The quotes below are from an article: When the shrinks ignore science, sue them. James O. Herbert and Richard Redding from the Skeptical Inquirer, 2011, vol. 35, 5.

    Psychology is in the unenviable position of having many of its practitioners work in the public service where expectations are so low that they consist of showing up and not embarrassing the employing agency. Add to this the unearned reputation of “professionals” and you have a milieu supporting fads and indifference to accomplishment.

    “Crisis debriefing is promoted to decrease post-traumatic stress reactions following a trauma, but in fact is actual increases the risk of such problems.” p. 14. Crisis debriefing used to be pushed with religious zeal as the only human reaction–doesn’t work, makes things worse.

     Courts has ruled that, when professionals defend their methods–“No longer can defendants argue that they met the standard of care merely because they employed techniques often used by others in the profession.” p. 14.

     “Organizations such as the American Psychological Association pay lip servie to scientific standards, but they leave gaping loopholes that allow psychologists to practice all kinds of pseudoscientific nonsense.” p. 15.

      If one uses the INTEND-IS-DOES analysis, most methods, in the proud tradition of politics, are evaluated by what is INTENDED. The next useless step is evaluating methods by what IS done–again, flailing away with ineffective, but correct methods is OK–just ask the public school system.

      The only way, of course, to evaluate anything is by the results–what it DOES achieve. Anyone working in any area has an opportunity to do well by distinguishing himself by producing results.

    For example, the results from using “psychoactive” drugs for depression are disappointing while there is a technique which works. The psychologist who uses the effective technique will stand out so far he will be swamped with work.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

Sugar and Hyperacivity

Since it’s now the day after Halloween, I thought I’d protect your children from this myth. It’s also one of my favorites.

<insert>

    Slightly late, but still valid.

Let’s cut to the chase: sugar doesn’t make kids hyper. There have been at least twelve trials of various diets investigating different levels of sugar in children’s diets.  That’s more studies than are often done on drugs. None of them detected any differences in behavior between children who had eaten sugar and those who hadn’t.  These studies included sugar from candy, chocolate, and natural sources.  Some of them were short-term, and some of them were long term. Some of them focused on children with ADHD. Some of them even included only children who were considered “sensitive” to sugar. In all of them, children did not behave differently after eating something full of sugar or something sugar-free.

Personally, I think there are so many studies on this issue because after each was completed, the results were met with such skepticism that researchers felt the need to do another. This myth, perhaps more than any other, is met with disbelief when we discuss it, especially among parents.

<insert>

      Like UFOs and the belief in the usefulness of drugs in the Ritalin class, this assumption is almost exclusive to North America. How and why this is true could be the topic of several dissertations.

In my favorite of these studies, children were divided into two groups.  All of them were given a sugar-free beverage to drink. But half the parents were told that their child had just had a drink with sugar.  Then, all of the parents were told to grade their children’s behavior.  Not surprisingly, the parents of children who thought their children had drunk a ton of sugar rated their children as significantly more hyperactive. This myth is entirely in parents’ heads. We see it because we believe it.

Even when science shows time and again that it’s not so,  we continue to persist in believing that sugar causes our kids to be hyperactive. That’s likely because there’s an association. Times when kids get a lot of sugar are often times when they are predisposed to be a little excited. Halloween. Birthday parties. Holidays. We may even be causing the problem ourselves. Some parents are so restrictive about sugar and candy that when their kids finally get it they’re quite excited. Even hyper.

This does not mean that there aren’t a ton of great reasons why our kid should not ingest large quantities of sugar.  As almost any parent knows, sugar has been linked to cavities and the obesity epidemic. Just don’t blame it for your child’s bad behavior.

References:

    Hoover DW, Milich R. Effects of sugar ingestion expectancies on mother-child interactions. J Abnorm Child Psychol 1994;22:501-15.
    Kinsbourne M. Sugar and the hyperactive child. N Engl J Med 1994;330:355-6.
    Krummel DA, Seligson FH, Guthrie HA. Hyperactivity: is candy causal? Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 1996;36:31-47.
    Wolraich ML, Lindgren SD, Stumbo PJ, Stegink LD, Appelbaum MI, Kiritsy MC. Effects of diets high in sucrose or aspartame on the behavior and cognitive performance of children. N Engl J Med 1994;330:301-7.

<end>

     Many reasons not to eat refined sugar–such as substitution for valuable calories–sugar provides a useful media for the proliferation of viral-based diseases–impact on the longevity of teeth, and so on. Hyperactivity is not one of the reasons to avoid sugar nor is ingestion a reason for increased activity.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

       The War For Southern Independence brought forth a number of extraordinary personalities. One was Stonewall Jackson, leader of the Second Corps of the Army of Northern Virginia, Old Jack was wounded at First Chancellorsville by his own troops and died 8 days later. He was missed at Gettysburg where Lee’s head on attacks led to Confederate failure.

     Jackson was a devout Christian, devoted family man and behavior modifier for his child, Julia. To wit;

      “One day she began to cry to be taken from the bed…. and as soon as her wish was gratified, she ceased to cry. He laid her back upon the bed, and the crying was renewed with increased violence. Of course, the mother-heart wished to stop this by taking her up gain, but he exclaimed: “This will never do!” and commanded “all hands off” until that little will of her own should be conquered.

     So there she lay, kicking and screaming, while he stood over her with as much coolness and determination as if he were directing a battle; and he was true to the name of Stonewall even in disciplining a baby! When she stopped crying he would take her up, and if she began to cry again he would lay her down again, and this he kept up until finally she was completely conquered, and became perfectly quiet in his arms.” (p. 398).

      Stonewall’s last words, perhaps embroidered by history, but consistent with the man, were, “Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees.”

Davis, B. (1954). They Called Him Stonewall: A Life of Lt. General T.J. Jackson, C.S.A.. Avenel, New Jersey, Outlet Book Company. (1988 Edition).

     The Laws of Behavior do not change and will stand attacks from postmodern thought, the New Socialist Man and all other assaults from those to whom facts are just annoyances–The Experts Who Don’t Know Anything Useful–those who believe, and are believed by others, to be experts.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

    If you don’t know about the issues, especially the economic ones, please don’t vote. Urging everyone to vote is like crowbarring somebody through education to decrease the dropout rate. The result won’t be pretty. For example, hope and change means we hope things don’t get worse and we’ll change the deficit to higher numbers. One the other hand, more is better so a higher unemployment rate and higher deficit must be good.

