the puppy wizard

Dr. George VonHilsheimer writes in
"Is there a SCIENCE of BEHAVIOR?":

"Valette 1966 is a complete trivialization of
scientific findings. It overstates the case for
reinforcement theory. No careful researcher
would contend that operant techniques CAN
ANY THING MORE than modify SHORT TERM
BEHAVIOR in a highly controlled and limited
environment with a large number of skillful
experimenters. Certainly the most elaborate
studies have shown that the withdrawal or
temprary inefficiency of the reward system is
immediately followed by CESSATION of the
programmed behavior.

In fortunate contrast to this depressing paper
is the research reported by Whelan (1966) who
makes the simple but profHOWEND caveat that
"It is only through CORRECT, EFFICIENT APPLICATION
(of operant principles) that children's behavor can
be changed to the extent that they can subsequently
contribute to the REAL WORLD in which they live." "

"The Methods, Principles And Philosophy Of Behavior
Never Change, Or They'd Not Be Scientific And Would
Not Obtain Consistent, Reliable, Fast, Effective Results
For All Handler's And All Dogs, As Taught In Your FREE
Copy Of The Puppy Wizard's FREE WWW Wits' End
Dog Training Method Manual," The Amazing Puppy
Wizard. <{} ; ~ )

Dr. Von continues:

"Whelan illustrates the simple nature or the
learning process by referring to Ferster's
engaging study of two three year old
chimpanzees taught mathematics through
simple procedures. Whelan carries this
EVIDENCE a step futher by pointing HOWET
it's applicability to disturbed children."


A Dog Is A Dog As A Child Is A Child As A Kat
Is A Kat. All Critters Only Respond In Predictable
Innate, Normal, Natural, Instinctive, Reflexive,
Ways To Circumstances And Situations Of Their
Environments Which We Create For Them.

ALL BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS ARE CAUSED BY
MISHANDLING. Damn The Descartean War of
"Nature Vs Nurture." We Teach By HOWER Words
And Actions And GET BACK What We TAUGHT.

In The Problem Animal Behavior BUSINESS
FAILURE MEANS DEATH. SAME SAME SAME
SAME, For The Problem Child Behavior BUSINESS.

Dr. Von continues:
"If chimpanzees CAN LEARN mathematics
through step by step learning AT THEIR OWN
PACE, reinforced primarily by CORRECT
ANSWERS rather than with "fruit loops and
rasins", we can assume that even developmentally
RETARDED or CONfHOWENDED children
CAN LEARN as well. Moreover, Whelan
makes the EXXXTREMELY important point
that while most teachers assume that learning
takes place verbally, primarily it is a non verbal
process..

Unfortunately Whelan limits himself to the problem
that "teachers must not only modify or remove specific
deviant behaviors, but must also develop socially
acceptable behavior patterns in the classroom and
classroom conditioned goals, NOT LEARNING.

Other researchers have emphasized the importance
ofadult behaviors in conditioning classroom behavior.
An EXXXCELLENT review of this researchshowd that
tantrum behavior, excessive crawling and dependency,
isolated play, passivity, spelling failure, and other problem
behaviorscan be managed by altering habitual adult
responses to children (Harris, Wolf and Baer, 1964) .
Such RESEARCHholds GREATER PROMISE in that
alteration of the conditioning social environment seems
to provide more STABLE and LASTING CHANGES than
"M and M's". Moreover, a great deal of work has been
done developing EFFECTIVE techniques of behavior
modificaton through the conditioning social environment
of peers (Hartup, 1964). These directions would seem
more PRODUCTIVE than a simple minded trainslation
of the Skinner cage to the classroom.

Skinner (1963) pointed HOWET that operant techniques
can "be utilized fully ONLY IF we REDEFINE the GOALS
of education and the CONDITIONS in the educational
environment under which those goals may be reached...
(through) a DIFFERENT KIND of educational research
which is much more closely concerned with the immediate
dimensions of the student's behavior than with gross
changes such as IMPROVED PERFORMANCES."
UNFORTUNATELY, neither Skinner nor ANY OTHER
learning theorist has provided us with a working model
of a school or research enterprise based on systemic
and thorough-going APPLICATION of LEARNING
PRINCIPLES. Skinner (1948, 1953) approaches a
definition of the philosophical issues involved, and
provides an utopian model of a school, but generally
psychologists seem STUCK at a level of MANAGEMENT
of an aggressively disturbing child in the classroom,
through peer approval, or the aplication of accelerating
CONsequences in the classroom, or scientifically
S-HOWENDING tactics like "TIME HOWET" (which
we used to know more simply as "sendin the kid to
the cloakroom").

Hobbs (op. cit.) claims that the classroom is a
natural environement for the child. Thelen (1965)
contends that "classroom practices are UNnatural,
UNreasonable, and 'against NATURE.' ". This
would seem the central issue for the philosophy of
education. Mere trivial application of research findings
to an institution essentially unchanged from Sumerian
academies (Kramer, 1962) will NOT create useful
teaching for human beings.

It seems relevant to ask EXXXACTLY WHAT do we
know abHOWT the learning situation in which HOWER
children find themselves, and why, in the light of HOWER
knowledge, do we do any of the things that schools do?"

We know that there is little agreement among adults
as to what it is they are SUPPOSED to be DOING,
what something to do could be that MIGHT be
EFFECTVE, and what it IS that other people who
have authority over children ought to be doing (Mc-
Eachern and Taylor, 1967). Wherefor the child's
CONfusiHOWEN?

