Psychology's Role in SERE

JockNerd said:

No; his apparent (but denied) involvement with instructing military personnel on how to torture people with project SERE. There was a big NPR broadcast about this.

Click to expand...

Having just attended the 2010 SERE psychology conference, I think you're painting with a pretty broad brush. Personally, I do want to be a part of the SERE psychology community, and SERE is NOT about torture. I would be careful about suggesting that the SERE community in unethical, as all the people I have met appeared to be acting in an ethical manner. We spent a great deal of the conference dealing with ethical questions, I'll concede that it's easy to criticize a somewhat closed community who you don't understand.

Might as well add Joseph Matarazzo to the list too. After all despite being the father of modern medical/health psychology he also had connections to the SERE community. I really find this distasteful to be honest, the people involved in SERE psychology and training have an extraordinarily difficult job to do and from what I have seen do maintain a high level of ethics.

Mark

Markp said:

Having just attended the 2010 SERE psychology conference, I think you're painting with a pretty broad brush. Personally, I do want to be a part of the SERE psychology community, and SERE is NOT about torture. I would be careful about suggesting that the SERE community in unethical, as all the people I have met appeared to be acting in an ethical manner. We spent a great deal of the conference dealing with ethical questions, I'll concede that it's easy to criticize a somewhat closed community who you don't understand.

Might as well add Joseph Matarazzo to the list too. After all despite being the father of modern medical/health psychology he also had connections to the SERE community. I really find this distasteful to be honest, the people involved in SERE psychology and training have an extraordinarily difficult job to do and from what I have seen do maintain a high level of ethics.

Mark

Click to expand...

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think it conflicts with facts and my interpretation of the existing evidence.

It's also very easy to claim that anyone who disagrees with you "doesn't understand" the situation. I understand it just fine; I think it's barbaric and disgusting.

JockNerd said:

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think it conflicts with facts and my interpretation of the existing evidence.

It's also very easy to claim that anyone who disagrees with you "doesn't understand" the situation. I understand it just fine; I think it's barbaric and disgusting.

Click to expand...

You think SERE psychology is barbaric and disgusting?

I think it's necessary training that keeps helps those who serve our country survive the stresses induced and associated with isolation from friendly forces. What would barbaric and disgusting is not providing those who are willing to sacrifice their lives for our freedom the best training available. Anyone who goes through SERE training is a volunteer, remember that.

Perhaps we should not treat war-induced PTSD either, after all, everyone who treats war-induced PTSD is supporting war, right? If we didn't treat the wounds of war maybe we wouldn't have war anymore, right?

I think that is a naive belief. Wars, unfortunately will continue to be fought, personnel will continue to be subjected to stressful environments where they are unable to control their environments, and interrogations will be conducted with or without the input of psychologists. Psychologists absolutely have a role in providing those in harms way with relief, either through training before the event or through debriefing after the event.

SERE is not about torture. SERE is about survival. I don't expect you to share my values, but from reading a number of your posts over time, we both seem to agree on two fundamental things.

1. Psychologists do not participate in torture.
2. Psychologists provide their clients with the information that can enhance or improve their lives or performance.

I am not claiming that all psychologists (SERE or otherwise) have behaved in an ethical manner. There will be and have been plenty of examples of behavioral that we as a field find repugnant. Unethical behavior should not be tolerated, but to suggest that military psychologists and in particular SERE psychologists as a field are unethical ignores the purpose that military and SERE psychologists are serving (or should be serving.)

Mark

Mark,

It appears that you're misinformed on the issue referred to vis-a-vis Seligman and SERE. SERE training is a very useful thing and no one advocated abolishing it and the psychologists that come and help the US Armed Forces. The problem is when the knowledge of SERE is applied by psychologists to create effective interrogation/torture (depending on where you lie on the political scale) techniques. It's on the wiki article and you're free to peruse the links from there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival,_Evasion,_Resistance_and_Escape

The evidence that this happened isn't airtight, but there's more than a good suspicion regarding involvement. It's not the SERE training but the application of the knowledge of what kind of torture/interrogation people can be trained to resist to create a more effective form of torture/interrogation. Some of the SERE instructors are psychologists, but it's unclear as to whether psychologists participated in this training. It can be surmised that they most likely did though.

