Extreme Teen Reform

A lot of teachers and parents complain that some children are completely incorrigible and intractable to all efforts to change behavior, that no reward or punishment techniques work at all. "You just have to see these kids," they'll say, "Nothing I do could ever change them."



From their perspective, they're right. Of course, in reality, they're almost certainly wrong as an absolute proposition on behavior modification. If someone were literally unresponsive to all rewards and punishments they wouldn't likely survive very long. It would only be a matter of time before they stopped eating and drinking, put their hands into fire or a meat grinder. Not because they wanted to , but simply because nothing would stop them from doing so. All of these are "natural" reinforcers (for purposes of this post, I'll use reinforcers to refer to both reinforcers and punishers), but there's nothing special about them in quality over artificial reinforcers. Their advantages over artificial reinforcers are primarily in their consistency and the limitations of some dangers of resentment at punishment (though note that theists frequently invent a devil-figure to resent for natural punishers). This consistency tends to make them enormously powerful. Indeed, horror stories such as Steven King's Thinner work off of toying with these basic assumptions.



The real problem for the typical teacher or parent, then, isn't that the child is completely unresponsive, it's that they cannot identify or apply the reinforcer that results in the behavior desired.



The techniques and places where this can be done do exist, however. Places like Tranquility Bay, a "specialty boarding school" in Jamaica with a strict behavioral program. Looking at the overall program, to my eye it does appear designed to produce results. Apparently the kids are put on a stepped hierarchy, with each step indicating greater privileges. Those on step 1 are not allowed to stand up, sit down, move, or talk without permission. At step 3 they gain the right to a supervised phone call home. At higher levels they gain the right and responsibility to enforce rules on lower-levelled students.



There are other interventions as well. The "Observation Position" (or OP, as they term it) is lying, restrained, face-down until one admits their contrition. Once an hour the student gets a 10-minute break, and at night they sleep in the hall. An article describes this as potentially lasting months. Former students indicate it's "degrading, painful experience".



Clearly, even if one agrees with the necessity of the methods, opportunities are rife for mistakes and abuse. OP sounds as though it's not intended to be positive punishment (that is, it's not supposed to be painful except in the removal of all other privileges), but students' descriptions of it include being wrestled to the ground and having one's limbs twisted. I have a hard time believing the staff are trained sufficiently (turnover numbers would be telling) to be aware of the appropriate limits.



Humiliative punishment and tightly controlled rewards can be used in one setting: when one is trying to brainwash the subject. It involves breaking down all sense of self and self-worth and re-forming it, only allowing the subject to derive worth from the administrator. And that's exactly what these places are attempting. Parents who put their children in these expensive schools are putting them through brainwashing techniques worthy of cults and para-military establishments.



It still might be worth it, if a parent is convinced the child is headed on a course towards complete self-destruction. The Observer article suggests that for many of the kids, this isn't the case. Some of the drug and alcohol problems cited seem relatively minor, and one girl is noted as having been headed for Harvard, a straight-A high school graduate, before she made an "inappropriate choice of boyfriend." Family pressures keep her in even at 19, when she could legally leave without her parent's consent.



So yes, behavioral techniques can work, even for the hardened cases. A more difficult question to answer may be to what lengths we're willing to go to get them to work.

Cho Sueng-Hui

There's a lot of worry about backlash over the Virginia Tech shootings. Immigrants and Asian-Americans generally, and Koreans specifically, fear a wave of prejudice and potential violence against them.

That wave will never come. Too many in the media have already noted and warned against it. Asian-Americans are generally quite well regarded for their hard work and social status. Immigrants are far too diverse a group and the act too random to be successfully associated with them.

There will, however, be a significant backlash against psychotics. It will be long, harsh, and uncontradicted by the media. In fact, the media supports this backlash: headlines such as "Stare into the face of Evil!" juxtaposed against "Rantings of a Lunatic" ensure the connection will be made. Lunatics are evil and dangerous. The media will offer the video and records of Cho's writings as proof.

I'm no bleeding-heart liberal, and despise the restrictions of language that political correctness often irrationally imposes. "Lunatic" is a fine word, and pretty accurately describes Cho's rantings. However, even though we readily agree that Cho was crazy, he is defined as "evil" in the public eye and many of the religious wish for him to burn in hell. Our society vilifies Cho even more than a hit man with a "rational" reason for murder, despite the lack of self-control that lunacy suggests.

People will point out that most Asian-Americans are not child-killing monsters, or would if there were any real danger of them being stereotyped (cf., Muslims). They will not point out that most of the insane are also not dangerous. Psychologists in institutions will be much more careful about certifying that someone is well enough to be allowed into society, and there is already a bias towards keeping people in. A state psychologist won't be criticized for the number of patients they decide aren't ready to be in public. However, if one leaves on their permission and goes on a murder spree, the psychologist's professional life is forfeit.

Unfortunately, that means my brother will likely be spending more time in the institution currently holding him. He's been between locked down mental hospitals solidly for the past seven years. Having shared a room with him for over ten years, I know the ravings of a diseased mind quite well. I know the futility of non-drug therapies. I know both the moments of complete insanity and the stretches of relative lucidity. I've met other psychotics as well, in college personally and while studying psychology as a major. And I've learned that most of the time, psychotics are afraid. They constantly imagine things around them which don't exist and connections that make no sense.

Imagine being compelled to invent and alter your own complex religion, ritual, and symbology on the spot, and have it unaffected by reality. It can be confusing talking to such a person, but rarely frightening unless you have a very low tolerance for the unexpected. The conversation would far more likely be frightening for them.

And this means that Cho's rantings are worse than useless to all but an academic. People will wonder about the details of "Ismael Ax" and his reference to Jesus Christ and postulate that religion may have had something to do with it. They're wrong. I don't like religion, but it has nothing to do with this. The videos are worthless to the general public. Publishing his rantings does nothing more than give future lunatics another person to cite in their own ravings, with no more relevance than Cho's reference to Harris and Klebold. Showing them on tv was simply sensationalism. No one should expect any reason that appears remotely valid to a sane mind.

There will also be backlash against Cho's family. There are scattered articles about the horror "just beginning" for them (obvious news flash: the family's horrors began some time ago, it just wasn't on the front pages then. And it's infinitely worse now). Cho's parents will almost certainly have difficulty in their community, as people wonder if it was somehow their fault. They'll receive no outpouring of sympathy from the larger community, and chances are good that an awkward few will attend the funeral. People will likely eye Cho's sister warily, suspecting that there lies a dark heart somewhere within her. And everyone around them, without fail, will know who they are related to but not address it with them. Cho's parents will remember with great pain the promise their son showed at one time. They'll cringe as they see the writings posted online, recalling far better work he'd written when clear-headed. They'll fear that no one will ever understand that their son was more than just a murderer, that no one will see him as more than a heartless killer now.

You might not find yourself capable of feeling grief for the 33rd person gunned down. But somewhere, in your hearts or minds, remember that the situation was no less tragic for him and his family than for the first 32 victims.