Thursday, August 11, 2016

The Journal of Absurd Behavior Analysis 2(1) asks, "Would you punish yourself for slouching with an electromechanical noisy garment apparatus or with a toilet bowl plunger perched on the top of your head?"

Behavioral psychologists who sit in an office all day long have weak spines.

Pioneering solution

Azrin et al., (1968). Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA). Summer 1968, pp. 99-108. Behavioral engineering: Postural control by portable (electromechanical) operant apparatus.

During post-experimental applications Azrin et al.'s (1968) convoluted slump detection device proved to be so ineffective that it actually misread ABA professors' aroused penile circumferences as slouches and misfired its white noise machine consequences into the astounded subjects' ears while their postures were flawless, whereupon they accidentally discovered how to suppress their own homosexually-aroused penile tumescence (Shaefer and Colgan, 1977). This happened because they got a little mixed up in their experiments on self-control (Hensen and Rubin, 1971), not through self-reinforcement (Goldiamond, 1976), but with self-flagellation (Hansen, 2010).

So they forgot to remove their appendages from deep inside their mercury-filled mechanical strain gauges for recording their penile circumference changes (Barlow et al., 1970). That way they could reliably gain instructional control over own penile responses sexual preferences as a group of these dudes secretly recorded their penile circumferences by sticking them where the son don't shine inside the gauges (Quinsey, Bergersen, 1976, p. 490). Since mercury is poisonous (Lite, 2008), they didn't care if they lowered their expected life-spans. Their reputations were tarnished badly since they were gay. How could they face the women and the conference with such a dirty secret? They were seductive women. Surely they'd know if they didn't arouse us. And then the entire cult (Altieri, 2015) would find out with those blabbermouths in charge.

So in a private booth in a gay bookstore outside their annual ABAI Autism-profit-and-control Conference they instructed themselves "to inhibit penile erection in the presence of effective stimulus films (and) every subject was able to reduce his erection by at least 50%. This inhibition was apparent as long as the instructions were in effect; when the instructions were removed and the film re-shown, the erection returned almost to its maximum state. This was true whether the films were presented as few as three or as many as nine times in succession. Laws and Rubin (1969)."

At any rate they started talking to one another about the weather and these closeted gay men got hard once again, well with the whips in hand and everything how could they resist? So then they went to the counter at the bookstore to rent some port. They tried "using two slide projectors, colored slides of nude females .... superimposed on colored slides of nude males. As the sexual response was emitted, the nude male was faded out and the nude female faded in (Barlow and Agras, 1973, p. 355)." To their dismay, they were still gay!

So then they tried to skin shock the gayness away from their accursed bodies Callahan and Leitenberg (1973), but that didn't work either. They were not so "effective" after all.

But then they surprised themselves. They accidentally discovered that by covering themselves in the noisy garment apparatus they turned straight. Now how in tarnation did that happen?


See, for examples:

Front and rear view of a subject wearing the posture switch. The front view in the upper sketch shows the signal component worn around the neck. A wire runs from the component, under the arm, to the posture switch on the back which is shown in the lower sketch. The posture switch is attached to the back by two strips of adhesive tape. The subjects wore their outer garments over the assembly which was thereby concealed from view.

Front and rear view of a subject wearing the posture switch. The front view in the upper sketch shows the signal component worn around the neck. A wire runs from the component, under the arm, and to the posture switch on the back which is shown in the lower sketch. The posture switch is attached by the shoulder straps which are adjusted for the desired posture for the individual subject. Outer garments are worn over the assembly and thereby conceal it from view. 

Apparatus definition of response. The apparatus defined slouching as an increased distance between two points on the back. A miniature snap action switch (Model 1lSMl, Microswitch) was modified to operate upon being pulled rather than pushed. This posture switch was mounted on the back at about the level of the second thoracic vertebra (see Fig. 1). The switch was connected to an elastic cord and attached to the back such that rounding of the back caused the switch contacts to close. Two methods of attachment to the back were used: adhesive tape was used for most subjects to provide the more exact measure of the response for purposes of experimental evaluation (see Fig. 1). A second method was a harness (see Fig. 2) which allowed a slight error due to movement of the straps but was more convenient for the subject: it could be removed and attached by the subject himself once adjusted properly, whereas the adhesive mounting required assistance and readjustment for each wearing. Fifteen subjects used the adhesive mounting and 10 the harness. A small strip of tape was used to hold the harness strap in a fixed position on the shoulders for some of the subjects who wore the harness. The amount of slouching needed to activate the switch was determined by the subject's own judgment. The subject was asked to assume a shoulder posture which he felt bordered on, but did not constitute, slouching and which he would like to maintain. The switch was adjusted via the adhesive tape or straps to be on the point of activation at that posture. The subject then returned to his usual activities for about 5 min after which dorsal curvature such that increased spinal curvature rather than the rounding of the back activated the posture switch. For other subjects, the switch was adjusted vertically after the first 5-min trial to the first or third thoracic vertebra if that location provided a greater distance change during slouching.

Azrin et al. (1968) described their 1968 slump consequence as a mere "tone."

However, in the summer of '16, Safety Pat replicated their experiment with five college-aged vacationing volunteers subjects on the Asbury Park, New Jersey Boardwalk and then conducted the plunger on head study with the same five young men and women.