It is NO WONDER hat the marked changes in
deviant behavior of children can be achieved
through brief, simple educative routines with
their mothers which modify the mother's
social behaviors shaping the child (Whaler,
1966). Some clinics have reported ELIMINATION
ofthe need for child THERAPY through changing
the clinical emphasis from clinical to parental
HANDLING of the child (Szrynski 1965). A large
number of cases improved sufficiently after
preliminary contact with parents that NO treatment
of children was required, and almost ALL cases
SHOWE a remarkably shortened period for therapy.
Quite severe cases of anorexia nervosa have been
treated in own to five months by simply REPLACING
the parents temporarily with EFFUSIVELY LOVING
SUBSTITUTES (Groen, 1966).

Probably the most absurd figure in Amaerican mass
media is the TEACHER (Gerbner, 1966). HOWE can
we EXXXPECT children to LEARN responsible P-HOWER
from models of IMPOTENCE? We KNOW that LEARNING
a complex ritualized social role, is facilitated by observation
of an INTELLIGIBLE MODEL much more effectively than
by trial and error with REINFORCEMENT. roles which are
relatively arbitrary and senseless are the most difficult to
learn (Luchins, 1966). Do we make ANY EFFORT as
teachers to CORRECT the massive impact of media?
HOWE can the ARBITRARINESS and SENSELESSNESS
of IMPOTENT ADULT MODELS be redeemed by anything
short of RELEVANCE and COMMITMENT?

As an engaging final comment on the PROFESSION
let me mention the little study by Dittman et al (1965)
tha when 15 psychotherapists and 9 professional dancers
evaluated facial and bodily expressons for effect the
dancers ere much MOORE accurate. Need we say
MOORE abHOWET the training of therapists?

THE OPERANT FALLACY

Programs utilizing the "contingencies of reinforcement
model" proposed by Skinner (1963) ar no more well
established in research than the various dynamic
therapists. Research in four areas : 1) direct evaluation of
programmed systems for elarning; 2) reinforcement;
3) cognitive dissonance; and 4) motivation, MOST
SURELY DEMOLISH eth claims of operant programers.

The 190 studies annotated by Schramm (1964) when
inspected display NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
in SUCCESS among approaches and modifications.
Programmed instruction is no worse than conventional
instruction, and takes less time, but time reductions in
conventional instruction has frequently been shown
possible without detrimental effects. If you draw your
controls cagily you can always show the superiority of
your PET technique.

Moore and Smit (1964) compared variations on


choice, and iving or not giving the students results.
There were NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES despite
Skinner's insistence on the importance of the
CONTINGENCY of REINFORCEMENT. Carpenter
and Greenhill (1963) could find NO DIFFERENCE
in RESULTS even after eliminating the self-pacing
feature by presenting the materials by TV or Video.

Krumboltz and Kiesler (1965) reported that a two month
follow up test showed NO DIFFERENCE between students
given a variety of reinforcement schedules. Mayo and
Longo (1966) report that naval and marine trainees
saved 30% of time in learning electronics fundamentals
through a programed course witrh superior scores on one
measure but not on another, and with no follow-up reported.
The same authors reported a reductionj from 26 HOWERS
to 19 HOWERS in instruction time through the use of
program with NO DIFFERENCE in test scores, except
that as longer blocks of materiallearned through programmed
meanswere tesed the scores DECREASED.

When the control instruction is manipulated an entirely
DIFFERENT picture emerges Jacobs and Kulkarni (1966)
assignedstudents in three different schools to classes
with standard programmed material giving immediate
knowledge of results to classes without results and to
classes with the order of sections of the program inverted.
In two schools the groups without knowledge of results
and the groups with inverted material SCORED HIGHER.
In one school there was NO DIFFERENCE. So much for
THEORY. Reid and Taylor (1965) presented a linear
program on paper-making to 60 paid undergrads with
a 12 week follow up test. The group which merely
read learned the same material in 154 minutes to
243 minutes for the group given responses- a
REVERSAL of the usual BIASED RESULTS based
on POOR CON-TROLLS. There were no differences
on post tests. Spagnoli (1965) reports on a study
exposing the control and programed group to the same
material in a concentrated effort over a limited period
of time. There were NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES.
Sassenrath and Garverick (1965) gave 4 matched
groups of 120 students four procedures: 1) looking
up the wrong answers, 2) having questions discussed
by the instructors, 3) checking answers from correct
ones on the board, and 4) no feedback. The discussion
method proved best.

Finally, in studying means of training men to perform
a 72 action prcedure on Nike-Hercules equipment,
Cox and Boren (1965) demonstrated that the time
required to learn the procedure to critterion was NO
DIFFERENT when the actions were organized into
seven operant spans and taught in reverse order, in
natural order, or without grouping into operant spans
at all.

IT IS CLEAR that as comparisons became more
sophisticated programed instruction and other
operant teaching techniquesreveal tehemselves
as simply another prestigiHOWES FAD--somewhat
better than conventional instruction in saving time,
but certainly not providing a better or better organized
or more independently useful GRASP of KNOWLEDGE.