From my blog.

     “The first concept I adhere to rigidly is to never consult with or talk to any representative of any government agency. One gets three, not mutually exclusive responses: The first is that we’re experts and you’re an idiot so don’t bother us. The second is that we do that already. Of course, they don’t, and can’t do anything remotely like it because they don’t know how. The third is,”What a good idea. We’ll get right on it.”  No they won’t because they can’t. A school, operating under the third principle bought an expensive program which, three years later, was still in the original shrink wrapping.” and is still there.

     What brought this to consciousness was a request from a regular public school for a “report” on one of our students. Writing psychological reports is big business and is usually fairly pointless. In education, these reports are supposed to lead to better teaching, but never do since a) the person writing the report does not know about teaching, and, b) the report concentrates on hypothetical things. Only better learning means better teaching.

     If I ended a “report” with recommendations about better teaching, the school wouldn’t do it, couldn’t do it and/or wouldn’t care whether it were done.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

      Today,  an example of structure (how things look) versus function (how well they do a job). If you want to get good at something, practice. If you’re well coiffed, the results don’t care.

Robert Leckie, in Delivered From Evil, his excellent one volume survey of World War 2, has this to say about the South Dakota and skipper, Thomas Gatch.

“Gatch was a fighter who preferred salty sharpshooters to spit-and-polish sailors. So he ran a “loose ship” concentrating on marksmanship. His men looked like a “lot of wild men”, according to one of Gatch’s officers, but they could shoot straight, and they idolized their skipper.” p. 472.

       This marksmanship encompassed both his naval rifles, the main armament, and the anti-aircraft, as seen below.

     On December 10, 1941, two Royal Navy heavy units, the battleship The Prince of Wales and the battlecruiser Repulse were sunk by Japanese torpedo planes with the loss of three aircraft. The British sailors were brave, make no mistake, but it may have been better if the brass were less polished and the gunnery better.

SENT THE JAPS REELING
US Battleship Destroys 32 Jap Planes in Fight

Washington (AP) –An American battleship bristling with anti-aircraft guns destroyed an entire flight of 20 enemy dive bombers in an October sea-air battle in the South Pacific, the Navy reported Sunday. The battleship destroyed a total of 32 Japanese planes before the enemy finally ceased trying to sink it.

The ship took only one bomb hit, on a turret, and damage was so quickly repaired that it was able to go into the battle of  Guadalcanal Nov. 14.

The whole thrilling story of this unidentified vessel’s part in South Pacific fighting during October and November was told in the first detailed account of how an American battle wagon had acquitted itself under enemy air and surface attack.

The ship was commanded by Capt. Thomas Leigh Gatch, Annapolis, Md. In the battle of Santa Cruz Island Oct. 26 it was part of an aircraft carrier task force which was attacked by the planes of a Japanese force of three carriers moving southward from north of the Solomon Islands. The battleship was assigned to escort one of our carriers.  The enemy planes apparently had this carrier as their main objective, but upon spotting the battleship, they veered to attack. The first assault was by an enemy dive bomber and Capt. Gatch reported tersely "All were shot down."

There were two more assaults by torpedo planes and dive bombers. With the help of fighter planes from the American force, the battleship, scoring destruction of 12 more enemy aircraft with its own guns was so fully protected that it suffered only the turret hit. A fragment of the bomb struck Capt. Gatch in the neck, severing an artery, and the explosion threw him against the ships conning tower, knocking him unconscious and tearing shoulder muscles. He recovered quickly and less than three weeks later again took his battleship to sea…and into the second phase of the battle of Guadalcanal which in mid-November broke the Japanese drive to retake the island. (the first phase was that in which an American cruiser force, including the Boise and San Francisco distinguished  themselves early Nov. 18)

Gatch reported that the American battleship force moved into the strait between Guadalcanal and nearby Savo Island, expecting a trap – "we wanted to get ‘caught.’ They had set this trap for foxes and we didn’t think it would hold bears."

The battleships were cruising leisurely when they spotted enemy war vessels several miles off — a large cruiser and two smaller cruisers in column. The battleships opened with 16-inch guns and almost immediately flames from the large enemy cruiser illuminated the entire seascape. All three cruisers were sunk before they could get within range of our ships. "They never knew what sank them," Capt. Gatch reported. At this point the Japanese sprang their trap. The American force picked up an enemy destroyer or light cruiser dead astern and the battleship fired three salvos from its after-turret. The Jap vessel burst into flame, threw its bow high into the air, and sank stern first. The American battleship force then went into the narrow, dangerous channels west of Savo and struck out in column with Gatch’s ship last.

As they neared Savo’s southern end Japanese cruisers turned four searchlights on our column as it and other cruisers and a Japanese battleship opened fire.

"Within a second after the searchlights were on us," Gatch said, "our secondary batteries opened up and their searchlights went out, Then, 30 seconds later, our main batteries fired. We were fighting the cruiser. One of our own battleships ahead of us was pouring shells into the Jap battleship, but now and again the big enemy ship would turn one our way, until the US battleship ahead silenced it.

Gatch’s ship received a hit on the conning tower. A fire started there and was quickly extinguished. The US battleships and their destroyers had sunk on Jap battleship or heavy cruiser, three cruisers and one destroyer, and had damaged another battleship, a cruiser and a destroyer.
In the earlier Santa Cruz battle the enemy lost more than 100 aircraft, according to Navy reports previously released, and probably lost 50 more. American planes from the carrier task force including Gatch’s ship damaged two Japanese aircraft carriers, a battleship and five cruisers. US surface ship losses in this battle were an unidentified aircraft carrier and the destroyer Porter. The carrier, severely damaged in battle went down several hours later.

So. Dakota Revealed As Gatch’s Hero Ship
Washington, D.C. Oct 2

This famous "battleship" which shot down 32 planes in one engagement and then sank three Japanese cruisers, was identified today by the Navy as the U.S.S. South Dakota.

