider any person a threat to the national happiness? How can one know, even if one is found genetically sound NOW, that one might be declared unfit in the future? How can one be sure that one would not produce a beautiful and much loved baby with autism, a cleft palate or a missing arm? Planning for the emotional security of the populace may seem quite irrational, especially when doing so is in oppostion to immediate savings of tax dollars, but it is entirely rational given that humans are not robots or computers and that they do, whether it is politic or not, have emotions. David Andrews AppEdPsych 684 06-07-2004 10:00 PM Edited by author 06-07-2004 10:36 PM >Sorry, I was correcting this statement on your part, "such that - after his first homosexual experience - he kills himself", which was false. Ah. The version I heard was that he went the whole hog. But even being made to feel that he was, as a person, so bad that he couldn't face living as himself; that is just a completely unethical way to use any therapeutic method. And to subject him to it was reckless and every bit as nasty and pernicious as Mengele's work was. Because it was based only on devaluing people as people. Doesn't matter whether a person says "doesn't have the right to behave like that" about an autistic or a homosexual or a Jew. It's all devaluing the person. Nazism was all about that, where minorities have been concerned. David Andrews AppEdPsych 683 06-07-2004 09:15 PM >However, there was only one Mengele. He cannot and should not be compared to anyone. Even if there was only one, he was a prototype for the likes of Lovaas, and that is all the concession you'll get from me on this: I hold both with equal contempt. Because, as a human being in addition to as a psychologist (and therefore a professional), the actions of neither have proven to be ethical or reasonable for people trained to help people. I can't accept either, and so I condemn both equally. Michelle Dawson 682 06-07-2004 09:00 PM Sorry, I was correcting this statement on your part, "such that - after his first homosexual experience - he kills himself", which was false. Many, many people are at times unethical. John Money was unethical, for instance. David Reimer (for reasons we have no access to) did kill himself. However, there was only one Mengele. He cannot and should not be compared to anyone. David Andrews AppEdPsych 681 06-07-2004 08:41 PM Edited by author 06-07-2004 08:59 PM >Lumping them together so you can recruit their suffering in order to make an argument is not okay in my books. It's not a question of lumping together to make the argument. It's a question of why was Mengele unethical and why is Lovaas unethical! And they are unethical for exactly the same reason. They saw the effects of their behaviour and they have neither one given a shit about it. And that is why, Michelle, your case against the ethicality of ABA works: because it doesn't give a shit about the person it is being done against (it being the therapy, in the form of the person doing it). David Andrews AppEdPsych 680 06-07-2004 08:38 PM >For the record, the FBP "success" who attempted suicide did not succeed. No fucking shit!!!! But the fact remains that he was sufficiently ashamed of who he was that he bloody tried, and THAT is why Lovaas was taking on precisely the same role as Mengele, in that he was deciding on people's fate, regardless of whether he was aware of what might happen but wasn't bothered or whether he wasn't aware but still didn't give a shit: the fact is that his not giving a shit is the point at which his work ceases to be ethical. Seriously. David Andrews AppEdPsych 679 06-07-2004 08:35 PM >It's a very destructive way of lying. Yes, it is. If it is used to lie. I am making, from my extensive studies of both Lovaas AND Mengele, a very valid comparison: namely that neither was bothered by the potential effects of their actions on the people they were doing these actions to; and neither has since those horrific actions expressed any kind of remorse for having committed them. I am forced to conclude that, ultimately, there is very little difference between the two men. Nationality maybe, but ideology, no. And if, as Lovaas definitely suggested, pain was a justifiable punishment for use in effecting behaviour change, then I would be exactly as justified as he for using it on him to attempt to engender some sort of social conscience into him: the man has none. Probably because he wasn't given his own medicine. This is purely logical: if he can do it, so can anyone. Including me. Michelle Dawson 678 06-07-2004 08:34 PM For the record, the FBP "success" who attempted suicide did not succeed. David Andrews AppEdPsych 677 06-07-2004 08:31 PM >It's a very destructive way of lying. Yes, it is. If it is used to lie. I am making, from my extensive studies of both Lovaas AND Mengele, a very valid comparison: namely that neither was bothered by the potential effects of their actions on the people they were doing these actions to; and neither has since those horrific actions expressed any kind of remorse for having committed them. I am forced to conclude that, ultimately, there is very little difference between the