The IMBECILITY of some ofthe claims for operant
technique simply take the breath away. Lovas et al
(1966) report a standard contingent reward/punishment
procedure developing imitative speech in two severly
disturbed non verbal schizophrenic boys. After twenty-
six days the boys are reported to have been learning
new words with alacrity. HOWEver, when REWARDS
were moved to a delayed contingency the behavoir and
learning immediately deteriorated. Despite this, and
despite the fact that there was no evidence of cognitive
association with the words, the authors leap to the
conclusion that the fact that the boys improved in the
acquisition of Norwegian words WITHOUT REWARDS
while still being given English words WITH REWARDS
suggest hat the children may be able to acquire new
behaviors on their own. The need for this study escapes
one, particularly in view of the very well established fact
that schizophrenics condition quite readily (Mednick, 1958)
One can see the "SCIENTIFIC" PRECISION by which the
authors drop contingent reinforcements thus PROVING
that the parrot behavior was indeed caused by the schedule
and NOT by some other mystical force. The useof Norwegian
to demonstrate learning that could not even remotely be
related to previous history is a grotesquery too bizarre to
be credited. Who could possibly doubt that this useless
and probably damaging trained seal routine depended on
the psychologist's antics? What on earth led them to
believe that a schizophrenic needs even more other-
focused responsiveness?

Lovaas et al (1965) reportedthree programs carried
out on five year old autistic twins conditioining them
to "social behavior" and to eliminate pathologial
behaviors such as self-stimulation and tantrums.
Affectionate and other social behaviors toward
adults increaseed after adults had been associated
with shock reduction. The routine for this treatment
brings immediate relief to mind Sawrey and Wesz
(1956) routine for producing ulcers in monkeys. I
suppose it is USELESS to speculate on the source
of SO CALLED THERAPISTS willingness to experiment
on human beings with procedures for which there is
sound experimentally established WARNINGS. If the
"double blind" theory of the origin of schizophrenia
(Bateson, 1956) is at all valid, HOWE DEVASTATING
the experience must ULTIMATELY BE. Do Lovaas et
al REALLY BELIEVE the schizophrenic has no cognitive
processes and DOES NOT KNOW WHO IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE SHOCK? Greger (1965) criticized this study
on the basis that trainsfer CANNOT be generalized. That
issue can be answered by experience, and, of curse, the
"social" behavior of these children deteriorates as soon
as the psychologists LOOSE INTEREST. The IMPORTANT
ISSUE for a SCIENCE OF BEHAVIOR is why not attempt
those things which are KNOWN to WORK at least in some
cases if only for control puporses. Kanner (1954) reports
that 13 classically autistic children improved enough to
go to school without "anything that is regarded as good
psychotherapy or as psychotherapy at all..." Autistic
children have been known to become permenantely
social by deinstitutionalization, BY REMOVAL from
the parents, BY RADICAL CHANGES in other environments,
and by MASSIVE DOSAGE of TOUCHING, HOLDING,
FONDLING LOVE DESPITE THE REJECTION OF THE
CHILD. My case, Larry, (vonHilsheimer, 1965b), demonstrates
a recovery by using the mother as an autistic boy's teacher
in an open millieu. It is curiHOWES that the operant technicians
provide as few, and as UNIMAGINITAVE controls for thier
"research" as the Freudians.

REWARD / PUNISHMENT

Despite Skinner's clear denunciation of "negative
reinforcement" (1958) NEARLY EVER LEARNING
THEORY model involves the USE OF PUNISHMENT.
Of curse, Skinner has never to my knowledge,
demonstrated HOWE we escape the phenomenon
that an expected reward not received is experienced
as a punishment and can produce extensive and
persistent aggression (Azrin et al, 1966).

MIMICRY, PLAY, EXPLORATION AND
THE NEED FOR DATA

Complex activities are LEARNED MORE QUICKLY
through OBSERVATION (copying, if you will) than
by trial and error with reinforcemet (Luchins,).
Observers of subjects making a first trial of a multiple
choice bolt head maze made fewer errors than the
practiced subjects in the second run, while subjects
who have been shocked for error on a first trial made
more errors than either (Rosenbaum & Hewitt, 1966).
Students will modify their beliefs more when rewarded
for the way in which they carried out arguing for a
disagreeable position (role reward), than when rewarded
for the content of the argument (Wallace, 1966).

======================

the puppy wizard

Dr. George VonHilsheimer writes in
"Is there a SCIENCE of BEHAVIOR?":

"Valette 1966 is a complete trivialization of
scientific findings. It overstates the case for
reinforcement theory. No careful researcher
would contend that operant techniques CAN
ANY THING MORE than modify SHORT TERM
BEHAVIOR in a highly controlled and limited
environment with a large number of skillful
experimenters. Certainly the most elaborate
studies have shown that the withdrawal or
temprary inefficiency of the reward system is
immediately followed by CESSATION of the
programmed behavior.

In fortunate contrast to this depressing paper
is the research reported by Whelan (1966) who
makes the simple but profHOWEND caveat that
"It is only through CORRECT, EFFICIENT APPLICATION
(of operant principles) that children's behavor can
be changed to the extent that they can subsequently
contribute to the REAL WORLD in which they live." "

"The Methods, Principles And Philosophy Of Behavior
Never Change, Or They'd Not Be Scientific And Would
Not Obtain Consistent, Reliable, Fast, Effective Results
For All Handler's And All Dogs, As Taught In Your FREE
Copy Of The Puppy Wizard's FREE WWW Wits' End
Dog Training Method Manual," The Amazing Puppy
Wizard. <{} ; ~ )

Dr. Von continues:

"Whelan illustrates the simple nature or the
learning process by referring to Ferster's
engaging study of two three year old
chimpanzees taught mathematics through
simple procedures. Whelan carries this
EVIDENCE a step futher by pointing HOWET
it's applicability to disturbed children."


A Dog Is A Dog As A Child Is A Child As A Kat
Is A Kat. All Critters Only Respond In Predictable
Innate, Normal, Natural, Instinctive, Reflexive,
Ways To Circumstances And Situations Of Their
Environments Which We Create For Them.