Under command of Capt. Thomas L. Gatch – now Rear Admiral Gatch, Judge Advocate General of the Navy – the South Dakota made her big score the night of Nov 14 off the point of Savo Island in the Solomon’s. She was prowling in search of enemy shipping when the three cruisers came into sight. The first salvo from the South Dakota set ablaze one of the cruisers. Before the other enemy warships could get within range, the South Dakota had sunk them all. Earlier she had slugged her way through a heavy air attack, shooting down 32 planes.

First of New Class

The Navy said the battleship’s identity had been kept secret for nearly a year because she was the first ship of a new class bearing new armament and with greatly increased fire power. To have identified her as the South Dakota, the Navy said, would have given the enemy valuable information on the new class.

The South Dakota sister ships in the hard slugging class are U.S.S.Indiana and the U. S. S. Alabama. Gatch told of the aerial assault and the subsequent surface battle in a formal report in which he declared "I was more afraid of ramming the carrier we were protecting than attacking planes."

Telling of one of the aerial attacks, he said only a single torpedo plane of a group of about 40 Jap bombers did not fall or, turn back from the South Dakota’s fire.

"It came at the stern of the ship." He reported. "It appeared that millions of tracer shells went right past that plane without hitting it, but some did strike it and at the right time. They struck just before the pilot released his torpedo." The torpedo missed and the plane struck the water and sank. Earlier 20 enemy dive bombers had been shot down in the first of three attacks on the battleship."

Wounded by Lone Hit. The third attack brought 24 dive bombers and torpedo planes. One bomb landed on top of a turret. "That was the only hit we took and it was the one that got me." said Gatch. A fragment of bomb struck him in the neck.

Describing the surface engagement, Gatch said the Japs thought they had set a trap for American war vessels between the islands of Guadalcanal and Savo. "We wanted to get caught." Gatch added. "They weren’t expecting us; they set this trap for foxes and it wouldn’t hold bears."

"They never knew what sank them."

<end>

      There are show horses and work horses, South Dakota and Gatch were work horses. Three cruisers before they came in range. The Japanese were still suffering from “victory disease” and believed, with some reason, that their gunnery, both nocturnal and daytime, was superior to that of the Americans. Pride goeth before a fall.

      So, if you want something done, the best-looking may not be a good guide. Government agencies, of course, put a lot of effort into looking good.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

    Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.
   
      This is as good as five cups of coffee. When I worked in civil servantry, I met a lot of incompetent people. Today, by chance, I came across the salary of one of these. It was 138K + in 2002. I feel a lot better now.

     Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, apparently made a lot of political cred by emphasizing the potential horrors of the Hurricane Irene, non-event. I now feel even better.

   Here’s something that’s been known for 2 or 3 centuries. It also applies to eyewitness reports. Memory is not something that people have, it’s something they DO. Inconsequential events such as, “Are you sure?” or “Take another look.”  can skew the results.

Police Lineups Start to Face Fact: Eyes Can Lie

By ERICA GOODE and JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: August 28, 2011
The decision by New Jersey’s Supreme Court last week to overhaul the state’s rules for how judges and jurors treat evidence from police lineups could help transform the way officers conduct a central technique of police work, criminal justice experts say.

In its ruling, the court strongly endorsed decades of research demonstrating that traditional eyewitness identification procedures are flawed and can send innocent people to prison. By making it easier for defendants to challenge witness evidence in criminal cases, the court for the first time attached consequences for investigators who fail to take steps to reduce the subtle pressures and influences on witnesses that can result in mistaken identifications.

“No court has ever taken this topic this seriously or put in this kind of effort,” said Gary L. Wells, a professor of psychology at Iowa State University who is an expert on witness identification and has written extensively on the topic.

Other courts are likely to follow suit, and in November the United States Supreme Court will take up the question of identification for the first time since 1977.

But changing how the nation’s more than 16,000 independent law enforcement agencies handle the presentation of suspects to witnesses will be no easy task, many experts say.

Around the country, the notion of change has met with resistance from police officers who remain skeptical about the research and bridle at the idea that they could affect the responses of witnesses, even unintentionally, which studies find is how most influence occurs.

In many communities, lineups are conducted in the same way they have been for decades, although typically these days they involve photos, not actual people. According to some estimates, only about 25 percent to 30 percent of jurisdictions have police departments that have revised their policies to protect the integrity of lineup procedures.

Although some states are studying revisions or require single changes in procedure, only two — New Jersey and North Carolina — mandate the two practices that researchers regard as most important: lineups that are blinded, that is, administered by someone who is not familiar with the suspect and who is not one of the primary investigators on the case; and photo arrays that are presented sequentially rather than as a group. Both practices, studies find, decrease the pressure on witnesses to pick someone and guard against influence.

The idea that human memory is frail and suggestible has gradually gained acceptance among leaders in law enforcement, buttressed by more than 2,000 scientific studies demonstrating problems with witness accounts and the DNA exonerations of at least 190 people whose wrongful convictions involved mistaken identifications. About 75,000 witness identifications take place each year, and studies suggest that about a third are incorrect.

Model policies for changing lineup procedures have been created by professional organizations like the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and in 1999, the National Institute of Justice released guidelines that were sent to every police department in the United States.

But the process of reform, Dr. Wells said, is “all over the place, it’s very spotty.” He added that he suspected many police departments simply deposited the federal guidelines, which he helped develop, “into their round files.”

Some large departments, like those in Dallas and Denver, have already made changes, often under the leadership of an administrator eager to keep up to the national standard or after DNA exonerations revealed mistaken identifications.

In Dallas, for example, detectives take elaborate precautions to make sure that identifications remain untainted and that they will stand up in court.

Witnesses are sent to a special unit of the Police Department devoted entirely to lineups, where they are read instructions and shown photographs by trained lineup officers who have no relationship to the cases.

Photos are presented one at a time instead of all together, and the witnesses then indicate how confident they are in their judgments. The whole process is videotaped, so that it can be viewed by defense lawyers and by the court, if necessary.

Lt. David Pughes, commander of the department’s homicide unit, said 5,000 lineups had been conducted in this manner since April 2009, when the policy was instituted, a major departure from the days when the investigating officers in criminal cases conducted lineups and no consistent procedures were followed.

Initially, Lieutenant Pughes said, the new practices were resisted by detectives, who felt that their integrity was being challenged.