Pat conducted a typically-underused-in-JABA Social Validity measurement to gauge their satisfaction levels of both interventions during Pat's replication of Azrin's electro mechanical contraption vs. Pat's plunger-falling-off-the-tip-of-the-head methodology.

All five subjects marked the survey at the checkbox that said that Azrin's white noise aversion was a "pain in the ass." They all, in turn, reported on the survey that the mild corrective punishment of picking up a plunger was a "barrel of laughs."

Modern solution

Safety Pat the Proud Autistic Schizophrenic Clown (2016). Journal of Absurd Behavior Analysis (JABA). 2 (1) Summer 2016. Behavioral engineering: Postural control by portable (toilet bowl plunger) operant apparatus.

This modern posture-correction plunger apparatus is a vast improvement upon Azrin et al. (1968)'s pioneering solution to the scoliosis "problem of social importance."

Safety Pat's (2016) plunger device simplifies and improves the reliability of slump detection. All you do is stick a plunger on top of your head, and as long as there is no Nor'easter approaching Safety Pat's stable clown spot in front of Tim McLoone's Supper Club at the Asbury Park, New Jersey Boardwalk, then the plunger always falls off the heads of Pat's five hundred thousand fans (Pat has a huge ego.) as soon as they round their backs with plungers on their heads. Pat's picking-up-the-plunger, self-control, over-correction technology offers Pat's actually autistic and neurotypical experimental-subject fans a much milder aversive stimulus than Azrin et al.'s antiquated, highly-masochistic, self-control noise-torture technique.


See also Altieri (July 18, 2011): Here's a post about ABA punishing slouching with noise.

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Pam Zich, state certificated Special Education teacher, finds for ABA Leaks that the Judge Rotenberg Center's Executive Director Crookes told the FDA she put Applied Behavior Analysis skin shock device electrodes on her clients' buttocks.

Canton, Massachusetts' Judge Rotenberg Center's (JRC) Executive Director Mrs. "Glenda" Crookes (December 21, 2012, p. 2, par. 3) told the FDA she applied noxious, painful ABA "aversion therapy" skin shock electrodes to JRC students' buttocks. JRC is ABA, a reward and punishment, behavior control institution.

Pam Zich (May 5, 2016), investigative blogging journalist with the new group, ABA Leaks, did a Freedom Of Information Act request with the FDA (FOIA - pronounced at the FDA, "FOYA").

Zich sought Crookes' reply to the FDA violation letter that JRC was using shock devices that were never approved by the FDA, the GED-3A and -4.

The GED-1 had previously been FDA approved, but JRC claimed it was not electrically charged enough to stop these ABA clients' "pinpointed problem behaviors."

Why does she feel she  needs to administer such an invasion of shock victims' private areas? ABA Leaks suspects JRC's other electrode covered areas all over the body were previously burned or blistered by her facilities' "noxious, electrical ABA aversion therapy" applications. Crookes (December 21, 2012, p. 2, par. 3) also reported to the FDA that she also shocks "the forearm, upper arm, upper thigh, calf, torso, palms of the hands, (and) soles of the feet."

Related Posts

For an FDA/ABA/JRC skin shock timeline see my: Altieri (July 31, 2015): "News report action alert: FDA gives 24/7 complaint line to advocates against extremely painful ABA electric skin shock: (800) 891-8295. FDA requests more public input into JRC's FDA-unapproved electric current levels.  July 9, 2015. Canton, Massachusetts. Director Crookes tells two advocates she still shocks disabled clients with FDA-uncleared devices."


Altieri (January 15, 2007). The problem with punishment.

Altieri (December 27, 2007). New Jersey Supreme Court: On the Matter of MR's freedom.

Altieri (August 20, 2011). On gaining the consent of the recipients of behavioral interventions.

Altieri (September 30, 2014). Some history and consequence to the dialectical notions of absolute and relative freedoms.

Altieri (February 24, 2015). Tell New York City Mayor de Blasio to stop ABA electroshock “torture” of disabled people.

Altieri (April 6, 2015). So-called "deviant autistic child" becomes multibillion dollar benefactor of ABA.

Altieri (May 1, 2015). My one day of electric shock was worse than 36 years of antipsychotics.

Kosovskaya and Altieri (June 11, 2015). Heroic Anna Kosovskaya escapes the Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) of ABA electroshock "treatment/torture." Anna's self-reported adventures with interviewer analysis.

Altieri (July 22, 2016). Terri Du Bous, the next emancipated ABA Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) hell-hole survivor, speaks.

Copyright and disclaimers

Reward and Consent , © is January 15, 2007 to the current date. All rights reserved (and stuff like that). E-mail me for permission to reproduce in part or in full. Please link to and cite passages quoted or paraphrased from here.

Reward and Con
sent is not responsible for links on the site. For example, I use keywords "Operant Conditioning" in the YouTube search field for the videos displayed below the archives on the left. Google selects the videos and the results change from time to time. Please email me if anything is not educational and germane to the subject and I will reevaluate the search.

I am an advocate for people with disabilities certified to teach special education with a Master of Arts in Teaching. I am not a Licensed Psychologist or a Board Certified Behavior Analyst. When in doubt, seek the advice of an MD, a PhD, or a BCBA. My ability to analyze the ethics of ABA stems from the fact that I am disabled and ABA interventions are often done to people like me, which I voluntarily accept, but only when I alone am the person granting consent, and not a parent, sibling, guardian, or institution.