two men. Nationality maybe, but ideology, no. Michelle Dawson 676 06-07-2004 08:27 PM I think respecting the dignity and the individual experiences of the victims is paramount. Lumping them together so you can recruit their suffering in order to make an argument is not okay in my books. That's all I can add to what I wrote already (/m672). Camille, are you going to post your (incendiary) eugenics article somewhere? I'd sure like to see it here some day, or a link. David Andrews AppEdPsych 675 06-07-2004 08:27 PM "A six-volt battery was wired to the strips of tape via a Harvard Inductorium. The shock was set at a level at which each of three Es standing barefoot on the floor agreed that it was definitely painful and frightening." That in itself is barbaric. "He sorted out who lived and died, didn't he?" (Michelle) And what was Lovaas doing in both the Young Autism Project and the Feminine Boys Project. If Lovaas can apply behaviourist principles (in a way in which even Skinner would have found them repulsive!) to make a boy feel THAT ashamed of himself for being a homosexual boy, such that - after his first homosexual experience - he kills himself... isn't Lovaas effectively saying (by being completely reckless about the effects of his actions on such a person) exactly the same sort of judge and jury that Mengele was? I didn't choose the Mengele comparison willy-nilly. I was made to study Mengele as part of my world history course by a Jewish teacher who did not want people to forget how nasty this guy was. Quite rightly, in my opinion, by the way. David Andrews AppEdPsych 674 06-07-2004 08:14 PM >I find the comparison with Dr Mengele profoundly offensive, if anyone's wondering. Never mind ludicrous and defamatory. And Lovaas hasn't enjoyed his research?????? I don't see Lovaas saying about his work what Skinner said of his own work in the 1970s!!!!! Lovaas would still be using aversives in the 21st Century were it not illegal, and I think he actually enjoyed it: I see nothing in his writings that said he felt uneasy about it. That puts him at the same level of humanity as Mengele. Which is why I said it. oddizm 673 06-07-2004 05:15 PM Hi, Thank you for reminding me about the dangers of incendiary talk. Really. I'm not being facetious. I do have a knack for the incendiary. You are right. Bad, extreme comparisons do not help to promote understanding. It's a reaction to being oppressed, which does not make it a good choice for advancing understanding. Still, you have to agree that m&m's are a tool of Satan. :-) Camille Michelle Dawson 672 06-07-2004 04:32 PM Edited by author 06-07-2004 04:33 PM I know a little bit about Dr Mengele's work. I know about the twins, for instance, and that some pairs survived to describe what was done to them. Mengele killed people and enjoyed it, from reports. He sorted out who lived and died, didn't he? He was called Dr Death. I hope I have the right monster. I'm not sure any comparison with Mengele is useful in any case. Why is it not sufficient accurately to report the actions of an individual? Why have a monster contest that distorts everything (both sides) and informs no one of anything but someone's willingness to attempt to achieve results by taking offensive short cuts? I just found Lovaas' electric shock study (the one quoted below). I have it photocopied. I was shocked, so to speak, that this seemed to have the approval of the completely revered (late) Dr Baer. And (returning to the previous), what does a comparison with Dr Mengele accomplish besides rightly offending the many people in a position to spot the difference, and distracting and detracting from the facts and *importance* of both individual cases? Detracting from the importance of either of these cases is unethical. Sensationalism is used constantly to harm autistic people. I honestly hate it. It's a very destructive way of lying. I'm offended by it, whoever emits it. I studied and wrote about ethics and it seems to me that you might have other choices available in order to improve the situation than yelling "Nazi!", something which just allows those you're shouting at to, with cause, dismiss *all* your arguments against them, whatever their nature. oddizm 671 06-07-2004 03:31 PM I haven't found the explanation yet, but Es seem to be the plural for "E" and seems to mean experimenter and Ss seems to mean the twins, or "subjects" as they were affectionately called, whose data were very similar and thus averaged for use in the graphs. Notice the use of M&Ms! I was right! they are a tool of Satan. (never mind, oddizm is just being stranger than usual) I don't have all of this article copied yet, errors are from my copying, not in the original (spelling mistakes) here is some of the middle part. It looks like they were training little kids to touch strangers, the "Es". I thought they were using the parents...maybe the parents got introduced later. I wondered if Lovaas et al had gotten shocked themselves and they did, as you can see. If they were into pain, it could be lots of fun after hours, too! "they all agreed it was definately painful and frightening" ------------ ...Apparatus. The research was conducted in a 12 X 12-foot experimental