APA President Unexpectedly Dies

[PsyDr]

Norman Anderson Obituary (2024) - Legacy Remembers

View Norman B. Anderson's obituary, send flowers and sign the guestbook.

www.legacy.com

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[psychconsultant]

He had a very distinguished career; unfortunately, his reputation is forever tarnished by his involvement in the APA-CIA torture scandal.

 

[JustNoticing]

He was a bit less implicated than most of the others at the time, from what I recall. Though it is interesting that the APA was named a "best place to work" the literal year before the torture report came out...
Which, speaking of deaths and torture, Jean Maria Arrigo died this past week. Was pleased to see the NYT do an obit: Jean Maria Arrigo, Who Exposed Psychologists’ Ties to Torture, Dies at 79

 

[WisNeuro]

He was a bit less implicated than most of the others at the time, from what I recall. Though it is interesting that the APA was named a "best place to work" the literal year before the torture report came out...
Which, speaking of deaths and torture, Jean Maria Arrigo died this past week. Was pleased to see the NYT do an obit: Jean Maria Arrigo, Who Exposed Psychologists’ Ties to Torture, Dies at 79

So, he was just a smidgen ok with giving the green light on torture?

 

[BuckeyeLove]

Wait was he buddies with those two a$$hole$???

 

[WisNeuro]

Wait was he buddies with those two a$$hole$???

He is featured prominently in the Hoffman Report.

 

[MCParent]

Wait was he buddies with those two a$$hole$???

The upper echelons of APA are just musical chairs among the same couple people.

 

[borne_before]

I was at APA 2015 Toronto. I remember talking with some grizzled old paragons of school psychology there about the issue. One of them, a history keeper in the field, said something like, "If you're gonna torture use enhanced interrogation techniques on people, you want the best people doing it, those familiar with human behavior and science." I'm inclined to agree.

Personally, I think in 2015, there was a trend, that is still present, to divorce history from context. The postmodern revisionist attempt to hold historical figures accountable to present cultural trends. And I think it's important to recall that America had been attacked and we were at war with 2002-2005 being the most intense.

Now here's the thing, torture doesn't seem to work, is inhumane, etc. Most breakthroughs occur with positive reinforcement. However, what would the narrative be if these enhanced interrogation techniques were useful and effective? Would that change the narrative?

What is also interesting is how horrible APA handled it from a controlling the narrative PR perspective. But what do you expect from a buncha out of touch academics? All they'd need to do is be like "Listen, these psychologists were wrong, but we did it to protect you" and all the sudden the conservative support of psychology might have been given. (this is why most dictatorial/totalitarian regimes always justify some horrible infarct human rights under the guise of protection and safety - watch the narrative of speech violating safety as a justification to control it)

I do like that they gave one of the most prescriptive ethical guidelines: 3.04 B. Do I break it all the time when I teach parents about time out? That first time out parents put their kid can be pretty nasty.

But also, I'm wondering if the poor dude threw a clot/stroked out while recuperating.

 

[ClinicalABA]

I was at APA 2015 Toronto. I remember talking with some grizzled old paragons of school psychology there about the issue. One of them, a history keeper in the field, said something like, "If you're gonna torture use enhanced interrogation techniques on people, you want the best people doing it, those familiar with human behavior and science." I'm inclined to agree.

If you're going to execute me by chopping off my head- whether I deserve it or not or it will be a deterrent to others or not- I'd prefer it be done by the most skilled axeman with the surest swing and the the sharpest blade.

Personally, I think in 2015, there was a trend, that is still present, to divorce history from context. The postmodern revisionist attempt to hold historical figures accountable to present cultural trends. And I think it's important to recall that America had been attacked and we were at war with 2002-2005 being the most intense.

Now here's the thing, torture doesn't seem to work, is inhumane, etc. Most breakthroughs occur with positive reinforcement. However, what would the narrative be if these enhanced interrogation techniques were useful and effective? Would that change the narrative?

What is also interesting is how horrible APA handled it from a controlling the narrative PR perspective. But what do you expect from a buncha out of touch academics? All they'd need to do is be like "Listen, these psychologists were wrong, but we did it to protect you" and all the sudden the conservative support of psychology might have been given. (this is why most dictatorial/totalitarian regimes always justify some horrible infarct human rights under the guise of protection and safety - watch the narrative of speech violating safety as a justification to control it)

I do like that they gave one of the most prescriptive ethical guidelines: 3.04 B. Do I break it all the time when I teach parents about time out? That first time out parents put their kid can be pretty nasty.