“The only way to overcome that was through an elaborate training program that talked about memory and physiology and all different types of things,” he said. After the training, he added, “I could see that the lights were going on.”

The Denver Police Department adopted similar revisions six years ago, after “we looked at what we were doing and felt it was too suggestive,” said Lt. Matthew Murray, an aide to the department’s chief.

“A lot of law enforcement has a ‘sky is falling’ mentality,” Lieutenant Murray said of the resistance to changing witness procedures. “But we have found that in practice, these things don’t impact cases negatively, and actually have just the opposite effect.”

But 15 miles away, in Aurora, Colo., little has changed. Sgt. Cassidee Carlson, a Police Department spokeswoman, said the department had no written policy and did not follow the National Justice Institute guidelines because there was no state mandate to do so.

Lineups in Aurora, she said, are usually conducted by the officers investigating the cases, and although witnesses are admonished to take care in their identifications, no consistent steps are taken to prevent influence.

“For now, everybody’s satisfied,” Sergeant Carlson said. “This is the system we have in place, and it works with our court system.”

Ron Waldrop, a former assistant chief in charge of investigations in Dallas who instituted the changes there, said most departments do not make changes until wrongful convictions or other problems become an issue. And small departments in particular are unlikely to have changed their procedures.

“You have a lot of 10-man departments in the United States, and nobody really knows what they’ve done, if anything,” he said.

In an effort to find out, the Police Executive Research Forum has begun a survey of lineup practices in more than 1,400 randomly selected police departments around the country. The results are expected later this year, said Jerry Murphy, the survey’s lead investigator.

Mr. Waldrop, who is serving as an adviser on the survey, said his own suspicions about the flaws in witness procedures began during the 17 years he spent as commander of the Dallas department’s homicide division.

In some cases, he said, detectives would give small facial cues when a witness picked the suspect they had in mind, or tell the witness to pick “the person who most resembles” the one they had earlier seen commit the crime. And sometimes witnesses to the same crime would identify different suspects.

“There were things I saw in practice by detectives that were unintentional that I knew needed to be rectified through standards and training,” Mr. Waldrop said.

Yet even in departments that have enacted changes, police officers sometimes fail to comply with the new procedures. Stanley Z. Fisher, a law professor at Boston University, did a pilot study on compliance with changes in two jurisdictions in Massachusetts. He found that in Middlesex County, for example, where police officers are urged but not required to conduct blinded lineups, they recorded doing so in only 2 of 11 photo arrays.

The resistance to changing the witness identification process has not been limited to police officers, criminal justice experts say. District attorneys and judges have also been slow to recognize the weight of the evidence that the process is inadequate.

Brandon L. Garrett, a law professor at the University of Virginia whose book, “Convicting the Innocent,” was cited by the New Jersey Supreme Court justices in their ruling, said that judges often blocked testimony about studies that demonstrate problems with witness evidence.

“Judges say it’s either too complicated, abstract and unconnected for jurors to understand, and other times they say it’s too simplistic,” Mr. Garrett said.

As a result, there is often little or no counterbalance to the impact that vivid witness accounts have on juries.

And, said Stephen Saloom, the policy director for the Innocence Project, “every time you wrongfully convict an innocent person, you have failed to convict the real person, who will possibly go on to commit more crimes.”

<end>

   Victims of brutal rapes and robberies have misidentified their assailants. A ruling about evidence is one thing, getting compliance is another.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

          Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

Not all who received mental health care after the Sept. 11 attacks benefited, researchers found.

By BENEDICT CAREY
Published: July 28, 2011

The mental fallout from the Sept. 11 attacks has taught psychologists far more about their field’s limitations than about their potential to shape and predict behavior, a wide-ranging review has found.

The report, a collection of articles due to be published next month in a special issue of the journal American Psychologist, relates a succession of humbling missteps after the attacks.

Experts greatly overestimated the number of people in New York who would suffer lasting emotional distress. Therapists rushed in to soothe victims using methods that later proved to be harmful to some.

<insert>

     And useless for the rest.

And they fell to arguing over whether watching an event on television could produce the same kind of traumatic reaction as actually being there.

These and other stumbles have changed the way mental health workers respond to traumatic events, said Roxane Cohen Silver, a psychologist at the University of California, Irvine, who oversaw the special issue along with editors at the journal.

“You have to understand,” she said, “that before 9/11 we didn’t have any good way to estimate the response to something like this other than — well, estimates” based on earthquakes and other trauma.

<insert>

   The main reason counselors acted the way they did was the mistaken beliefs that people are fragile and psychological counseling is useful.

Chaos reigned in the New York area after the twin towers fell, both on the streets and in the minds of many mental health professionals who felt compelled to help but were unsure how. Therapists by the dozens volunteered their services, eager to relieve the suffering of anyone who looked stricken. Freudian analysts installed themselves at fire stations, unbidden and unpaid, to help devastated firefighters. Employee assistance programs offered free therapy, warning of the consequences of letting people grieve on their own.

Some given treatment undoubtedly benefited, researchers say, but others became annoyed or more upset. At least one commentator referred to therapists’ response as “trauma tourism.”

“We did a case study in New York and couldn’t really tell if people had been helped by the providers — but the providers felt great about it,” said Patricia Watson, a co-author of one of the articles and associate director of the terrorism and disaster programs at the National Center for Child Traumatic Stress. “It makes sense; we know that altruism makes people feel better.”

But researchers later discovered that the standard approach at the time, in which the therapist urges a distressed person to talk through the experience and emotions, backfires for many people. They plunge even deeper into anxiety and depression when forced to relive the mayhem.

Crisis response teams now take a much less intense approach called psychological first aid, teaching basic coping skills and having victims recount experiences only if it seems helpful.

One of the biggest lessons of Sept. 11, said Richard McNally, a psychologist at Harvard who did not contribute to the new report, was that it “brought attention to the limitations of this debriefing.”

<insert>

    For decades, critical incident stress debriefing, was deemed to be necessary and made mandatory by some agencies.

Another, he said, was that it drove home the fact that people are far more resilient than experts thought. No one disputes that thousands of Americans who lost loved ones or fled from the collapsing skyscrapers are still living with deep emotional wounds. Yet estimates after the attack projected epidemic levels of post-traumatic stress, afflicting perhaps 100,000 people, or 35 percent of those exposed to the attack in one way or another.

