« Markets in time | Main | Auction strategy and dating »
Demand curves slope downward
This is the best article I've read in months. Here is the basic setting:
The only thing that sets these students apart from kids at any other school in America -- aside from their special-ed designation -- is the electric wires running from their backpacks to their wrists. Each wire connects to a silver-dollar-sized metal disk strapped with a cloth band to the student's wrist, forearm, abdomen, thigh, or foot. Inside each student's backpack is a battery and a generator, both about the size of a VHS cassette. Each generator is uniquely coded to a single keychain transmitter kept in a clear plastic box labeled with the student's name. Staff members dressed neatly in ties and green aprons keep the boxes hooked to their belts, and their eyes trained on the students' behavior. They stand ready, if they witness a behavior they've been told to target, to flip open the box, press the button, and deliver a painful two-second electrical shock into the student at the end of the wire.
That is just the beginning of a chilling but thought-provoking story.
I view this as a reductio ad absurdum on Bryan Caplan's view that mental illness does not exist; in fairness to the treatment, sometimes the affected individuals ask for it. Many seem to improve. But no, I cannot sign on. How many subjects internalize the lesson beyond the immediate setting? It is not just for the violent; even the autistic are zapped. And the doctors have to keep on upping the shocks over time, so that the subjects do not get used to them. Of course the shock comes right after the bad behavior, so that even the mentally retarded can figure out what is going on.
Do print out and read the whole thing; I don't tell you to do this more than two or three times a year.
Here is the web site of the Rotenberg Center.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on October 11, 2006 at 10:13 PM in Education | Permalink
Comments
What a very interesting and thought provoking article. If you put the shock or adverse punishment on the vertical axis (price) and the quantity of negative behavior on the horizontal axis (quantity) it does appear to act like a demand curve. An increase in punishment results in a decrease in bad behavior. It is amazing to me how many things that supply and demand relate too. It is scary to me that parents would allow their kids to go through this but if nothing else works I guess it is their only choice.
Posted by: econstudent79 at Oct 11, 2006 10:52:50 PM
"Bryan Caplan's view that mental illness does not exist"
Bryan must not get out much.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Oct 11, 2006 11:45:40 PM
Brr.
Posted by: A Tykhyy at Oct 12, 2006 1:41:49 AM
When referring to "Bryan Caplan's view that mental illness does not exist", I think it would only be fair to Bryan to link to something he wrote defending his particular view. Otherwise you might inspire silly, uncomprehending responses like, "Bryan must not get out much."
Posted by: Constant at Oct 12, 2006 4:44:46 AM
First, I'm not sure I'd say that Bryan *has* that particular view. Rather he's written an article *defending* that view. Not quite the same thing.
Still a thought provoking, if shudder inducing, article.
Posted by: Tom West at Oct 12, 2006 6:35:31 AM
I guess Bryan Caplan has never heard of the evil Lord Xenu.
Posted by: josh at Oct 12, 2006 7:55:21 AM
Treatment? The school staff calls it punishment. Bryan, like Thomas Szasz, happen to be right. This article certainly doesn't undercut their position.
Posted by: Sheldon Richman at Oct 12, 2006 9:26:05 AM
Can anyone post a link to a literature review that speaks to the clinical effectiveness of Israel's technique? Surely there have been studies on this. My main concern is whether this kind of shock therapy does not more than simply cause the students to conform their behavior so as to avoid the shocks. Behavioral modification is not, in my mind, the goal of psychological treatment. It may, in the extreme cases, be all one can hope for, since many of these students are dangers to themselves and others (like the girl who stabbed the worker in the gut with a stomach, or the autistic student who hit herself so hard she destroyed her retinas). But strategically avoiding pain and pursuing pleasure does not a good, healthy person make. I would be interested in reading more about clinical trials and a range of outcomes.
ps - Despite Sheldon's statement that this is punishment and not treatment, it sounded to me as though Israel intends it as a form of therapy. This is Skinner's student, after all. Israel's using conditioning to change behavior, not merely to punish bad behavior. The goal is to get the behaviors to stop.
Posted by: Jason Voorhees at Oct 12, 2006 9:52:04 AM
I found my answer as I kept reading:
While many psychologists agree with Israel that aversive therapy can work as a last resort in a very few cases to control dangerous behaviors�the school contends that the skin shocks are almost 100 percent effective in reducing those�there's less consensus on whether a method like skin shocks can really cure someone.
Israel's theory is that by shocking to discourage dangerous behavior, the therapist buys time to use positive approaches that teach patients how to control themselves. But evaluating whether the school has succeeded with students is difficult because they arrive with such different talents and troubles. Higher-functioning students�those with normal IQs but severe emotional problems, who constitute about half the school�can have normal lives: The center's website features testimonials from kids who have joined the Marines, or have been the first in their family to complete high school, or have even gone on to college.
Posted by: Jason Voorhees at Oct 12, 2006 10:13:32 AM
Thanks for posting this - it certainly is a fascinating and well-written article. I reposted it on my livejournal, and we ended up with a fairly interesting (and certainly passionate) discussion over there.
Posted by: Dan at Oct 12, 2006 11:37:53 AM
Bryan Caplan's view that mental illness does not exist
Exactly what training and experience does Caplan have that should cause us to give his opinion any weight whatsoever?
Oh? He's an economist? Then why does his opinion on this have any merit?
Caplan is fond of sneering at those who are "economically illiterate." Is he "psychiatrically literate?"
Posted by: bernard Yomtov at Oct 12, 2006 12:00:38 PM
100 years ago that's how all kids were trained, only they called it spanking and the parents did it.
This is perverse:
Sometimes, the student gets shocked for doing precisely what he's told. In a few cases where a student is suspected of being capable of an extremely dangerous but infrequent behavior, the staff at Rotenberg won't wait for him to try it. They will exhort him to do it, and then punish him.
Posted by: bob montgomery at Oct 12, 2006 12:46:53 PM
How exactly does a detailed example of the (reasonably well understood) fact that punishing people can cause them to change their behavior undercut Szasz's/Caplan's position? Please expand.
Posted by: Brian Doherty at Oct 12, 2006 2:12:18 PM
Bryan Caplan's view that astrology is bunk
Exactly what training and experience in the field of astrology does Caplan have that should cause us to give his opinion any weight whatsoever?
Oh? He's an economist? Then why does his opinion on astrology have any merit?
Caplan is fond of sneering at those who are "economically illiterate." Is he "horoscopically literate?"
Posted by: Constant at Oct 12, 2006 2:23:19 PM
re Voorhees: The staff calls it punishment! Punishment is often represented as therapy. If I feel better after a glass of wine at dinner, is the wine medicine? Was I sick? Look at what it is, not at the B.S. scientistic rationalization.
re Yomtov: The people with "expertise" still have not proved the existence of mental illness. They only assert it. How could one prove it? "Mental illness" is a category mistake long exposed by Thomas Szasz, an M.D. and psychiatrist.
Posted by: Sheldon Richman at Oct 12, 2006 2:30:28 PM
constant,
the last sentence of bernard's comment is relevant any way you slice it.
Posted by: josh at Oct 12, 2006 2:39:26 PM
Bryan Caplans view about mental illness not being real or not existing is really dumb, you guys are right he must not get out much. It has been proven that mental illnesses are real, hell, i have a cousin who has downs syndrome.
Posted by: Austin at Oct 12, 2006 2:40:03 PM
I don't know if I'm a Szaszian or not (probably not) but commenters here are reacting rather thoughtlessly to a line of argument that is much more sophisticated than they'd care to admit. My own brother is a diagnosed schizophrenic, yet a) there is no physiological basis for the diagnosis and b) the manifistations of his schizophrenia fit Caplan's rational-choice predictions.
Posted by: Steve Miller at Oct 12, 2006 3:09:53 PM
Way to combine Clockwork Orange with the Prison Experiment! I'm don't know enough to say this should never be used but I'm certain that this Israel fellow should not be running things.
Posted by: bhauth at Oct 12, 2006 3:18:56 PM
My own brother is a diagnosed schizophrenic, yet a) there is no physiological basis for the diagnosis
Yet there are physiological bases for other mental illnesses.
Constant,
There is serious work - tons and tons of it - by smart, well-trained people demonstrating the reality of mental illness. There are many millions of people who have been successfully treated for mental illness. Ignore all that if it contradicts what you want to believe. Your argument begins by equating astrology with mental illness then you are simply begging the question - you are beginning with the assumption that what you are trying to prove is true. That's not a sensible way to argue.
If you're claiming that no knowledge of psychology or psychiatry is necessary to make Caplan's claim then you are right, anyone can claim anything, but it surely is fair to point out that those who make unorthodox claims about technical matters of which they know little are being foolish and arrogant.
Posted by: bernard Yomtov at Oct 12, 2006 3:44:03 PM
First, thank you Steve Miller for posting a link to Caplan's paper.
As for the perverse behavior of:
Sometimes, the student gets shocked for doing precisely what he's told. In a few cases where a student is suspected of being capable of an extremely dangerous but infrequent behavior, the staff at Rotenberg won't wait for him to try it. They will exhort him to do it, and then punish him.
In this context with the whole "shocking the person" concept it seems like people are appalled, but when I watched "The Mind of Mencia" the other night (think it was Mencia) and Carlos was discussing the differences between maternal and paternal parenting, he gave an example of "Don't touch the stove, it's hot". His example was that his maternal figure will keep repeating "No, don't touch it, it's hot" no matter how many times the child questions why he shouldn't touch the stove while his paternal figure, after hearing the child ask, "What is hot and why should I not touch it?" a few times will say, "Go touch it and find out". Then the child burns his hand and finds out what "hot" is, and that he probably should not touch something when someone tells him it is hot. Many people laughed and I ask if someone can tell me the difference between goading the child into touching the hot stove or trying to get him to hurt himself and shocking him to condition him not to hurt himself. I could post a mountain (or a valley, depending on your point of view) of thoughts here on this topic, but will stop here before I write a book.
Posted by: AZ at Oct 12, 2006 4:13:41 PM
bernard: I have yet to see you show any indication that you have the slightest notion even what exactly it was that Bryan Caplan argued. If you have no clue, then your opinion about it isn't worth a hill of beans. How about, before passing judgment on his argument and conclusion, you first bother to inform yourself as to exactly what they were, rather than relying on Tyler Cowen's passing reference? And if you do know what it was that Bryan Caplan argued, why are you not addressing his argument?
Posted by: Constant at Oct 12, 2006 4:14:27 PM
I have yet to see you show any indication that you have the slightest notion even what exactly it was that Bryan Caplan argued. If you have no clue, then your opinion about it isn't worth a hill of beans.
And I have yet to get any information from you about it.
However, I did read the article and remain unimpressed. Much of it is circular - "people behave that way so that must just be how they want to behave." It seems to escape notice that people voluntarily seek treatment for mental illness. Also, Caplan seems to have a habit of quoting Szasz, on hallucinations for example, to support Szasz.
I do agree with one point, however. People have preferences over beliefs. This includes Caplan.
Posted by: bernard Yomtov at Oct 12, 2006 6:25:00 PM
"Yet there are physiological bases for other mental illnesses."
Then talk about that, because the link between physiology and schizophrenia, for example, isn't clear at all.
Posted by: Steve Miller at Oct 12, 2006 7:03:37 PM
Arguments like those of Caplan and Szasz rest upon using a debatable semantic point -- whether mental illness meets the set of individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions accepted by scientists and doctors characterising an illness -- to make a moral point. Whatever the merits of the semantic argument, arguments about whether mentally ill people should be treated against their will or whether it is acceptable at all to treat mentally ill people do not follow. I could imagine similar debates about whether someone with intestinal worms or someone born with a cleft palette have an "illness." That doesn't affect the empirical fact that there are effective ways to treat these conditions or that these conditions are regarded as genuinely undesirable in most places.
As for the article itself, it seems to me that empirical evidence should settle whether this is more effective than alternative forms of treatment. Well-adjusted adults of normal intelligence possess a kind of moral reasoning where they can determine right from wrong even if placed in an entirely unique situation, provided they are around people of the same cultural background. I think it is safe to say that many of the students at this school do not possess this same kind of reasoning.
Nor is it necessarily something that can be easily taught. Just as some people do not possess the ability to manipulate 3-D objects in their minds, consistently apply rules of spelling or read faces, I would imagine there are some people who honestly cannot figure out the right way to act in a given scenario. Therefore, they need to learn case-by-case and through trial and error. This leads to the seemingly perverse tactic of getting students to do something wrong so they can be zapped. They may not be able to reason out the right way to act on their own.
All that said, I do wonder just how powerful and painful the electric shock is. That would certainly affect my answer to the normative question of whether the program is a good thing.
Posted by: Mark at Oct 12, 2006 7:22:15 PM