Money quote from Salon:
"When I arrived at GTMO," reads the statement, "my predecessor arranged for SERE instructors to teach their techniques to the interrogators at GTMO ... The instructors did give some briefings to the Joint Interrogation Group interrogators."

OpenPalm said:

Mark,

It appears that you're misinformed on the issue referred to vis-a-vis Seligman and SERE. SERE training is a very useful thing and no one advocated abolishing it and the psychologists that come and help the US Armed Forces. The problem is when the knowledge of SERE is applied by psychologists to create effective interrogation/torture (depending on where you lie on the political scale) techniques. It's on the wiki article and you're free to peruse the links from there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival,_Evasion,_Resistance_and_Escape

The evidence that this happened isn't airtight, but there's more than a good suspicion regarding involvement. It's not the SERE training but the application of the knowledge of what kind of torture/interrogation people can be trained to resist to create a more effective form of torture/interrogation. Some of the SERE instructors are psychologists, but it's unclear as to whether psychologists participated in this training. It can be surmised that they most likely did though.

Money quote from Salon:
"When I arrived at GTMO," reads the statement, "my predecessor arranged for SERE instructors to teach their techniques to the interrogators at GTMO ... The instructors did give some briefings to the Joint Interrogation Group interrogators."

Click to expand...

SERE has nothing to do with interrogation, but let's talk about interrogation a bit, as aspects of SERE psychology can certainly inform aspects of what interrogators do.

The problem lies with torture and not interrogation, nowhere are psychologists banned from teaching interrogators, investigators, or debriefing personnel techniques aimed at eliciting information. You need not torture people to extract information from them. The question becomes how that information is used, not that it is available.

Interrogation techniques are used by police worldwide to solve crimes. Should we not teach these techniques? Is it not our ethical duty to prevent torture by providing effective interrogation techniques that do not rely on the use of torture?

Interrogation does not equal torture. Torture is wrong, interrogation is not. The problem lies in not having psychologists involved enough, because torture is not effective at getting to reliable information. Psychologists, with their substantial ethical training, are excellent choices for the supervision of interrogations to make sure that the interrogators seeking information are not torturing enemy combatants or criminals.

Part of the problem is in defining torture and interrogation.

Is water boarding torture?

Some say yes, others say no. Certainly there is room for disagreement on what precisely defines torture.

Is making someone uncomfortable torture? (stress positions, putting a spider in the room of some afraid of spiders, or even taking a person with a fear of heights to the top of a tall building)

Some say yes, others not. This is where psychologists through research can clarify and better define what is or is not torture.

Is threatening to kill a person (even though no immediate means exists to kill the person) being interrogated torture?

Sticky questions, I know. Defining all of the above as torture? Good question. We use exposure training for treatment, but is that torture? Psychologists sometimes create discomfort or dissonance in their clients, but with the aim of improving the lives of those who must experience that discomfort or those around them. Psychologists must be involved in order to make sure that torture does not occur.

Mark

Markp said:

Perhaps we should not treat war-induced PTSD either, after all, everyone who treats war-induced PTSD is supporting war, right? If we didn't treat the wounds of war maybe we wouldn't have war anymore, right?

Click to expand...

Clearly, this is exactly my position and is not in any way a straw man. 🙄

1. Psychologists do not participate in torture.
2. Psychologists provide their clients with the information that can enhance or improve their lives or performance.

Click to expand...

Well, I suppose we differ in the definition of "participate." I include "train." It seems absurd to me to act as though trainers are not participating and complicit.

I am not claiming that all psychologists (SERE or otherwise) have behaved in an ethical manner. There will be and have been plenty of examples of behavioral that we as a field find repugnant. Unethical behavior should not be tolerated, but to suggest that military psychologists and in particular SERE psychologists as a field are unethical ignores the purpose that military and SERE psychologists are serving (or should be serving.)