Later studies found rates closer to 10 percent for first responders, and lower for other New Yorkers. (The prevalence in children was slightly higher.)

“Some of us were making this case about resilience well before 9/11, but what the attack did was bring a lot more attention to it,” said George A. Bonanno, a psychology professor at Columbia.

It also stirred a debate that may soon change the definition of post-traumatic stress. In the breathless weeks and months after the attack, experts and news articles warned that people who had no direct connection to the tragedy would also develop diagnosable symptoms merely from seeing the images on a television screen.

<insert>

      Yet more evidence that a sincere belief is not a fact.

Dr. Silver, who was among the first to question overestimates of trauma, has found evidence for such effects in her own studies.

“The distress spilled over the outside communities, mostly to people who saw the images and had pre-existing psychological problems,” she said. “The numbers are low, but I think the data is convincing.”

Dr. McNally, among others, disagrees. “The notion that TV caused P.T.S.D. seems absurd,” he said in an e-mail.

The editors of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the so-called encyclopedia of mental disorders compiled by the American Psychiatric Association, are debating whether to change the criteria for post-traumatic stress to exclude such at-a-distance cases.

The new report reviewed hundreds of other types of 9/11 studies, political and social. Americans on average became more prejudiced toward Arabs after the attack, as well as more likely to contribute to charities and more supportive of aggressive government action against suspected terrorists.

But these and other findings were not new; studies after previous attacks in other countries found similar things. For all their fury and devastation, the attacks gave rise to no new theories of behavior, no new therapies.

Instead, some authors said, the chief effect on the social sciences was to caution against applying theories so readily to real life. Another author in the new collection, Philip E. Tetlock, a psychologist at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, notes that intelligence agencies employ scientists to try to predict the behavior of foreign leaders and terrorists — and that their track record has been mixed.

“The closer scientists come to applying their favorite abstractions to real-world problems,” the article concludes, “the harder it becomes to keep track of the inevitably numerous variables and to resist premature closure on desired conclusions.”

<end>

      I’ve had a few brushes with these self-important nitwits who insist that debriefing was an essential part of the “healing” process. It was nonsense then and nonsense now. People get over things in their own way and don’t need experts, operating from bizarre theories, to put them on the road to mental health.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

       Here is an updated list for documents, most available online, in support of Direct Instruction. In the jurisdiction where I live, where the arrogance of the government education “experts” is only matched by their incompetence. Direct Instruction cannot be used. There are two good (note use of sarcasm) reasons for this. The first is that only textbooks published in Ontario may be used in Ontario because, as we all know, the purpose of education is to support textbook publishers. The second is that Direct Instruction is the absolute opposite of the litany of fads taught in schools of education because, as we all know, government experts are always right.

Reviews supporting Direct Instruction programs (with updated links)
Kerry Hempenstall

How does one make judgements about which literacy programs/approaches
deserve respect and implementation? One can go to the primary sources
(original research), though this may be very time-consuming, or one may
feel unable to critically evaluate research merit. An alternative is to
examine reviews and the findings by respected sources.

One focus involves whether particular programs incorporate the
components considered crucial by relevant authorities. That is, is the
approach in question theoretically plausible? Does it have the
recommended elements to enable it to succeed?

How does Direct Instruction stack up theoretically?
The National Reading Panel (2000) issued a now famous report consequent
upon a Congressional mandate to identify skills and methods crucial in
reading development. The Panel reviewed more than 100,000 studies
focusing on the K-3 research in reading instruction to identify which
elements lead to reading success.

From a theoretical perspective, each of the National Reading Panel
(2000) recommended foci for reading instruction (phonemic awareness,
phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension) is clearly set out and
taught in Direct Instruction literacy programs. An examination of the
program teaching sequences in, for example, the Reading Mastery and
Corrective Reading texts attests to their comprehensive nature.

However, these necessary elements are only the ingredients for success.
Having all the right culinary ingredients doesn’t guarantee a perfect
soufflé. There are other issues, such as what proportion of each
ingredient is optimal, when should they be added, how much stirring,
heating, cooling is necessary? Getting any of these requirements wrong
leads to sub-optimal outcomes.

So, it is with literacy programs. “Yet there is a big difference between
a program based on such elements and a program that has itself been
compared with matched or randomly assigned control groups” (Slavin,
2003). Just because a program has all the elements doesn’t mean that it
will be effective necessarily. Engelmann (2003) points to the logical
error of inferring a whole based upon the presence of some or all of its
elements. If a dog is a Dalmatian, it has spots. Therefore, if a dog has
spots, it is a Dalmatian (Engelmann, 2003). In this simile, the
Dalmatian represents programs known to be effective with students. It is
possible to analyse these programs, determine their characteristics, and
then assume incorrectly that the mere presence of those characteristics
is sufficient to ensure effectiveness. Engelmann is thus critical of
merely “research-based” programs, that is, programs constructed only to
ensure each respected component is somewhere represented. He points out
that this does not guarantee effectiveness.

So for a true measure, we must look also for empirical studies to show
that a particular combination of theoretically important elements is
indeed effective.

The vital question then becomes: Has a particular program demonstrated
replicated effectiveness? For what populations?

"The program know as DI (or capital D, capital I) puts all of [the
features of 'di'] into an explicit package. It’s a more structured
version of di that’s been field tested. DI has taken the basic
principles of di and applied them in explicit lessons to various aspects
of curriculum at different levels. It includes programs to teach
reading, math, and science. And because its lessons are written out
(‘scripted’ or manualized), it’s more consistent from teacher to
teacher. DI has simple eaten the lunch of other instructional approaches
in field tested and therefore is a best-practices example of the
superiority of a scientifically based instruction program. And yet, …
it hasn’t been declared by the federal government to be any better than
the competition, much of which is unmitigated hogwash.!"
Kauffman, J. M. (2010). The tragicomedy of public education: Laugand crying; thinking and fixing. Verona, WS: Attainment. ISBN 1578616824

________________________________________
Hattie examines meta-analyses of research studies relating to student
achievement, and concludes that Direct Instruction is highly effective.
No other curricular program showed such consistently strong effects with
students of different ability levels, of different ages, and with
different subject matters. …