ALL BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS ARE CAUSED BY
MISHANDLING. Damn The Descartean War of
"Nature Vs Nurture." We Teach By HOWER Words
And Actions And GET BACK What We TAUGHT.

In The Problem Animal Behavior BUSINESS
FAILURE MEANS DEATH. SAME SAME SAME
SAME, For The Problem Child Behavior BUSINESS.

Dr. Von continues:
"If chimpanzees CAN LEARN mathematics
through step by step learning AT THEIR OWN
PACE, reinforced primarily by CORRECT
ANSWERS rather than with "fruit loops and
rasins", we can assume that even developmentally
RETARDED or CONfHOWENDED children
CAN LEARN as well. Moreover, Whelan
makes the EXXXTREMELY important point
that while most teachers assume that learning
takes place verbally, primarily it is a non verbal
process..

Unfortunately Whelan limits himself to the problem
that "teachers must not only modify or remove specific
deviant behaviors, but must also develop socially
acceptable behavior patterns in the classroom and
classroom conditioned goals, NOT LEARNING.

Other researchers have emphasized the importance
ofadult behaviors in conditioning classroom behavior.
An EXXXCELLENT review of this researchshowd that
tantrum behavior, excessive crawling and dependency,
isolated play, passivity, spelling failure, and other problem
behaviorscan be managed by altering habitual adult
responses to children (Harris, Wolf and Baer, 1964) .
Such RESEARCHholds GREATER PROMISE in that
alteration of the conditioning social environment seems
to provide more STABLE and LASTING CHANGES than
"M and M's". Moreover, a great deal of work has been
done developing EFFECTIVE techniques of behavior
modificaton through the conditioning social environment
of peers (Hartup, 1964). These directions would seem
more PRODUCTIVE than a simple minded trainslation
of the Skinner cage to the classroom.

Skinner (1963) pointed HOWET that operant techniques
can "be utilized fully ONLY IF we REDEFINE the GOALS
of education and the CONDITIONS in the educational
environment under which those goals may be reached...
(through) a DIFFERENT KIND of educational research
which is much more closely concerned with the immediate
dimensions of the student's behavior than with gross
changes such as IMPROVED PERFORMANCES."
UNFORTUNATELY, neither Skinner nor ANY OTHER
learning theorist has provided us with a working model
of a school or research enterprise based on systemic
and thorough-going APPLICATION of LEARNING
PRINCIPLES. Skinner (1948, 1953) approaches a
definition of the philosophical issues involved, and
provides an utopian model of a school, but generally
psychologists seem STUCK at a level of MANAGEMENT
of an aggressively disturbing child in the classroom,
through peer approval, or the aplication of accelerating
CONsequences in the classroom, or scientifically
S-HOWENDING tactics like "TIME HOWET" (which
we used to know more simply as "sendin the kid to
the cloakroom").

Hobbs (op. cit.) claims that the classroom is a
natural environement for the child. Thelen (1965)
contends that "classroom practices are UNnatural,
UNreasonable, and 'against NATURE.' ". This
would seem the central issue for the philosophy of
education. Mere trivial application of research findings
to an institution essentially unchanged from Sumerian
academies (Kramer, 1962) will NOT create useful
teaching for human beings.

It seems relevant to ask EXXXACTLY WHAT do we
know abHOWT the learning situation in which HOWER
children find themselves, and why, in the light of HOWER
knowledge, do we do any of the things that schools do?"

We know that there is little agreement among adults
as to what it is they are SUPPOSED to be DOING,
what something to do could be that MIGHT be
EFFECTVE, and what it IS that other people who
have authority over children ought to be doing (Mc-
Eachern and Taylor, 1967). Wherefor the child's
CONfusiHOWEN?

It is NO WONDER hat the marked changes in
deviant behavior of children can be achieved
through brief, simple educative routines with
their mothers which modify the mother's
social behaviors shaping the child (Whaler,
1966). Some clinics have reported ELIMINATION
ofthe need for child THERAPY through changing
the clinical emphasis from clinical to parental
HANDLING of the child (Szrynski 1965). A large
number of cases improved sufficiently after
preliminary contact with parents that NO treatment
of children was required, and almost ALL cases
SHOWE a remarkably shortened period for therapy.
Quite severe cases of anorexia nervosa have been
treated in own to five months by simply REPLACING
the parents temporarily with EFFUSIVELY LOVING
SUBSTITUTES (Groen, 1966).

Probably the most absurd figure in Amaerican mass
media is the TEACHER (Gerbner, 1966). HOWE can
we EXXXPECT children to LEARN responsible P-HOWER
from models of IMPOTENCE? We KNOW that LEARNING
a complex ritualized social role, is facilitated by observation
of an INTELLIGIBLE MODEL much more effectively than
by trial and error with REINFORCEMENT. roles which are
relatively arbitrary and senseless are the most difficult to
learn (Luchins, 1966). Do we make ANY EFFORT as
teachers to CORRECT the massive impact of media?
HOWE can the ARBITRARINESS and SENSELESSNESS
of IMPOTENT ADULT MODELS be redeemed by anything
short of RELEVANCE and COMMITMENT?

As an engaging final comment on the PROFESSION
let me mention the little study by Dittman et al (1965)
tha when 15 psychotherapists and 9 professional dancers
evaluated facial and bodily expressons for effect the
dancers ere much MOORE accurate. Need we say
MOORE abHOWET the training of therapists?

THE OPERANT FALLACY

Programs utilizing the "contingencies of reinforcement
model" proposed by Skinner (1963) ar no more well
established in research than the various dynamic
therapists. Research in four areas : 1) direct evaluation of
programmed systems for elarning; 2) reinforcement;
3) cognitive dissonance; and 4) motivation, MOST
SURELY DEMOLISH eth claims of operant programers.