Interesting that you used the example of time out from reinforcement (I just gave a lecture in my class on this procedure last week, and I impelled the students to always use the full name of the procedure, thus I do so here in order to not be a hypocrite). In one of the seminal legal cases in the field (Welsch v. Likins), I believe TO from reinforcement was directly cited as a procedure that would be considered contraindicated/abusive if you did not regularly and thoroughly collect objective data indicating that it was actually leading to the intended change in behavior. Very strange that similar rulings weren't/aren't applied to torture. The discussion should end at "it really doesn't work." As far as your violating 3.04(b), if the TO for reinforcement procedure is resulting in severe physical/mental suffering being intentionally inflicted on the child, then you would be in violation. This is especially the case in that increases in emotional responding/aggression/etc. are side-effects that would contraindicate the continued use of TO from reinforcement as well as significantly impact the short and long term effects of the procedure.

As an aside ( and a topic for another post), I very rarely would consider TO from reinforcement, as (a) it's very rare to encounter a situation where the child's problematic behaviors actually occur in a reinforcing environment; (b) has many negative side effects that need to be programmed for; (c) is a non-function-based procedure with results that in and of themselves don't pass the "dead man's test"; (d) is very often abused and misapplied; and (d) can be a real PITA to implement, especially for parents. (END OF SOAP-BOXY ABA LECTURE)

 

[PsyDr]

Torture is inexcusable, because it doesn't work. But most of the "work" produced by Jensen et al was a handwritten document that listed 20 different torture techniques.

If the CIA wants to pay me $80M for a handwritten document that basically says "people will tell you anything you want, if you do things from Rambo II".... I'm doing that all day.

 

[Sanman]

Torture is inexcusable, because it doesn't work. But most of the "work" produced by Jensen et al was a handwritten document that listed 20 different torture techniques.

If the CIA wants to pay me $80M for a handwritten document that basically says "people will tell you anything you want, if you do things from Rambo II".... I'm doing that all day.

Given the discussion around that time about the APA being more amenable to keeping its bylaws in line with the CIA while psychiatry was more mixed, one does wonder what role financial interests played in the decisions of the two fields. Certainly, for $80M it doesn't matter who you are, but I do wonder how many folks high up thought about other opportunities before this all became public.

 

[WisNeuro]

Given the discussion around that time about the APA being more amenable to keeping its bylaws in line with the CIA while psychiatry was more mixed, one does wonder what role financial interests played in the decisions of the two fields. Certainly, for $80M it doesn't matter who you are, but I do wonder how many folks high up thought about other opportunities before this all became public.

I mean, APA is just fen allowing programs with sub 50% EPPP pass rates and horrible outcomes to maintain accreditation. Coincidentally, these programs also sponsor and give advertising money to the APA... so are we really surprised that they were thinking about how to make money off this?

 

[borne_before]

If you're going to execute me by chopping off my head- whether I deserve it or not or it will be a deterrent to others or not- I'd prefer it be done by the most skilled axeman with the surest swing and the the sharpest blade.


Interesting that you used the example of time out from reinforcement (I just gave a lecture in my class on this procedure last week, and I impelled the students to always use the full name of the procedure, thus I do so here in order to not be a hypocrite). In one of the seminal legal cases in the field (Welsch v. Likins), I believe TO from reinforcement was directly cited as a procedure that would be considered contraindicated/abusive if you did not regularly and thoroughly collect objective data indicating that it was actually leading to the intended change in behavior. Very strange that similar rulings weren't/aren't applied to torture. The discussion should end at "it really doesn't work." As far as your violating 3.04(b), if the TO for reinforcement procedure is resulting in severe physical/mental suffering being intentionally inflicted on the child, then you would be in violation. This is especially the case in that increases in emotional responding/aggression/etc. are side-effects that would contraindicate the continued use of TO from reinforcement as well as significantly impact the short and long term effects of the procedure.

As an aside ( and a topic for another post), I very rarely would consider TO from reinforcement, as (a) it's very rare to encounter a situation where the child's problematic behaviors actually occur in a reinforcing environment; (b) has many negative side effects that need to be programmed for; (c) is a non-function-based procedure with results that in and of themselves don't pass the "dead man's test"; (d) is very often abused and misapplied; and (d) can be a real PITA to implement, especially for parents. (END OF SOAP-BOXY ABA LECTURE)

I wish you were my teacher.

To be honest, I mostly use TO to break oppositional behaviors/defiant parent child interactions. (e.g., (Do x or go to time out). I love it because it makes parents be smarter about their commands too, if they have to follow TO to it's end. I basically use the protocol from Barkley. Lots of work is done before TO week, wont usually touch it until week 5-7 of parent management training.