“One of the common criticisms is that Direct Instruction works with very
low-level or specific skills, and with lower ability and the youngest
students. These are not the findings from the meta-analyses. The effects
of Direct Instruction are similar for regular (d=0.99), and special
education and lower ability students (d=0.86), higher for reading
(d=0.89) than for mathematics (d=0.50), similar for the more low-level
word attack (d=0.64) and also for high-level comprehension (d=0.54), and
similar for elementary and high school students .The messages of these
meta-analyses on Direction Instruction underline the power of stating
the learning intentions and success criteria, and then engaging students
in moving towards these. The teacher needs to invite the students to
learn, provide much deliberative practice and modeling, and provide
appropriate feedback and multiple opportunities to learn. Students need
opportunities for independent practice, and then there need to be
opportunities to learn the skill or knowledge implicit in the learning
intention in contexts other than those directly taught” (pp. 206-7).
Hattie, J. A.C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800
meta-analyses relating to achievement. London and New York: Routledge.
________________________________________
Corrective Reading, a remedial small group form of Direct Instruction,
has strong evidence of effectiveness (Slavin, 2009, Best Evidence
Encyclopedia)
Slavin, R.E., Lake, C., Davis, S., & Madden, N. (2009, June) Effective
programs for struggling readers: A best evidence synthesis. Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Data-Driven Reform in
Education. http://www.bestevidence.org/word/strug_read_Jul_07_2009.pdf
________________________________________
Reading First focuses on core reading programs in grades K-3. There are
only two programs widely acknowledged to have strong evidence of
effectiveness in this area: Success for All and Direct Instruction.
Slavin, R.E. (2007). Statement of Robert E. Slavin, Director Center for
Data-Driven Reform in Education. Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related
Activities.  Hearings on Implementation of No Child Left Behind. March
14, 2007. Retrieved March 16, 2007, from
http://www.ednews.org/articles/8996/1/Statement-of-Robert-E-Slavin-Director-Center-for-Data-Driven-Reform-in-Education/Page1.html
________________________________________
"The evidence is pretty much overwhelming," said Prof Steve Dinham, the
Australian Council for Educational Research research director for
teaching, learning and leadership. "Direct instruction and explicit
teaching is two to three times more effective than inquiry-based
learning or problem-based learning."
Smith, B. (2008). Results back principal’s return to instruction. The
Age, 10 May, p.8.
________________________________________

”Research conducted over the past thirty years has provided considerable
evidence to support the efficacy of direct instruction programs in
primary schools. Recent meta-analyses of intervention research have
found that techniques associated with direct instruction are among the
most effective teaching practices for improving academic achievement,
particularly for students with learning difficulties (e.g., Borman et
al., 2003; Forness, Kavake, Blum & Lloyd, 1997). … There is substantial
evidence relating the use of direct instruction in the development of
phonemic awareness and phonological knowledge, vocabulary knowledge and
word recognition (e.g., Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, SchatscMehta, 1998; Munro, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000a,b; Rohl, 2000; Rohl & Pratt,
1995; Swanson, 1999; Wright & Jacobs, 2003). … Support also has been
found for the benefit of direct instruction in the teaching of reading
comprehension (e.g., Foorman et al., 1998; Gardill & Jitendra, 1999;
Swanson, 1999; Gersten & Carnine, 1986; Vallecorsa & de Bettencourt,
1997)”.
National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy (2005). Teaching reading
- A review of the evidence-based research literature on approaches to
the teaching of literacy, particularly those that are effective in
assisting students with reading difficulties. Australian Government:
Department of Education, Science and Training. Retrieved November 1,
2007, from www.dest.gov.au/nitl/documents/literature_review.pdf.
________________________________________
“On average, when the Corrective Reading program was coupled with
repeated reading lessons, findings reflected a large effect (M ES =
1.52) for students with disabilities (i.e., Gregory et al., 2005; Strong
et al., 2004). In these two investigations, essentially, all students
improved on their reading fluency, and results were varied with regard
to performance on answering comprehension questions. … Although more
research comparing whole-word to phonic instruction is needed with
adolescent populations, one study suggested that adolescents who were
taught phonic analysis skills were better able to transfer their skills
when they encountered words that were novel to them (ES = 1.30 on
pseudoword reading), contrary to those adolescents who received either
whole-word reading skills or no specialized instruction (i.e.,
Bhattacharya & Ehri, 2004)”.