Click to expand...

Ok... so, some psychs with SERE are unethical. In my perspective on ethics, this makes everyone who is complicit with SERE's actions on "interrogation" (to use that absurd euphemism) equally unethical. It's not necessary to be 100% unethical all the time. I'm sure Dr. Phil isn't unethical when he's eating breakfast. That does not detract from the unethical actions he has undertaken.

Markp said:

SERE has nothing to do with interrogation, but let's talk about interrogation a bit, as aspects of SERE psychology can certainly inform aspects of what interrogators do.

Click to expand...

Is this a definitional issue? That's silly.

Part of the problem is in defining torture and interrogation.

Is water boarding torture?

Some say yes, others say no. Certainly there is room for disagreement on what precisely defines torture.

Click to expand...

Oh, it is definitional. Yes, this is very silly. Water boarding is obviously torture. To contend anything else is patently ridiculous and feasible as a position only insofar as one is willing to actively engage in doublethink. Here's the simple test: If THEY did it to US, would it be torture? If terrorists water-boarded an American solider (or whatever other Room 101 scenario you want to envision) it would obviously be torture. The simplest moral principle is that if it's wrong for someone else to do something, it's wrong for use to do it too.

This is where psychologists through research can clarify and better define what is or is not torture.

Click to expand...

No, we can't, because these kinds of definitional issues are philosophical and moral questions, not empirical ones.

We use exposure training for treatment, but is that torture?

Click to expand...

Are you seriously comparing voluntary systematic desensitization with violations of international law on the rights of POWs? Again, I find these positions tenable only so far as people are willing to do moral and mental gymnastics.

Psychologists must be involved in order to make sure that torture does not occur.

Click to expand...

Unless they're a former president of APA.

Well, I suppose we differ in the definition of "participate." I include "train." It seems absurd to me to act as though trainers are not participating and complicit.

Click to expand...

SERE does not teach people how to torture, this does not mean that the unethical cannot use that knowledge for purposes that are unethical.

Cigarette companies use psychological techniques in advertising and kill far more people than the US military does every year.

Does that make the psychology of advertising evil? No, the end use does, when these same principles are used for propaganda and promoting deadly products is where the ethical violation occurs. Psychologists who consult with interrogators are no more liable for torture than those who work with advertising firms who eventually consult with tobacco companies.

Ok... so, some psychs with SERE are unethical. In my perspective on ethics, this makes everyone who is complicit with SERE's actions on "interrogation" (to use that absurd euphemism) equally unethical. It's not necessary to be 100% unethical all the time. I'm sure Dr. Phil isn't unethical when he's eating breakfast. That does not detract from the unethical actions he has undertaken.

Click to expand...

No, it means that I am not the arbiter of ethics for psychologists nor can I speak with authority regarding the ethics of every single member of the SERE community. No more than you can speak for the ethics of any large group of psychologists. I suppose you are a member of the APA, do you feel that all APA psychologists are ethical? Are you in a position to even speak to the ethics of that group as a whole?

I don't pretend to know all the actions that have taken place in the SERE psychology community, nor am I a direct member of that community. I do know that they were very concerned with ethical behavior and dedicated several hours of training and exercises to help strengthen the ethics of the psychologists attending.

Is this a definitional issue? That's silly.

Oh, it is definitional. Yes, this is very silly. Water boarding is obviously torture. To contend anything else is patently ridiculous and feasible as a position only insofar as one is willing to actively engage in doublethink. Here's the simple test: If THEY did it to US, would it be torture? If terrorists water-boarded an American solider (or whatever other Room 101 scenario you want to envision) it would obviously be torture. The simplest moral principle is that if it's wrong for someone else to do something, it's wrong for use to do it too.

Click to expand...

I disagree with you.

American soldiers going through training have experienced a number of techniques that you would consider torture, as a matter of fact, American's have been exposed to far worse treatment than what their counterparts have been exposed to. I won't get into what the training involves, but maybe you should talk to some people in the community before rushing to judgment about what they do or don't do in support of the soldiers who get trained.

No, we can't, because these kinds of definitional issues are philosophical and moral questions, not empirical ones.

Click to expand...

So you are admitting that there is no way to determine what is or is not torture?

Don't you find that problematic? What makes water boarding torture?

So torture is a moral and philosophical question and can not be operationally defined? Really?

Maybe, "you'll know it when you see it" like pornography?

Are you seriously comparing voluntary systematic desensitization with violations of international law on the rights of POWs? Again, I find these positions tenable only so far as people are willing to do moral and mental gymnastics.

Click to expand...

You're right, we should not have any role in interrogation at all. I didn't say whether it is torture or not. Yes, I am comparing the two.

A truly phobic person is terrified when engaging in systematic desensitization training. Is it not distressing to you that the technique is exceedingly stressful and traumatic to the client? I think that a POW undergoing interrogation without training is in an extremely stressful and traumatic environment... one that can be lessened with training.

Unless they're a former president of APA.

Click to expand...

You're a member, right? You don't think that psychologists should be providing any information to any one who engages in interrogations? How do you think we can have a voice in shaping the policies and ethics in interrogation without being involved?

Maybe you should join division 19, get involved and be a voice for ethical behavior.

Mark

JockNerd said:

Oh, it is definitional. Yes, this is very silly. Water boarding is obviously torture. To contend anything else is patently ridiculous and feasible as a position only insofar as one is willing to actively engage in doublethink. Here's the simple test: If THEY did it to US, would it be torture? If terrorists water-boarded an American solider (or whatever other Room 101 scenario you want to envision) it would obviously be torture. The simplest moral principle is that if it's wrong for someone else to do something, it's wrong for use to do it too.

Click to expand...

First, of course that's the simplest moral principle... but in my mind morality doesn't quite work that simply. But I'm not here to debate morality... simply I wanted to emphasize that...

Of *course* it is definitional. Anything and everything is definitional. Specifically, torture is " the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty."... But what is excruciating pain? Pain, like many things, lies on a continuum in terms of severity. And, personally, so can things like water-boarding (depending on how it's done or when compared to other methods that cause 'excruciating' pain).

Which leads me to...

JockNerd said:

No, we can't, because these kinds of definitional issues are philosophical and moral questions, not empirical ones.

Click to expand...

Yes you can. Psychologists try and address philosophical and moral questions all of the time using the scientific method. Sure, it's not perfect, but neither is most of psychology (as we often don't test in perfect laboratory settings). Clearly the English language has a known definition for torture. And *many*, if not all laws, this country has put in place hinge on a definition. It's illegal to kill someone.... but wait.... then comes the question, was it murder? accidental? premeditated? etc. It's not black and white when it comes to policy and lawmaking. And what psychologists *can* help to do is operationalize that definition and figure out just what exactly causes "excruciating pain", physical or mental and undo (imo) with the ultimate goal of stopping the use of such techniques (as opposed to encouraging it). [Keeping in mind that many discoveries of science can be used ethically as easily as unethically].

And I don't think MarkP or I disagree that it's unethical to torture (esp. as it may not even provide accurate information), but simply that there is a role for psychologists in researching torture that is not necessarily unethical. It all depends on what your aim is - and it doesn't seem that the aim of most people involved in SERE is to train people to torture but to train their own people how to survive, evade, resist, and escape. And, like with anything, if other people (psychologist or not) take that information to inform counter-resistance measures... that does not make the lot investigating SERE unethical if that is not their aim.

Oh! But to be clear, I don't think jocknerd ever said that he thought the whole of SERE was barbaric and disgusting. I think he was referring to people who use SERE to inform torture or support that... right?

Markp said:

Psychologists who consult with interrogators are no more liable for torture than those who work with advertising firms who eventually consult with tobacco companies.

Click to expand...

I disagree. They're complicit. Just as liable for the eventual torture as the folks who drove the trains to Auschwitz were for complying with the Nazis.

I suppose you are a member of the APA, do you feel that all APA psychologists are ethical? Are you in a position to even speak to the ethics of that group as a whole?

Click to expand...

Of course not. I don't really know what the point of this statement is. I'm clearly responsible for my own actions and the repercussions of my actions, though, just as is everyone else. I think APA acts unethically, but I refuse to participate in that and actively protest it. I protested torture at APA in Boston and I will picket the Hyatt this summer. If I did not, I would find myself complicit with the unethical behavior of others.

American soldiers going through training have experienced a number of techniques that you would consider torture, as a matter of fact, American's have been exposed to far worse treatment than what their counterparts have been exposed to.

Click to expand...

Again, you're comparing voluntary things (training, exposure therapy) with involuntary torture. This is pretty clearly nonsense; if there's some way for this position to be tenable I'd like to have it explained to me.

Oh, a way to make this more clear occurred to me: In therapy, we require informed consent. Imagine you threw someone with a spider phobia into a pit of spiders without their informed consent. Even if you were doing it as part of treatment, without their consent you would, justifiably, be charged with a million things and probably lose your license.

So you are admitting that there is no way to determine what is or is not torture?

Don't you find that problematic? What makes water boarding torture?

So torture is a moral and philosophical question and can not be operationally defined? Really?

Click to expand...

Ugh. Again, not what I said at all. I said it's not an *empirical* question. It just isn't. What would you define it by? Stress level? Obviously ridiculous. What the opinions of 1000 psychologists are on the topic? Truth is not determined by consensus. This is a philosophical, moral, and logical question, not an empirical one, just like all definitional questions.

A truly phobic person is terrified when engaging in systematic desensitization training. Is it not distressing to you that the technique is exceedingly stressful and traumatic to the client? I think that a POW undergoing interrogation without training is in an extremely stressful and traumatic environment... one that can be lessened with training.

Click to expand...

Again, voluntary vs. involuntary. I can't discern the rest of your point here.

You're a member, right? You don't think that psychologists should be providing any information to any one who engages in interrogations? How do you think we can have a voice in shaping the policies and ethics in interrogation without being involved?

Click to expand...

No, we shouldn't. We should take the same position as the AMA, that torture is not something we do or are in any way complicit with. The extent of our involvement should be to work against it. Again, I seeany involvement that's not opposition as assent.

PsychApps2009 said:

Yes you can. Psychologists try and address philosophical and moral questions all of the time using the scientific method. Sure, it's not perfect, but neither is most of psychology (as we often don't test in perfect laboratory settings). Clearly the English language has a known definition for torture. And *many*, if not all laws, this country has put in place hinge on a definition. It's illegal to kill someone.... but wait.... then comes the question, was it murder? accidental? premeditated? etc. It's not black and white when it comes to policy and lawmaking. And what psychologists *can* help to do is operationalize that definition and figure out just what exactly causes "excruciating pain", physical or mental and undo (imo) with the ultimate goal of stopping the use of such techniques (as opposed to encouraging it). [Keeping in mind that many discoveries of science can be used ethically as easily as unethically].

Click to expand...

See above. Operationalizations of this kind of thing are political, not scientific. It's pretense to claim objectivity in this scenario.

And I don't think MarkP or I disagree that it's unethical to torture (esp. as it may not even provide accurate information), but simply that there is a role for psychologists in researching torture that is not necessarily unethical. It all depends on what your aim is - and it doesn't seem that the aim of most people involved in SERE is to train people to torture but to train their own people how to survive, evade, resist, and escape. And, like with anything, if other people (psychologist or not) take that information to inform counter-resistance measures... that does not make the lot investigating SERE unethical if that is not their aim.

Oh! But to be clear, I don't think jocknerd ever said that he thought the whole of SERE was barbaric and disgusting. I think he was referring to people who use SERE to inform torture or support that... right?

Click to expand...

Yes. Clearly it is not unethical to teach people who to survive torture. It would have been better if I were more specific in the original post that SERE is unethical as it trains people *to* torture detainees and others. But, again, I go back to my subjective moral priniciple that involvement without opposition to the unethical pieces is assent for the unethical behavior to continue. So, I would still consider people involved with SERE who do not work against detainee torture to be unethical. I recognize that that is not an objective or necessarily shared position. It seems to me to be the correct one, though.

JockNerd said:

I disagree. They're complicit. Just as liable for the eventual torture as the folks who drove the trains to Auschwitz were for complying with the Nazis.

Click to expand...

In the interest of full disclosure I also attended the recent SERE conference, and so have been following this forum topic with interest. Without divulging too much, my impression is that there is a sizable amount of disinformation in the public eye in terms of what psychologists actually do in the SERE program.

I'd also like to point out, (as a point of humor, not wanting to start any trouble) that this forum is now officially guilty of Godwin's Law which states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1" 🙄

codetype4/9 said:

In the interest of full disclosure I also attended the recent SERE conference, and so have been following this forum topic with interest. Without divulging too much, my impression is that there is a sizable amount of disinformation in the public eye in terms of what psychologists actually do in the SERE program.

I'd also like to point out, (as a point of humor, not wanting to start any trouble) that this forum is now officially guilty of Godwin's Law which states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1" 🙄

Click to expand...

I was aware of Godwin's law when I wrote that. I paused momentarily, but I couldn't think of something non-Nazi at that moment.

I dunno. Someone who sells a gun to someone he knows to be psychotic. Godwin's law doesn't invalidate the point.

codetype4/9 said:

In the interest of full disclosure I also attended the recent SERE conference, and so have been following this forum topic with interest. Without divulging too much, my impression is that there is a sizable amount of disinformation in the public eye in terms of what psychologists actually do in the SERE program.

Click to expand...

This is unfortunate, but I too am reluctant to say much beyond the broad strokes. I hate to say it, but some people are very close-minded to the topic and wish to only further their own agenda rather than have an honest discussion of the facts. (Don't run with that JN, that's not aimed at you.)

I realize that I will not change JN's view on this. He has his position clearly staked out and is comfortable with it. I have staked out my position and I am comfortable with it. We will not be agreeing on this any more than we would agree on gay marriage. However, I do respect his opinion and think that he offers some great points to consider.

Mark

Markp said:

We will not be agreeing on this any more than we would agree on gay marriage.

Click to expand...

Oh no you didn't!

🙂

I'm fully aware that my gay Canadian atheist social libertarian views are not shared by all or many, especially in the US.

JockNerd said:

Oh no you didn't!

🙂

I'm fully aware that my gay Canadian atheist social libertarian views are not shared by all or many, especially in the US.

Click to expand...

LOL. Oh yes I did... 😉 You'd probably guess my position wrong... but that's ok.

One day we'll have to sit down and enjoy a beer summit together, Eh... you do drink beer don't you?

Mark

Markp said:

LOL. Oh yes I did... 😉 You'd probably guess my position wrong... but that's ok.

One day we'll have to sit down and enjoy a beer summit together, Eh... you do drink beer don't you?

Mark

Click to expand...

I said I was Canadian, didn't I?

JockNerd said:

I said I was Canadian, didn't I?

Click to expand...

See ya at APA 2010 then, I'll expect you there protesting!

Mark

PS - Don't plan on brain washing me, that would be unethical.

Markp said:

See ya at APA 2010 then, I'll expect you there protesting!

Mark

Click to expand...

That is going to be a mess....and rightfully so, as APA knew the problem, and went on anyway. I won't be making it out there, but one of these days I'd like to grab a beer with both of you too.....just don't bring up SDN. 😀

Therapist4Chnge said:

That is going to be a mess....and rightfully so, as APA knew the problem, and went on anyway. I won't be making it out there, but one of these days I'd like to grab a beer with both of you too.....just don't bring up SDN. 😀

Click to expand...

It's getting worse, with them doing things like refusing to release the contract, which likely includes a "quiet and noncontroversial venue" clause they could have got them out of the deal free. Total mess.