The 190 studies annotated by Schramm (1964) when
inspected display NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
in SUCCESS among approaches and modifications.
Programmed instruction is no worse than conventional
instruction, and takes less time, but time reductions in
conventional instruction has frequently been shown
possible without detrimental effects. If you draw your
controls cagily you can always show the superiority of
your PET technique.

Moore and Smit (1964) compared variations on


choice, and iving or not giving the students results.
There were NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES despite
Skinner's insistence on the importance of the
CONTINGENCY of REINFORCEMENT. Carpenter
and Greenhill (1963) could find NO DIFFERENCE
in RESULTS even after eliminating the self-pacing
feature by presenting the materials by TV or Video.

Krumboltz and Kiesler (1965) reported that a two month
follow up test showed NO DIFFERENCE between students
given a variety of reinforcement schedules. Mayo and
Longo (1966) report that naval and marine trainees
saved 30% of time in learning electronics fundamentals
through a programed course witrh superior scores on one
measure but not on another, and with no follow-up reported.
The same authors reported a reductionj from 26 HOWERS
to 19 HOWERS in instruction time through the use of
program with NO DIFFERENCE in test scores, except
that as longer blocks of materiallearned through programmed
meanswere tesed the scores DECREASED.

When the control instruction is manipulated an entirely
DIFFERENT picture emerges Jacobs and Kulkarni (1966)
assignedstudents in three different schools to classes
with standard programmed material giving immediate
knowledge of results to classes without results and to
classes with the order of sections of the program inverted.
In two schools the groups without knowledge of results
and the groups with inverted material SCORED HIGHER.
In one school there was NO DIFFERENCE. So much for
THEORY. Reid and Taylor (1965) presented a linear
program on paper-making to 60 paid undergrads with
a 12 week follow up test. The group which merely
read learned the same material in 154 minutes to
243 minutes for the group given responses- a
REVERSAL of the usual BIASED RESULTS based
on POOR CON-TROLLS. There were no differences
on post tests. Spagnoli (1965) reports on a study
exposing the control and programed group to the same
material in a concentrated effort over a limited period
of time. There were NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES.
Sassenrath and Garverick (1965) gave 4 matched
groups of 120 students four procedures: 1) looking
up the wrong answers, 2) having questions discussed
by the instructors, 3) checking answers from correct
ones on the board, and 4) no feedback. The discussion
method proved best.

Finally, in studying means of training men to perform
a 72 action prcedure on Nike-Hercules equipment,
Cox and Boren (1965) demonstrated that the time
required to learn the procedure to critterion was NO
DIFFERENT when the actions were organized into
seven operant spans and taught in reverse order, in
natural order, or without grouping into operant spans
at all.

IT IS CLEAR that as comparisons became more
sophisticated programed instruction and other
operant teaching techniquesreveal tehemselves
as simply another prestigiHOWES FAD--somewhat
better than conventional instruction in saving time,
but certainly not providing a better or better organized
or more independently useful GRASP of KNOWLEDGE.

The IMBECILITY of some ofthe claims for operant
technique simply take the breath away. Lovas et al
(1966) report a standard contingent reward/punishment
procedure developing imitative speech in two severly
disturbed non verbal schizophrenic boys. After twenty-
six days the boys are reported to have been learning
new words with alacrity. HOWEver, when REWARDS
were moved to a delayed contingency the behavoir and
learning immediately deteriorated. Despite this, and
despite the fact that there was no evidence of cognitive
association with the words, the authors leap to the
conclusion that the fact that the boys improved in the
acquisition of Norwegian words WITHOUT REWARDS
while still being given English words WITH REWARDS
suggest hat the children may be able to acquire new
behaviors on their own. The need for this study escapes
one, particularly in view of the very well established fact
that schizophrenics condition quite readily (Mednick, 1958)
One can see the "SCIENTIFIC" PRECISION by which the
authors drop contingent reinforcements thus PROVING
that the parrot behavior was indeed caused by the schedule
and NOT by some other mystical force. The useof Norwegian
to demonstrate learning that could not even remotely be
related to previous history is a grotesquery too bizarre to
be credited. Who could possibly doubt that this useless
and probably damaging trained seal routine depended on
the psychologist's antics? What on earth led them to
believe that a schizophrenic needs even more other-
focused responsiveness?

Lovaas et al (1965) reportedthree programs carried
out on five year old autistic twins conditioining them
to "social behavior" and to eliminate pathologial
behaviors such as self-stimulation and tantrums.
Affectionate and other social behaviors toward
adults increaseed after adults had been associated
with shock reduction. The routine for this treatment
brings immediate relief to mind Sawrey and Wesz
(1956) routine for producing ulcers in monkeys. I
suppose it is USELESS to speculate on the source
of SO CALLED THERAPISTS willingness to experiment
on human beings with procedures for which there is
sound experimentally established WARNINGS. If the
"double blind" theory of the origin of schizophrenia
(Bateson, 1956) is at all valid, HOWE DEVASTATING
the experience must ULTIMATELY BE. Do Lovaas et
al REALLY BELIEVE the schizophrenic has no cognitive
processes and DOES NOT KNOW WHO IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE SHOCK? Greger (1965) criticized this study
on the basis that trainsfer CANNOT be generalized. That
issue can be answered by experience, and, of curse, the
"social" behavior of these children deteriorates as soon
as the psychologists LOOSE INTEREST. The IMPORTANT
ISSUE for a SCIENCE OF BEHAVIOR is why not attempt
those things which are KNOWN to WORK at least in some
cases if only for control puporses. Kanner (1954) reports
that 13 classically autistic children improved enough to
go to school without "anything that is regarded as good
psychotherapy or as psychotherapy at all..." Autistic
children have been known to become permenantely
social by deinstitutionalization, BY REMOVAL from
the parents, BY RADICAL CHANGES in other environments,
and by MASSIVE DOSAGE of TOUCHING, HOLDING,
FONDLING LOVE DESPITE THE REJECTION OF THE
CHILD. My case, Larry, (vonHilsheimer, 1965b), demonstrates
a recovery by using the mother as an autistic boy's teacher
in an open millieu. It is curiHOWES that the operant technicians
provide as few, and as UNIMAGINITAVE controls for thier
"research" as the Freudians.

REWARD / PUNISHMENT

Despite Skinner's clear denunciation of "negative
reinforcement" (1958) NEARLY EVER LEARNING
THEORY model involves the USE OF PUNISHMENT.
Of curse, Skinner has never to my knowledge,
demonstrated HOWE we escape the phenomenon
that an expected reward not received is experienced
as a punishment and can produce extensive and
persistent aggression (Azrin et al, 1966).

MIMICRY, PLAY, EXPLORATION AND
THE NEED FOR DATA

Complex activities are LEARNED MORE QUICKLY
through OBSERVATION (copying, if you will) than
by trial and error with reinforcemet (Luchins,).
Observers of subjects making a first trial of a multiple
choice bolt head maze made fewer errors than the
practiced subjects in the second run, while subjects
who have been shocked for error on a first trial made
more errors than either (Rosenbaum & Hewitt, 1966).
Students will modify their beliefs more when rewarded
for the way in which they carried out arguing for a
disagreeable position (role reward), than when rewarded
for the content of the argument (Wallace, 1966).

======================

the puppy wizard

Dr. George VonHilsheimer writes in
"Is there a SCIENCE of BEHAVIOR?":

"Valette 1966 is a complete trivialization of
scientific findings. It overstates the case for
reinforcement theory. No careful researcher
would contend that operant techniques CAN
ANY THING MORE than modify SHORT TERM
BEHAVIOR in a highly controlled and limited
environment with a large number of skillful
experimenters. Certainly the most elaborate
studies have shown that the withdrawal or
temprary inefficiency of the reward system is
immediately followed by CESSATION of the
programmed behavior.

In fortunate contrast to this depressing paper
is the research reported by Whelan (1966) who
makes the simple but profHOWEND caveat that
"It is only through CORRECT, EFFICIENT APPLICATION
(of operant principles) that children's behavor can
be changed to the extent that they can subsequently
contribute to the REAL WORLD in which they live." "

"The Methods, Principles And Philosophy Of Behavior
Never Change, Or They'd Not Be Scientific And Would
Not Obtain Consistent, Reliable, Fast, Effective Results
For All Handler's And All Dogs, As Taught In Your FREE
Copy Of The Puppy Wizard's FREE WWW Wits' End
Dog Training Method Manual," The Amazing Puppy
Wizard. <{} ; ~ )

Dr. Von continues:

"Whelan illustrates the simple nature or the
learning process by referring to Ferster's
engaging study of two three year old
chimpanzees taught mathematics through
simple procedures. Whelan carries this
EVIDENCE a step futher by pointing HOWET
it's applicability to disturbed children."


A Dog Is A Dog As A Child Is A Child As A Kat
Is A Kat. All Critters Only Respond In Predictable
Innate, Normal, Natural, Instinctive, Reflexive,
Ways To Circumstances And Situations Of Their
Environments Which We Create For Them.

ALL BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS ARE CAUSED BY
MISHANDLING. Damn The Descartean War of
"Nature Vs Nurture." We Teach By HOWER Words
And Actions And GET BACK What We TAUGHT.

In The Problem Animal Behavior BUSINESS
FAILURE MEANS DEATH. SAME SAME SAME
SAME, For The Problem Child Behavior BUSINESS.

Dr. Von continues:
"If chimpanzees CAN LEARN mathematics
through step by step learning AT THEIR OWN
PACE, reinforced primarily by CORRECT
ANSWERS rather than with "fruit loops and
rasins", we can assume that even developmentally
RETARDED or CONfHOWENDED children
CAN LEARN as well. Moreover, Whelan
makes the EXXXTREMELY important point
that while most teachers assume that learning
takes place verbally, primarily it is a non verbal
process..

Unfortunately Whelan limits himself to the problem
that "teachers must not only modify or remove specific
deviant behaviors, but must also develop socially
acceptable behavior patterns in the classroom and
classroom conditioned goals, NOT LEARNING.

Other researchers have emphasized the importance
ofadult behaviors in conditioning classroom behavior.
An EXXXCELLENT review of this researchshowd that
tantrum behavior, excessive crawling and dependency,
isolated play, passivity, spelling failure, and other problem
behaviorscan be managed by altering habitual adult
responses to children (Harris, Wolf and Baer, 1964) .
Such RESEARCHholds GREATER PROMISE in that
alteration of the conditioning social environment seems
to provide more STABLE and LASTING CHANGES than
"M and M's". Moreover, a great deal of work has been
done developing EFFECTIVE techniques of behavior
modificaton through the conditioning social environment
of peers (Hartup, 1964). These directions would seem
more PRODUCTIVE than a simple minded trainslation
of the Skinner cage to the classroom.