“Students who have not acquired some degree of reading decoding and
fluency skills by middle school are at a disadvantage, as they are
increasingly expected to extract and synthesize information from content
area texts (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Santa, 2006). Moreover, “students
who lack sufficient fluency entering into the middle grades are not
likely to find much instructional support for their difficulties”
(Rasinksi et al., 2005, p. 26)”.
Joseph, L. M., & Schisler, R. (2009). Should adolescents go back to the
basics?: A review of teaching word reading skills to middle and high
school students RASE TL & LD. Remedial and Special Education, 30(3),
131. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/236328142?accountid=13552
________________________________________
"For example, Direct Instruction (DI), a behaviorally oriented teaching
procedure based on an explicit step-by-step strategy (ES=.93) is
six-and-one-half times more effective than the intuitively appealing
modality matched instruction (ES=.14) that attempts to capitalize on
learning style differences. Students with Specific Learning Disabilities
who are instructed with DI would be better off than 87% of students not
receiving DI and would gain over 11 months credit on an achievement
measure compared to about one month for modality matched instruction."
Kavale, K. (2005). Effective intervention for students with specific
learning disability: The nature of special education. Learning
Disabilities, 13(4), 127-138.
________________________________________
“Across varying contexts, Direct Instruction, the Comer School
Development Program, and Success for All have shown robust results and
have shown that, in general, they can be expected to improve students’
test scores. These three models stand out from other available
comprehensive school reform (CSR) designs by the quantity and
generalizability of their outcomes, the reliable positive effects on
student achievement, and the overall quality of the evidence. … These
clear, focused, and well-supported school-based models of improvement
are in stark contrast to top-down direction and flexibility for
educational reform”.
Borman, G. (2007). Taking reform to scale. Wisconsin Center for
Educational Research Retrieved February 4, 2007, from
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/news/coverstories/taking_reform_to_scale.php
________________________________________
The American Institutes for Research (2006) reviewed 800 studies of
student achievement and of the 22 reform models examined, Direct
Instruction and Success for All received the highest rating for quality
and effectiveness. CSRQ Center Report on Elementary School Comprehensive
School Reform Models
http://www.air.org/focus-area/education/index.cfm?fa=viewContent&content_id=635
________________________________________
“There is ample empirical evidence that the Direct Instruction programs
have succeeded with a wide range of learners. This has been recognised
by diverse groups, for example, the US Government’s acceptance of the
Direct Instruction model as one eligible for funding. The US Department
of Education allocates enormous amounts for the implementation of
replicable, research based school reform models. Its approved list
includes Direct Instruction programs. Direct Instruction programs have
also been acknowledged as having the exemplary research base required
under the recent USA Reading First Act, 2001 (Manzo & Robelen, 2002).”
Manzo, K., & Robelen, E. (2002, May 1). States unclear on ESEA rules
about reading. Education Week online. Retrieved February 14, 2003.
www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2002/05/01/33read.h21.html
________________________________________
Major reviews of the primary research can provide additional surety of
program value. In a Department of US Education meta-analysis,
Comprehensive School Reform and Student Achievement (2002, Nov), Direct
Instruction was assigned the highest classification: Strongest Evidence
of Effectiveness, as ascertained by Quality of the evidence Quantity of
the evidence, and Statistically significant and positive results. “Its
effects are relatively robust and the model can be expected to improve
students’ test scores. The model certainly deserves continued
dissemination and federal support”
Borman, G.D., Hewes, G.M., Overman, L.T., & Brown, S. (2002).
Comprehensive School Reform and Student Achievement.
http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report59.pdf
________________________________________
Power4Kids
http://www.haan4kids.org/power4kids/CTRG%20ex%20summary.4.3.06.doc
Following the successful models of rigorous medical science, the
Power4Kids reading study will be a landmark in education ~ a
large-scale, randomized, controlled, longitudinal field trial. It is the
second largest study of its kind ever to be conducted in public schools.
It is designed to provide conclusive evidence of the effectiveness of
quality remedial reading programs, along with determining common
learning profiles of students and the best targeted-intervention for
each profile. Regardless of the reason a child struggles to learn to
read, Power4Kids will provide the information and winning models of how
to close the reading gap in our schools. Four (4) highly effective
remedial reading programs have been awarded a position in the study by
virtue of their scientifically-based evidence of effectiveness. The
programs are:
Corrective Reading, Failure Free Reading, Spell Read P.A.T., Wilson
Learning Program
________________________________________
The Council for Exceptional Children provides informed judgements
regarding professional practices in the field. The Direct Instruction
model was judged by the Editorial Committee to be well validated and
reliably used. http://www.teachingld.org/ld_resources/alerts/2.htm
________________________________________
Direct Instruction is the only model to be recommended by American
Federation of Teachers in each of their reviews. American Federation of
Teachers (1999). Building on the best: Learning from what works.

Seven Promising Reading and English Language Arts Programs "When this
program is faithfully implemented, the results are stunning." (g. 9).
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED421695).

Four Promising Schoolwide Academic Programs
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED421559.pdf

Five Promising Remedial Reading Intervention Programs
(http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED445315.pdf).
______________________The report Bringing Evidence Driven Progress to Education: A Recommended
Strategy for the U.S. Department of Education (2002) reports Direct
Instruction as having strong evidence for effectiveness.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED474378.pdf
________________________________________
The Center for Education Reform (2003) nominated DI among its “Best
Bets”.
“Strong, proven education programs for kids – programs that demonstrate
success for more than just a handful of students”
McCluskey, N. (2003). Best bets: Education curricula that work. Center
for Education Reform. Retrieved 11/5/2004 from
www.edreform.com/_upload/bestbets.pdf
________________________________________
Better by design: A consumers’ guide to schoolwide reform: A report from
the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation supports the Direct Instruction model
as a viable approach to schoolwide reform
http://www.edexcellence.net/publications-issues/publications/betterbydesign.html
________________________________________
Reading Programs that Work: A Review of Programs for Pre-Kindergarten to
4th Grade
This independent review included Direct Instruction among six
school-wide effective reading models (Schacter, 1999)
http://www.mff.org/publications/publications.taf?page=279
________________________________________
Corrective Reading: Decoding and Corrective Reading: Comprehension are
among the programs adopted by the California State Board of Education in
1999, after it abandoned the Whole Language model.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr10/documents/jan10item20a1.doc
________________________________________
Marilyn Jager Adams, author of a major text on reading: “Beginning to
read: Thinking and learning about print” commented on Direct Instruction
thus "The research is irrefutable."
________________________________________
The two best known examples of sound research-based practices coming to
scale are Direct Instruction (Carnine, Silbert, & Kameenui, 1997) and
Success for All (Slavin, Madden, Dolan, & Wasik, 1996).
Foorman, B.R., & Moats, L.C. (2004). Conditions for sustaining
research-based practices in early reading instruction. Remedial and
Special Education, 25, 51-60.
________________________________________
From renowned researcher on effective teaching, Barak Rosenshine,
“Reading Mastery is an extremely effective program for teaching
decoding to all children. The mean score for 171 students across six DI
schools, who began the program in kindergarten and who remained in the
program for four years was at the 49th percentile. I think this is a
wonderful finding” (Rosenshine, 2002).
________________________________________
Adams & Englemann’ (1996) meta-analysis resulted in an effect size of
0.69 for the 44 acceptable comparisons involving the Direct Instruction
program Reading Mastery. Across DI programs, the average effect size for
173 comparisons was 0.87. In White’s 1988 DI meta-analysis involved
learning disabled, intellectually disabled, and reading disabled
students, the average effect size for Direct Instruction programs was
.84. A similar meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the whole language
approach to reading found an effect size of only 0.09 (Stahl & Miller,
1989). An effect size of 1 means a gain of 1 standard deviation –
equivalent of a year’s progress (0.8 is a large effect size, 0.5-0.8 is
a medium effect size, and less than .5 is a small effect size).
Adams, G., & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on Direct Instruction: 25
years beyond DISTAR. Seattle, WA: Educational Achievement Systems.
________________________________________
2004 Florida Center for Reading Research aims to disseminate information
about research-based practices related to literacy instruction and
assessment for children in pre-school through 12th grade. Its Director
is well known researcher, Joe Torgesen.
“The instructional content and design of Corrective Reading is
consistent with scientifically based reading research” (p.4).
Torgesen, J. (2004). SRA Corrective Reading. Florida Center for Reading
Research. Retrieved 16/1/2005 from
http://www.fcrr.org/FC________________________________________
Sally Shaywitz does recommend the REACH System (Corrective Reading,
Spelling Through Morphographs, and R&W) for "dyslexic" children in her
much publicised book The Brain and Dyslexia.
________________________________________
In the Oregon Reading First Center Review of 9 Comprehensive Programs
2004 Reading Mastery was ranked number 1.
To be considered comprehensive, a program had to (a) include materials
for all grades from K through 3; and (b) comprehensively address the
five essential components of the Reading First legislation.
Program Title
1 Reading Mastery Plus 2002
2 Houghton Mifflin The Nation’s Choice 2003
3 Open Court 2002
Others:
Harcourt School Publishers Trophies 2003
Macmillan/McGraw-Hill Reading 2003
Scott Foresman Reading 2004
Success For All Foundation Success for All
Wright Group Literacy 2002
Rigby Literacy 2000
Curriculum Review Panel. (2004). Review of Comprehensive Programs.
Oregon Reading First Center. Retrieved 16/1/2005 from
http://oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu/inst_curr_review_core.html
________________________________________
DI for English language learners
The beginning reading programs with the strongest evidence of
effectiveness in this review made use of systematic phonics – such as
Success for All, Direct Instruction, and Jolly Phonics (Slavin & Cheung,
2003)

