Re: new JRC Article
Postby Ursus » Today, 20:48
Ursus wrote: The primary and most relevant issue or truth here is that the student is under the impression that the knives are real. THAT is the whole point behind the Behavior Rehearsal Lessons (BRLs), which are intended to elicit so-called unacceptable behaviors or reactions to stimuli, e.g., F-E-A-R, and for which the kids then get zapped.
Whooter wrote: We don’t know that,Ursus. Maybe he was under the impression. Maybe he isn’t telling the truth. The point is I find it interesting that out of all the reading, all the positive accounts and all the negative accounts that you and Anne tend to believe this “Shocking at knife point†over all the other articles.
Ursus wrote: Oh, I'm sure he was telling the truth as far as the usage of knives are concerned. Matthew Israel himself is quite unabashed about using knives in the context of treating students who have a history of self-harm in that manner. But I'd agree with you that Israel's description doesn't entirely comport with the overall impression one is left with from MDRI's above quoted "Torture Not Treatment" report. That may or may not make a difference to folks. I think there are other problems even in a best case scenario that are certainly not addressed by Israel.
Just so that we're all on the same page as far as the source material is concerned, here is a lengthy excerpt re. the usage of knives during BRLs from JRC's faq page:
There are certain behaviors that are so dangerous to the student or to others that one wants to prevent them from occurring even one more time, if one can.
<snip snip>
In such situations behavior rehearsal lessons are applied as follows. One prompts the student to engage in the first phase of the behavior. For example one prompts a student to pick up a knife and begin to direct it toward his arm as though to cut it with the knife. Then one arranges an aversive stimulus, for example one administers a GED skin shock. This is called a behavior rehearsal lesson. The student is prompted (against his will if necessary) to begin the undesired behavior (i.e., to move the knife in the direction of the arm) and is then receives an aversive stimulus while engaging in that beginning phase of the behavior.
The purpose of the procedure is to transfer some of the aversive properties of the GED stimulus to the internal stimuli that are generated by the beginning phase of the behavior. This transfer is accomplished by the pairing the beginning phase of the behavior with the GED stimulation. The intention is that if this can be done, then the following will happen: when, on a future occasion, the student begins to engage in the problem behavior, the beginning phase of the behavior will automatically generate conditioned aversive properties and the student will then terminate these conditioned aversive properties by refraining from engaging in the behavior. Typically the student will be given a certain number - say 3 or 4 - such lessons during a week at random times. Then as the student progresses, the frequency is diminished to a zero level.
-------------- • -------------- • --------------
Re: new JRC Article
Postby Ursus » 57 minutes ago
Here is the key part I have a real problem with:
The student is prompted (against his will if necessary) to begin the undesired behavior (i.e., to move the knife in the direction of the arm) and is then receives an aversive stimulus while engaging in that beginning phase of the behavior.
My best guess, and it is truly naught more than a guess, is that the student quoted above was "prompted" against his will to move said knife in whatever direction as was his particular predilection for self-harm. Who knows what that exactly entailed. One could certainly picture staff forcing the knife into his hand and then forcibly holding that hand with the knife as they go through the motions of the scenario for which he will be subsequently shocked.
Again, I really don't know this for sure. It is but one scenario that is consistent with both Matthew Israel's description of his "therapeutic" methods, as well as the student's consequent trauma over said "cure."
-------------- • -------------- • --------------
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Thanks for your informative comments and the excerpts from the articles, Ursus. I mean this don't know if it matters to you but it does to me.
From first hand knowledge I have witnessed the bodies prior to coming in to a place like JRC. Especially the patients that harm themselves. The arms, legs and torso's look like they were hit by a land mine in some cases in others it looks like they walked into a hail storm of knives, just ask around here I am sure there are folks not commenting that know exactly what I am talking about. These children did not have any help either they did this to themselves over and over. The scars on their heads and upper face, around the forehead and eye sockets from banging their heads constantly. How much swelling of the brain has happened with each incident.
Ursus I am not defending abuse I have said this over and over, you know this but I am also not going to just drop a form of treatment for these kids that can help them from doing this. I don't have enough info to keep me from changing my mind. I want to see the results of the investigation.
Danny