room with an adjoining observation room connected by one-way mirrors and sound equipment. The floor of the experimental room was covered by one-half inch wide metal tapes with adhesive backing (Scotch Tape). They were laid one-half inch apart so that when the child stepped on the floor he would be in contact with at least two strips, thereby closing the circuit and receiving an electric shock. A six-volt battery was wired to the strips of tape via a Harvard Inductorium. The shock was set at a level at which each of three Es standing barefoot on the floor agreed that it was definitely painful and frightening. The Ss' behavior and the experimental events were recorded on an Esterlinc Angus pen recorder bv procedures more fully described in an earlier paper (Lovaas et al., 1965). The observer could reliably record both frequency and duration of several behaviors simultaneously on a panel of push-buttons. A given observer recorded at randomly selected periods. Pre-shock Sessions. The Ss were placed barefoot in the experimental room with two Es, but were not shocked. There were two such pre-experimental sessions, each lasting for about 20 minutes. The Es would invite the Ss to "come here" about five times a minute, giving a total of approximately 100 trials per session. The observers recorded the amount of physical contact (defined as S's touching E with his hands), self-stimulatory and tantrum behavior, the verbal command "come here," and positive responses to the command (coming to within one foot of E within five seconds). First Shock Sessions. The two pre-experimental sessions were followed by three shock sessions distributed over three consecutive days during which Ss were trained, in an escape-avoidance paradigm, to avoid shock by responding to E's verbal command according to the pre-established criterion. In the escape phase of the training, consisting of fifty trials, the two Es faced each other, about three feet apart, with S standing (held, if necessary) between them so that he faced one of the Es, who would lean forward, stretch his arms out, and say "come here." At the same time shock was turned on and remained on until S moved in the direction of this E, Building Self-Help and Social Skills 111 or, if S had not moved within three seconds, until the second E pushed S in the direction of the inviting E. Either type of movement of S toward the inviting E immediately terminated the shock. The S had to walk alternately from one E to the other. In the avoidance sessions which followed, shock was withheld provided S approached E within five seconds. If S did not start his approach to the inviting E within five seconds, or if he was not within one foot of E within seven seconds, the shock was turned on and the escape procedure was reinstated for that trial. During these avoidance sessions Es gradually increased their distance from each other until they were standing at opposite sides of the room At the same time they gradually decreased the number of cues signaling S to approach them. In the final trials, Es merely emitted the command "come here without turning toward or other signaling S. Shock was also turned on if S at any time engaged in self-stimulatory and/or tantrum behaviors. Whenever possible, shock was administered at the onset of such behaviors. Shock was never given except on the feet; no shock was given if S touched the floor with other parts of his body. In order to keep S on his feet, shock was given for any behavior which might have enabled him to avoid shock, such as beginning to sit down, moving toward the window to climb on its ledge, etc. Extinction Sessions. The three shock sessions were followed by eleven extinction sessions distributed over a ten-month period. These sessions were the same as those in the previous sessions, except that shock and the command "no" were never delivered during this period. The Second Shock Sessions. Three additional sessions terminated Study 1. In the first of these, S was brought into the experimental room and given a two-second shock not contingent upon any behavior of S or E. This was the only shock given. In all other respects these final sessions were similar to the preceding extinction sessions. Procedure for Establishing and Testing "No" as a Secondary Negative Reinforcer. During the first shock sessions, shock had been delivered con- tingent upon self-stimulatory and/or tantrum behaviors. Simultaneous with the onset of shock Es would say "no," thereby pairing the word "no" and shock. The test for any suppressing power which the word "no" had acquired during these pairings was carried out in the following manner. Prior to the shock sessions, Ss were trained to press a lever (wired to a cumulative recorder) for M & M candy on a fixed ratio 20 schedule. The sessions listed for ten minutes daily. A stable rate of lever-pressing was achieved in the twelfth session, at which Es tested the word "no" for suppressing effects on the lever-pressing rate. The E delivered the "no" contingent pg 112 upon lever-pressing toward the middle of each session, during three sessions prior to the shock sessions, and during three sessions subsequent to the shock sessions, i.e., after "no" had been paired with shock. oddizm 670 06-07-2004 03:16 PM Hi, do you mean that any comparison between Mengele, et al and Lovaas et al is wrong? Why? I realize we are talking about a very big difference between seeing the subject as entirely disposable, and merely usable. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if Mengele used electric shock as one of his independent variables. I have read about Mengele, I know he froze people slowly, tied them together naked face to face...poisoned them, used lots of twins... I know in the case of tying them together naked face to face he was interested in behavior rather than purely physical responses such as body temperature of someone being frozen to death, though I imagine he watched their behavior, too. I have a bit of information on who the twins (shades of Mengele!)in the study MIGHT be. It will be a while before I can try to figure it out. I'm not trying to tease you Michelle, about the Mengele thing. I am interested in what you have to say, since I usually get over emotional on some topics and the logic gets thrown out the window. whoooosh, there it goes. :-) oddizm Michelle Dawson 669 06-07-2004 02:32 PM Edited by author 06-07-2004 02:33 PM Thanks Philip. I haven't read that book, but there was a big excerpt from it in The Atlantic before the book was published. Your interpretation of this woman's views seems right on. Even the title of the book suggests that autism is something menacing; were this child not rescued from this threat, he would have been doomed to a--how can you put it?--closed heart and closed mind, just like the rest of us. Some of the excerpt was quite good, with descriptions of sensory and motor problems. But like you point out, these descriptions are a bit--uh--florid? Fanciful? Fantasized? If it weren't for her evident distaste you would maybe think she's envious? This boy was very, very young when he was spotted as "threatened" with autism and started in his program. I can't remember, but it's the youngest I've heard of a kid being worked on. Her description of Lovaas and ABA resulted in a stern letter to The Atlantic from ASAT about ABA being scientifically proven. Stacey replied with Smith et al.'s 13% best outcomes, if I remember right. Philip 668 06-07-2004 01:28 PM I read the following book earlier this year: Title:- The Boy Who Loved Windows - opening the heart and mind of a child threatened with autism. Author:- Patricia Stacey Publisher:- John Wiley & Sons UK and USA 2003 ISBN 0-470-86979-8 In The Epilogue Stacey writes "Cliff (her husband) and I knew that there was no way anyone would ever mistake our child for someone on the autistic spectrum,and we were convinced that it was indeed possible to work one's way off the spectrum towards health." (p297) She believes that being healthy and being autistic are incompatible; that autistic people can become healthy only by stopping being autistic, and that autistic behaviour is something to be ashamed of. Previously in the book she had written "I detest the word stimming. It suggests something slightly unseemly, slightly sexual. What you're supposed to teach your children not to do in public." (p156) She describes a girl she saw in the park who was "excessively self-stimulating herself". She was "sitting on top of a play structure, not playing...the way all the other kids were,she was curled into herself" feeling the thousands of rubbery tentacles hanging from a ball "with an intensity that can only be called sexual. The world seemed to have fallen away for her and what remained was pure sensation. She seemed to me to be in a state of bliss." (p156) There were times when Stacey tried to understand autism, but it remained something strange and fascinating, but ultimately repellent to her. There is a good discussion about ABA and Lovaas between Stacey and Dawn, a therapist who was treating her son, Cliff. Because Dawn was critical and sceptical about ABA, the Staceys decided against it.( p140 -143) Instead they enrolled Cliff in an intensive program of 'floor time'which is described at considerable length. Michelle Dawson 667 06-07-2004 11:33 AM I find the comparison with Dr Mengele profoundly offensive, if anyone's wondering. Never mind ludicrous and defamatory. There's a long article, taken from a speech, about the history of the relationship between ABA and intellectual disability. When I have time I'll try to find it. I don't think treatment via the infliction of pain was limited to autistics. David Andrews AppEdPsych 666 06-07-2004 10:05 AM >Ethics is just applied morality. So this maybe is one of the antecedents for the position that "good" science and good ethics are incompatible in autism. *Could be. I don't know of such horrible tactics being used on other "defectives", and I certainly don't know of Skinner doing this sort of thing: I think that Lovaas must have been good friends with Dr Mengele. Even if he wasn't, they may well have been soul mates! Michelle Dawson 665 06-07-2004 08:50 AM "We agree with Solomon (1964) that such objections to the use of pain have a moral rather than scientific basis." Ethics is just applied morality. So this maybe is one of the antecedents for the position that "good" science