Skinner (1963) pointed HOWET that operant techniques
can "be utilized fully ONLY IF we REDEFINE the GOALS
of education and the CONDITIONS in the educational
environment under which those goals may be reached...
(through) a DIFFERENT KIND of educational research
which is much more closely concerned with the immediate
dimensions of the student's behavior than with gross
changes such as IMPROVED PERFORMANCES."
UNFORTUNATELY, neither Skinner nor ANY OTHER
learning theorist has provided us with a working model
of a school or research enterprise based on systemic
and thorough-going APPLICATION of LEARNING
PRINCIPLES. Skinner (1948, 1953) approaches a
definition of the philosophical issues involved, and
provides an utopian model of a school, but generally
psychologists seem STUCK at a level of MANAGEMENT
of an aggressively disturbing child in the classroom,
through peer approval, or the aplication of accelerating
CONsequences in the classroom, or scientifically
S-HOWENDING tactics like "TIME HOWET" (which
we used to know more simply as "sendin the kid to
the cloakroom").

Hobbs (op. cit.) claims that the classroom is a
natural environement for the child. Thelen (1965)
contends that "classroom practices are UNnatural,
UNreasonable, and 'against NATURE.' ". This
would seem the central issue for the philosophy of
education. Mere trivial application of research findings
to an institution essentially unchanged from Sumerian
academies (Kramer, 1962) will NOT create useful
teaching for human beings.

It seems relevant to ask EXXXACTLY WHAT do we
know abHOWT the learning situation in which HOWER
children find themselves, and why, in the light of HOWER
knowledge, do we do any of the things that schools do?"

We know that there is little agreement among adults
as to what it is they are SUPPOSED to be DOING,
what something to do could be that MIGHT be
EFFECTVE, and what it IS that other people who
have authority over children ought to be doing (Mc-
Eachern and Taylor, 1967). Wherefor the child's
CONfusiHOWEN?

It is NO WONDER hat the marked changes in
deviant behavior of children can be achieved
through brief, simple educative routines with
their mothers which modify the mother's
social behaviors shaping the child (Whaler,
1966). Some clinics have reported ELIMINATION
ofthe need for child THERAPY through changing
the clinical emphasis from clinical to parental
HANDLING of the child (Szrynski 1965). A large
number of cases improved sufficiently after
preliminary contact with parents that NO treatment
of children was required, and almost ALL cases
SHOWE a remarkably shortened period for therapy.
Quite severe cases of anorexia nervosa have been
treated in own to five months by simply REPLACING
the parents temporarily with EFFUSIVELY LOVING
SUBSTITUTES (Groen, 1966).

Probably the most absurd figure in Amaerican mass
media is the TEACHER (Gerbner, 1966). HOWE can
we EXXXPECT children to LEARN responsible P-HOWER
from models of IMPOTENCE? We KNOW that LEARNING
a complex ritualized social role, is facilitated by observation
of an INTELLIGIBLE MODEL much more effectively than
by trial and error with REINFORCEMENT. roles which are
relatively arbitrary and senseless are the most difficult to
learn (Luchins, 1966). Do we make ANY EFFORT as
teachers to CORRECT the massive impact of media?
HOWE can the ARBITRARINESS and SENSELESSNESS
of IMPOTENT ADULT MODELS be redeemed by anything
short of RELEVANCE and COMMITMENT?

As an engaging final comment on the PROFESSION
let me mention the little study by Dittman et al (1965)
tha when 15 psychotherapists and 9 professional dancers
evaluated facial and bodily expressons for effect the
dancers ere much MOORE accurate. Need we say
MOORE abHOWET the training of therapists?

THE OPERANT FALLACY

Programs utilizing the "contingencies of reinforcement
model" proposed by Skinner (1963) ar no more well
established in research than the various dynamic
therapists. Research in four areas : 1) direct evaluation of
programmed systems for elarning; 2) reinforcement;
3) cognitive dissonance; and 4) motivation, MOST
SURELY DEMOLISH eth claims of operant programers.

The 190 studies annotated by Schramm (1964) when
inspected display NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
in SUCCESS among approaches and modifications.
Programmed instruction is no worse than conventional
instruction, and takes less time, but time reductions in
conventional instruction has frequently been shown
possible without detrimental effects. If you draw your
controls cagily you can always show the superiority of
your PET technique.

Moore and Smit (1964) compared variations on


choice, and iving or not giving the students results.
There were NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES despite
Skinner's insistence on the importance of the
CONTINGENCY of REINFORCEMENT. Carpenter
and Greenhill (1963) could find NO DIFFERENCE
in RESULTS even after eliminating the self-pacing
feature by presenting the materials by TV or Video.

Krumboltz and Kiesler (1965) reported that a two month
follow up test showed NO DIFFERENCE between students
given a variety of reinforcement schedules. Mayo and
Longo (1966) report that naval and marine trainees
saved 30% of time in learning electronics fundamentals
through a programed course witrh superior scores on one
measure but not on another, and with no follow-up reported.
The same authors reported a reductionj from 26 HOWERS
to 19 HOWERS in instruction time through the use of
program with NO DIFFERENCE in test scores, except
that as longer blocks of materiallearned through programmed
meanswere tesed the scores DECREASED.

When the control instruction is manipulated an entirely
DIFFERENT picture emerges Jacobs and Kulkarni (1966)
assignedstudents in three different schools to classes
with standard programmed material giving immediate
knowledge of results to classes without results and to
classes with the order of sections of the program inverted.
In two schools the groups without knowledge of results
and the groups with inverted material SCORED HIGHER.
In one school there was NO DIFFERENCE. So much for
THEORY. Reid and Taylor (1965) presented a linear
program on paper-making to 60 paid undergrads with
a 12 week follow up test. The group which merely
read learned the same material in 154 minutes to
243 minutes for the group given responses- a
REVERSAL of the usual BIASED RESULTS based
on POOR CON-TROLLS. There were no differences
on post tests. Spagnoli (1965) reports on a study
exposing the control and programed group to the same
material in a concentrated effort over a limited period
of time. There were NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES.
Sassenrath and Garverick (1965) gave 4 matched
groups of 120 students four procedures: 1) looking
up the wrong answers, 2) having questions discussed
by the instructors, 3) checking answers from correct
ones on the board, and 4) no feedback. The discussion
method proved best.

Finally, in studying means of training men to perform
a 72 action prcedure on Nike-Hercules equipment,
Cox and Boren (1965) demonstrated that the time
required to learn the procedure to critterion was NO
DIFFERENT when the actions were organized into
seven operant spans and taught in reverse order, in
natural order, or without grouping into operant spans
at all.

IT IS CLEAR that as comparisons became more
sophisticated programed instruction and other
operant teaching techniquesreveal tehemselves
as simply another prestigiHOWES FAD--somewhat
better than conventional instruction in saving time,
but certainly not providing a better or better organized
or more independently useful GRASP of KNOWLEDGE.

The IMBECILITY of some ofthe claims for operant
technique simply take the breath away. Lovas et al
(1966) report a standard contingent reward/punishment
procedure developing imitative speech in two severly
disturbed non verbal schizophrenic boys. After twenty-
six days the boys are reported to have been learning
new words with alacrity. HOWEver, when REWARDS
were moved to a delayed contingency the behavoir and
learning immediately deteriorated. Despite this, and
despite the fact that there was no evidence of cognitive
association with the words, the authors leap to the
conclusion that the fact that the boys improved in the
acquisition of Norwegian words WITHOUT REWARDS
while still being given English words WITH REWARDS
suggest hat the children may be able to acquire new
behaviors on their own. The need for this study escapes
one, particularly in view of the very well established fact
that schizophrenics condition quite readily (Mednick, 1958)
One can see the "SCIENTIFIC" PRECISION by which the
authors drop contingent reinforcements thus PROVING
that the parrot behavior was indeed caused by the schedule
and NOT by some other mystical force. The useof Norwegian
to demonstrate learning that could not even remotely be
related to previous history is a grotesquery too bizarre to
be credited. Who could possibly doubt that this useless
and probably damaging trained seal routine depended on
the psychologist's antics? What on earth led them to
believe that a schizophrenic needs even more other-
focused responsiveness?

Lovaas et al (1965) reportedthree programs carried
out on five year old autistic twins conditioining them
to "social behavior" and to eliminate pathologial
behaviors such as self-stimulation and tantrums.
Affectionate and other social behaviors toward
adults increaseed after adults had been associated
with shock reduction. The routine for this treatment
brings immediate relief to mind Sawrey and Wesz
(1956) routine for producing ulcers in monkeys. I
suppose it is USELESS to speculate on the source
of SO CALLED THERAPISTS willingness to experiment
on human beings with procedures for which there is
sound experimentally established WARNINGS. If the
"double blind" theory of the origin of schizophrenia
(Bateson, 1956) is at all valid, HOWE DEVASTATING
the experience must ULTIMATELY BE. Do Lovaas et
al REALLY BELIEVE the schizophrenic has no cognitive
processes and DOES NOT KNOW WHO IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE SHOCK? Greger (1965) criticized this study
on the basis that trainsfer CANNOT be generalized. That
issue can be answered by experience, and, of curse, the
"social" behavior of these children deteriorates as soon
as the psychologists LOOSE INTEREST. The IMPORTANT
ISSUE for a SCIENCE OF BEHAVIOR is why not attempt
those things which are KNOWN to WORK at least in some
cases if only for control puporses. Kanner (1954) reports
that 13 classically autistic children improved enough to
go to school without "anything that is regarded as good
psychotherapy or as psychotherapy at all..." Autistic
children have been known to become permenantely
social by deinstitutionalization, BY REMOVAL from
the parents, BY RADICAL CHANGES in other environments,
and by MASSIVE DOSAGE of TOUCHING, HOLDING,
FONDLING LOVE DESPITE THE REJECTION OF THE
CHILD. My case, Larry, (vonHilsheimer, 1965b), demonstrates
a recovery by using the mother as an autistic boy's teacher
in an open millieu. It is curiHOWES that the operant technicians
provide as few, and as UNIMAGINITAVE controls for thier
"research" as the Freudians.

REWARD / PUNISHMENT

Despite Skinner's clear denunciation of "negative
reinforcement" (1958) NEARLY EVER LEARNING
THEORY model involves the USE OF PUNISHMENT.
Of curse, Skinner has never to my knowledge,
demonstrated HOWE we escape the phenomenon
that an expected reward not received is experienced
as a punishment and can produce extensive and
persistent aggression (Azrin et al, 1966).

MIMICRY, PLAY, EXPLORATION AND
THE NEED FOR DATA

Complex activities are LEARNED MORE QUICKLY
through OBSERVATION (copying, if you will) than
by trial and error with reinforcemet (Luchins,).
Observers of subjects making a first trial of a multiple
choice bolt head maze made fewer errors than the
practiced subjects in the second run, while subjects
who have been shocked for error on a first trial made
more errors than either (Rosenbaum & Hewitt, 1966).
Students will modify their beliefs more when rewarded
for the way in which they carried out arguing for a
disagreeable position (role reward), than when rewarded
for the content of the argument (Wallace, 1966).

======================