 

[ClinicalABA]

I wish you were my teacher.

To be honest, I mostly use TO to break oppositional behaviors/defiant parent child interactions. (e.g., (Do x or go to time out). I love it because it makes parents be smarter about their commands too, if they have to follow TO to it's end. I basically use the protocol from Barkley. Lots of work is done before TO week, wont usually touch it until week 5-7 of parent management training.

I always enjoyed doing Barkley's Defiant Children protocol parent groups.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The upper echelons of APA are just musical chairs among the same couple people.

This always pissed me off bc I tried to get on a few different committees for a number of years, but politics always seemed to win out. Committee members would basically hand-pick who they wanted to work with and then toss the rest.

One cycle I had the most recommendations, a background in the topic area bc of a prior career, and prior committee experience at the division level, and they still rejected consideration.

It’s just a game of musical chairs for APA Committees. I’ve seen greater diversity at a Harvard MBA Alumni event.

 

[Sanman]

This always pissed me off bc I tried to get on a few different committees for a number of years, but politics always seemed to win out. Committee members would basically hand-pick who they wanted to work with and then toss the rest.

One cycle I had the most recommendations, a background in the topic area bc of a prior career, and prior committee experience at the division level, and they still rejected consideration.

It’s just a game of musical chairs for APA Committees. I’ve seen greater diversity at a Harvard MBA Alumni event.

This has been true for me as well. The only slots often open were the ones that required way too much work for free and little recognition.

 

[JustNoticing]

I was at APA 2015 Toronto. I remember talking with some grizzled old paragons of school psychology there about the issue. One of them, a history keeper in the field, said something like, "If you're gonna torture use enhanced interrogation techniques on people, you want the best people doing it, those familiar with human behavior and science." I'm inclined to agree.

Personally, I think in 2015, there was a trend, that is still present, to divorce history from context. The postmodern revisionist attempt to hold historical figures accountable to present cultural trends. And I think it's important to recall that America had been attacked and we were at war with 2002-2005 being the most intense.

Now here's the thing, torture doesn't seem to work, is inhumane, etc. Most breakthroughs occur with positive reinforcement. However, what would the narrative be if these enhanced interrogation techniques were useful and effective? Would that change the narrative?

What is also interesting is how horrible APA handled it from a controlling the narrative PR perspective. But what do you expect from a buncha out of touch academics? All they'd need to do is be like "Listen, these psychologists were wrong, but we did it to protect you" and all the sudden the conservative support of psychology might have been given. (this is why most dictatorial/totalitarian regimes always justify some horrible infarct human rights under the guise of protection and safety - watch the narrative of speech violating safety as a justification to control it)

I do like that they gave one of the most prescriptive ethical guidelines: 3.04 B. Do I break it all the time when I teach parents about time out? That first time out parents put their kid can be pretty nasty.

But also, I'm wondering if the poor dude threw a clot/stroked out while recuperating.

nah, plenty of people were against torture in the aftermath of 9/11. which is why it was hotly reported on and debated publicly at the time and why there were psychologist whistleblowers yelling loudly about it at the time. If there was unanimous support for torture, the APA folks wouldn't have tried to cover their tracks as much.

 

[WisNeuro]

This has been true for me as well. The only slots often open were the ones that required way too much work for free and little recognition.

After having done the leadership stuff for a while in psych, I can safely say I am done with it. So much infighting and politics. Not too mention, psychologists are painfully ignorant of legal matters. I lost count of the number of times I had to tell people that we couldn't do something as it was clearly illegal or would jeopardize our non-profit status. I imagine APA is better on the legal side as they have lawyers, but the politics there is so much worse. If people want to get into psych leadership because you're passionate about practice and guild-related issues, they will be sorely disappointed.

 

[Sanman]

After having done the leadership stuff for a while in psych, I can safely say I am done with it. So much infighting and politics. Not too mention, psychologists are painfully ignorant of legal matters. I lost count of the number of times I had to tell people that we couldn't do something as it was clearly illegal or would jeopardize our non-profit status. I imagine APA is better on the legal side as they have lawyers, but the politics there is so much worse. If people want to get into psych leadership because you're passionate about practice and guild-related issues, they will be sorely disappointed.

Having experienced it on both sides (as a student and an experienced clinician), there is a lot of drive in the young folks, but no knowledge. On the other hand, the knowledgeable folks don't have time or interest if it is not self-serving. Being on the inside was both interesting and disappointing for me. Mostly, it showed me what a house of cards some things are.