and good ethics are incompatible in autism. Lucas 664 06-07-2004 06:38 AM Ooh, have you been to the supreme court yet Michelle? Do you get to shout "OBJECTION!" ? David Andrews AppEdPsych 663 06-07-2004 04:02 AM >Rather, punishment can be a very useful tool for effecting behavior change. The Nazi Lovaasian ideal for punishment, yes. But Skinner was actually against the use of punishments - reinforcers as much as possible, punishments hardly ever, because they simply don't work! Skinner would turn in his grave to hear about Lovaas' mess-making with behaviourism ("Which Skinner?" "You know, Burrhus Fred Skinner" "Oh you mean Spinning Fred Skinner!") oddizm 662 06-07-2004 12:54 AM I finally got the book I was waiting for... Their justification for the use of pain is fantastic! I think we are justified in causing them pain because it's part of life anyway, and if I want to cause any of them pain, I just will. Why not? ---------- Perspectives in Behavior Modification with Deviant Children edited by o. ivaar lovaas bradley d bucher from page 107 "building social behavior in autistic children by use of electric shock" this study was supported by a grant from the National institute of health (hd 00938) o. ivar lovaas benson schaeffer james q. simmons university of california at los angeles (p 108) Psychological or physical pain is perhaps as characteristic in human relationships as is pleasure. The extensive presence of pain in everyday life may suggest that it is necessary for the establishment and maintenance of normal human interactions. Despite the pervasiveness of pain in daily functioning, and its possible necessity for maintaining some behaviors, psychology and related professions have shied away from and often condemned, the use of pain for therapeutic purposes. We agree with Solomon (1964) tha such objections to the use of pain have a moral rather than scientific basis. Recent research, as reviewed by Solomon, indicated that hte scientific premises offered by psychologists for the rejection of punishment are not tenable. Rather, punishment can be a very useful tool for effecting behavior change. this study was with a pair of twins and the floor was covered with electrified metal strips stuck to the floor. in 1964 Michelle Dawson 661 06-06-2004 07:44 PM For a recent news article about the Auton case (ABA as "medically-necessary" treatment), see http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Art...05/COURT05/TPFocus/ If that URL doesn't work, it has also been posted at http://www.featbc.org/files/media/newspape...d_Mail_06_05_04.pdf Michelle Dawson 660 06-04-2004 11:56 PM Enjoy your summer. I hope the weather and the wildlife (oh, and the mentees) aren't too unruly. John 659 06-04-2004 10:54 PM That's it for me, I'll wander back sometime in late August. David Andrews AppEdPsych 658 06-04-2004 06:57 PM Yes, I am losing my patience with certain sections of the autism-community and I have tae say.... IT'S ABOOT FUCKIN' TIME! David Andrews AppEdPsych 657 06-04-2004 06:53 PM >Dr Mercola, who is linked to the miracle clay article, proposes "near infinite" (5000%) increases in autism in some US states. He's the "out of control epidemic" guy. In no time, if he's right, we'll all be autistic. Which is why I propose, for him/her, the title of Fuckwit Alfuckinmighty! MERCOLA, GET REAL! David Andrews AppEdPsych 656 06-04-2004 06:52 PM RE: /M652 Oh my bleeding god! Chelations at - what? - 2000 whatevers a shot? And a 40% rate of whatever? Fuck that! :< And clay baths? What they think we are? Feckin eejits? C'awn! Y'naw!!!!!! Fuckin' primitive! Lucas 655 06-04-2004 04:23 PM Really? Maybe people would be more reasonable if they were. We have a new member on Aspergia that has given us a new site: Aspies For Freedom. Our network is growing large. Er, I mean larger. http://as4freedom.proboards32.com/index.cgi Michelle Dawson 654 06-04-2004 02:35 PM Edited by author 06-04-2004 03:04 PM There's no credible evidence in the science that there is an increase in the actual number of autistic people. Autism hasn't "exploded". Irresponsibility has. There appears also to be a meteoric rise in opportunism. Dr Mercola, who is linked to the miracle clay article, proposes "near infinite" (5000%) increases in autism in some US states. He's the "out of control epidemic" guy. In no time, if he's right, we'll all be autistic. Lucas 653 06-04-2004 02:01 PM I don't believe toxic metals cause Autism, but I think that Autistics are more vulnerable to them as irritants, which is why it appears Autism has 'exploded'. The fact is that Autism has proberley always been at this level but the increase in the amount of toxins in our bodies in this modern day has made them more detectable. If such metals could be used to 'detect' an Autistic and then be removed, all without causing damage to the person, what would this mean? Philip 652 06-04-2004 01:48 PM Visit http://www.evenbetternow.com/autism.html to read about how having clay baths 'cures' autism. alyric 651 06-04-2004 04:21 AM >You have to agree, it's a classic. It should win a prize.< This should be submitted to the igobel prize committee 601-650 | 651-700 | previous | next |
|
|
| Top
| Comments | E-mail |