Slavin, R.E., & Cheung, A. (2003). Effective reading programs for
English language learners: A best-evidence synthesis. Center for
Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.
www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report66.pdf

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

    Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

     The incentives here are easy to see. There are money and prestige to be made in abundance from something which is untrue. The “chemical imbalance” theory is a strained metaphor and supported by everything except the facts.

     Here, Robert Whitaker adds to the literature finding that the linchpin of “research” on anti-depressive “medication” is so flawed as to be worthless. The details are that the remission data are far lower than reported.

Should the Medical Literature Be Cleansed of All STAR*D Articles?

For some time now, the medical community—and to a certain extent, the general public—has understood that the reports in the medical literature of industry-funded trials of psychiatric drugs do not provide an accurate representation of the drugs’ merits.  The trials of the second-generation psychotropics were often biased by design; published results were spun; adverse events were minimized; negative studies went unpublished. The studies published in the medical literature really tell of a marketing exercise, as opposed to a scientific one.

However, the medical community and the public have long thought—or at least hoped— that psychiatric drug studies funded by the National Institute of Mental Health are not similarly tainted. Here, at least, the published reports would tell of studies that were not biased by design, with the results honestly reported.  At least that is the expectation. And this is why the NIMH’s STAR*D study is such a disappointment, and why it is so important that the full details of that scandal be made known.

As Maryland psychologist Ed Pigott explained last week, in his blog on this site, he is now asking that two journals, the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology and Psychological Medicine, retract two STAR*D articles they published.

By doing so, Pigott is continuing to put a spotlight on this scandal, which I believe needs to be thoroughly investigated by the NIH, or other governmental investigative body. We need to know all of the scientific sins that were committed, and we need an accounting of the investigators’ financial conflicts of interest. STAR*D was hailed as the largest trial of antidepressants ever conducted, at a cost of $35 million to the American taxpayers, and we deserve to know why the results weren’t honestly reported.

His request to the two journals that they retract the two articles raises a larger question: Should the medical literature be cleansed of all STAR*D reports?

As the British Medical Journal has noted, The Committee on Publication Ethics recommends retraction of an article if the journal has “clear evidence that the findings are unreliable.” This is necessary to “correct the literature and ensure its integrity.” So let’s apply that standard to the STAR*D literature.

The STAR*D investigators have now published more than 100 papers, and the bottom-line message, one touted to the medical community, is that if antidepressants are tried and tried again, most people will see their symptoms “vanish.” In this trial, 67% of the 4,041 patients were said to have seen their depression remit in this robust way. More than half of those who got well in this trial were then said to stay well during the year-long followup (or about 40% if you do the relevant math for the various groups of remitted groups.) Those are the published results. But as best as I can calculate, in truth, fewer than 40% the protocol-eligible patients ever remitted, even for a brief period, and it is now clear that only 3% of the 4,041 patients remitted and then stayed well and in the trial throughout the maintenance period.

<end>

     The difference between 40 and 3 percent is high indeed.

When I give talks, I often hear psychiatrists and others respond by quoting the fake STAR*D results. That study is touted as evidence that antidepressants—if you just keep trying them—work for most people. They help people get well and stay well. In short, the falsely-reported results are driving prescribing practices and instilling a medical delusion about the effectiveness of these drugs.

So hear’s (sic) my question: Shouldn’t the NIMH, in an effort to clean up this scandal, ask for the retraction of all 100-plus STAR*D articles? If the purpose of retracting articles it to “correct the literature and ensure its integrity,” isn’t that is what is now needed?

<end>

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

      Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

     Florida is having its coldest December in 115 years. Blizzards are disrupting air travel in the U.S. and Europe. Remember, the weather is getting colder, but the climate is getting warmer. The experts tell us, so it must be, not only true, but right.

      The use of incentives in hand chopping

An Anecdote About Psychiatry and Operant Psychology.

         B. F. Skinner and Eric Fromm (at one time a popular psychoanalyst)  were at a gathering. The rest is explained by the quote.

        “Erich Fromm proved to have something to say about almost everything, but with little enlightenment. When he began to argue that people were not pigeons, I decided that something had to be done. On a scrap of paper I wrote [to a colleague] "Watch Fromm’s left hand. I am going to shape a chopping motion" …[Fromm] gesticulated a great deal as he talked, and whenever his left hand came up, I looked straight at him. If he brought the hand down, I nodded and smiled. Within five minutes, he was chopping the air so vigorously that his wristwatch kept slipping out over his hand.”

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies