Two Articles re Improvements in Utah re: LGBT Issues

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

It's not difficult really.

https://www.usgabyu.com/single-post/byuhistory

The turn of the decade brought with it a change in leadership as Dallin H. Oaks replaced Wilkinson as President of BYU in 1971. By 1973, the first verifiable account of university-sanctioned electroshock aversion therapy was reported. These were mentioned by BYU psychology professor Allen Bergin in a July 1973 New Era article, justifying the actions by claiming that homosexuals were “psychologically disturbed persons.”

ETA: Here's the article in the New Era: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1973/07/toward-a-theory-of-human-agency?lang=eng

Surely, Pres Oaks saw the article wouldn't he have? 

Seriously, Tacenda, quote where it states it. Have you read the article even?  I have and have posted the info already. 
 

He states he uses a desensitization therapy. Not the same thing at all. 
 

CFR 

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, california boy said:

 He doesn't read the New Era or no one mentioned the article about electrical shock therapy to him?

Did you read it?  I may have missed it given my ability to read in depth both times I have read it, but all I am seeing is self talk and desensitization.
 

Quote where it says he used electrical aversion therapy please under any label.  CFR
 

I reading him as emphasizing the only thing that works is internal self control, not external and using imaging techniques. 

Edited November 21, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

My own experience is that there was an advertisement for aversion therapy for binge eating/vomiting though it doesn’t say what kind. I have also read McBride’s study years ago…

So I wouldn’t be the least surprised if Bergin used it.  Aversion therapy was common back then, though if they (not referring to McBride or any other researcher or counselor referred to in documented cases of genital or other controversial setup, but speaking of BYU counselors in general as my interaction with them leads me to see them as pretty tame and practical) used electrical shock at BYU, my guess is it would be on the arm as that was what most did (speaking of aversion therapy in general anywhere based on my psych studies) and easier to hook up and less likely to be injurious.
 

And one of the ways to create stimuli was having subjects imagine it.  But that was used in a variety of techniques, so self imaging isn’t equivalent to electrical aversion therapy or even aversion therapy. I have heard it used for desensitization much more. To s of self help books recommend it, for example.

 But I never took classes from Bergin or studied his work in detail…my husband had a booklet on approaching psychology from a gospel orientation, finally tossed it probably ten years ago unless he stuck it in a file somewhere as it is not in my little collection of psych lit where it used to be. My husband was unaware of him using aversion therapy, but he took a general psych course, so I don’t consider his experience conclusive. 
 

Me misreading is not that uncommon either, so I am not so confident in myself that even after two readings I am right. So please quote where I am wrong or stop making the claim. 

Edited November 21, 2021 by Calm

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Seriously, Tacenda, quote where it states it. Have you read the article even?  I have and have posted the info already. 
 

He states he uses a desensitization therapy. Not the same thing at all. 
 

CFR 

I read the whole article. I don't think they want to use trigger words (see bolds). Honestly Calm, we know from the people themselves that this happened. I'm trying to show that there is correlation that things like this took place at the time Oaks was at BYU, I just cannot believe he didn't know what was going on. But to each their own.

Link to references for the article: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LYuEA6zT-C9joO8wv65iBtf_8J4Lx_eoLLURMK_xoEA/edit

Below is the c/p:

Our treatment of these cases cannot be documented in detail here, but it consisted first of reducing fears of the opposite sex by means of a technique called systematic desensitization. This consists of reversing the old childhood conditioning of avoidance responses to heterosexual stimuli by manipulating the clients’ feeling states so that positive responses are repeatedly paired with and associated with the feared object. This gradually increases control, in that panic is no longer the invariable and automatic response to the formerly phobic events. Secondly, we trained these persons by means of role playing or behavioral rehearsal in appropriate social skills because we soon learned that the removal of the phobic symptoms merely brought about the possibility of heterosexual adequacy. That is, systematic desensitization reduced an inhibition but did not provide a program of positive approach behavior. Once the new skills were learned, a third problem remained, namely, that there was still a compelling sexual impulse that persisted due to a lack of self-control and the strong biological reinforcement inherent in the act that made the arousal of control difficult. We therefore instituted a self-control training procedure to assist in the agonizing struggle with the impulses which these clients had determined to overcome. Everything we had done up to this point prepared the way by gradually developing new controls and effectiveness in previously weak areas, but the critical difficulty still lay before us.

Before proceeding, I should parenthetically point out that if attempts at self-control of impulses had been initiated without these other changes, they probably would have failed; failure is the usual result when self-effort responses alone are implemented. Self-effort is admirable but ineffective in severe cases where so much control has been lost. In these instances it is essential to reduce the strength of factors maintaining the undesirable behavior before proceeding directly to enhancing will power. This usually requires the assistance of others who temporarily aid the person in establishing new levels of control that could not be achieved by self-effort alone. At the same time, it is equally important to build up positive behaviors that can provide prosocial satisfactions as alternatives to the negative behavior that is being inhibited. Simply telling such a person to “go control himself” will not do.

We next proceeded to develop and apply a method of direct training in control (Bergin, 1969). This technique involved, first, a careful assessment of the events immediately preceding a loss of self-control. It was explained that failures in self-control often occurred because the effort to control was applied late in the sequence when the impulsive pattern had already reached a high level of intensity. Thus, the unexercised and undeveloped control ability was weak compared to the strength of the impulse, and it had to be applied early in the sequence to insure success.

The clients were then instructed to pay close attention to environmental situations and to personal reactions that might set off the undesired chain of events. It was evident that in the past they had not been aware of these events until they had reached an intermediate or high intensity; therefore two or three therapy sessions were devoted to repeatedly going over the chains and making them as explicit as possible.

Techniques for interrupting responses to stimuli early in the chains were discussed and, in imagination, practiced during the sessions. These included methods such as immediately switching to thoughts or activities unrelated to the chain, but it was always emphasized that this be done promptly so as to apply the greatest strength of control to the weakest strength of impulse. This procedure of shutting off impulse-related reactions and immediately engaging in another activity (reading, walking, thinking) was very much a simple act of will motivated by the client’s desire for change and by the hope and compliance engendered by the therapist’s instructions.

Following this procedure was difficult for the clients at first, presumably because it totally reversed a strongly reinforced habit, but by persistence and encouragement they were soon able to practice it regularly. The clients reported their experiences in much the same terms in which addicts do. They described it as a feeling of climbing a very steep hill with a large pack on their backs. Each effort at control was like another step up this impossible incline; but almost unexpectedly they seemed to reach a crest and the effort was then downhill and easy the rest of the way.

The potency of this technique seems to lie in applying it to a specific problem that arises from an inadequately developed self-regulatory system. The emphasis here is on the assumption that there are such things as primary developmental defects in self-control that are responsive chiefly to techniques that emphasize the self in self-control, namely that the defect lies in the unpracticed will, in the self that does not consciously and vigorously regulate.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of these cases is the phenomenon of impulse weakening as a direct result of consistent exercise in self-regulation. The result of this effort was that the clients soon gained control of their behavior in the presence of formerly compelling stimuli.

It appears that active resistance to the undesirable response to a stimulus tends to break the stimulus-response chain and the stimuli lose their power to compel or control the individual’s behavior. It also appears that the feelings and fantasies formerly associated with this range of stimuli actually disappeared as responses to them.

Another way to describe the results of the self-control method is nicely exemplified by President McKay’s advice: “Resist temptation and Satan will flee from you.” He declared that this is exactly what happened during the Savior’s three great temptations. According to President McKay, because of the Savior’s resistance Satan’s power had been broken by the time of the final temptation, and he was merely pleading. Then the Savior turned his back on Satan with finality and commanded him to get hence.

Such insight led the prophet to declare eloquently: “The greatest battles of life are fought within the silent chambers of our own souls.” This is the battle for self-control, and there is nothing more majestic than the quiet confidence of one who has achieved it.

The management of self-effort responses has been applied in a number of additional cases, both normal and pathological, with relative success. The process seems to follow a regular pattern that permits theoretical interpretation, although the notions I will now offer should not be dignified by the term theory. Mini-theory will suffice.

Edited November 21, 2021 by Tacenda

[Calm]

Yeah, I read it. Where in there is aversion therapy?  You don’t reduce fears by shocking people. 

Quote

positive responses are repeatedly paired with and associated with the feared object.

“Positive” is not aversion therapy.  He saying he is having the client think positive thoughts about women in the case of homosexuals  

There is a huge amount and variety of psychological techniques. A statement saying they can’t detail them is no more an admission than I am admitting I drink beer if I say I can’t detail every beverage I’ve drunk over the years.

Quote

 we trained these persons by means of role playing or behavioral rehearsal in appropriate social skills 

Again working with positives, appropriate skills, not decreasing undesired ones

Quote

We therefore instituted a self-control training procedure to assist in the agonizing struggle with the impulses which these clients had determined to overcome….

In these instances it is essential to reduce the strength of factors maintaining the undesirable behavior before proceeding directly to enhancing will power. This usually requires the assistance of others who temporarily aid the person in establishing new levels of control that could not be achieved by self-effort alone

These sentences are the closest possibility, but there is no suggestion that aversion therapy was used. In fact, later on the description is more like telling men to think of hymns when undesired thoughts enter their mind. 
 

Quote

Techniques for interrupting responses to stimuli early in the chains were discussed and, in imagination, practiced during the sessions. These included methods such as immediately switching to thoughts or activities unrelated to the chain, 

Practicing in one’s imagination…where is the straping up and applying shocks when arousal or other undesired behaviour occurs?

Quote

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of these cases is the phenomenon of impulse weakening as a direct result of consistent exercise in self-regulation. The result of this effort was that the clients soon gained control of their behavior in the presence of formerly compelling stimuli.

So are they walking around wired up and hitting the button to weaken any undesired impulses?  It just doesn’t make sense as described that they used any electrical or vomiting aversion therapy. 
 

Quote

It appears that active resistance to the undesirable response to a stimulus tends to break the stimulus-response chain and the stimuli lose their power to compel or control the individual’s behavior. It also appears that the feelings and fantasies formerly associated with this range of stimuli actually disappeared as responses to them.

Another way to describe the results of the self-control method is nicely exemplified by President McKay’s advice: “Resist temptation and Satan will flee from you.” He declared that this is exactly what happened during the Savior’s three great temptations. 

How anyone can get aversion therapy out of comparison to Christ resisting temptation…please explain this to me. 
 

Quote

The management of self-effort responses has been applied in a number of additional cases, both normal and pathological, with relative success.

This isn’t just reading between the lines, this is making stuff up as far as your quote is concerned and I don’t recall anything else in the article that came any closer. 
 

Quote

Honestly Calm, we know from the people themselves that this happened.

And this justifies making stuff up about what Bergin said in the article?  I thought better of you.  Please explain that isn’t what you meant. 

Edited November 21, 2021 by Calm

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Did you read it?  I may have missed it given my ability to read in depth both times I have read it, but all I am seeing is self talk and desensitization.
 

Quote where it says he used electrical aversion therapy please under any label.  CFR
 

I reading him as emphasizing the only thing that works is internal self control, not external and using imaging techniques. 

After I posted that.  I edited that line out of my post. But the rest of my post seems pretty fair to me.  What do you think?

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

My own experience is that there was an advertisement for aversion therapy for binge eating/vomiting though it doesn’t say what kind. I have also read McBride’s study years ago…

So I wouldn’t be the least surprised if Bergin used it.  Aversion therapy was common back then, though if they used electrical shock at BYU, my guess is it would be on the arm as that was what most did and easier to hook up and less likely to be injurious. And one of the ways to create stimuli was having subjects imagine it.  But that was used in a variety of techniques, so self imaging isn’t equivalent to electrical aversion therapy or even aversion therapy. I have heard it used for desensitization much more. To s of self help books recommend it, for example.

 But I never took classes from Bergin or studied his work in detail…my husband had a booklet on approaching psychology from a gospel orientation, finally tossed it probably ten years ago unless he stuck it in a file somewhere as it is not in my little collection of psych lit where it used to be. My husband was unaware of him using aversion therapy, but he took a general psych course, so I don’t consider his experience conclusive. 
 

Me misreading is not that uncommon either, so I am not so confident in myself that even after two readings I am right. So please quote where I am wrong or stop making the claim. 

So are you completely dismissive of the men that actually went through thee McBride study and their accounts of what happened to them?  Why would you make assumptions yourself about what happened when you weren't there, nor does anything in the study suggest that electrical shock would be on the arm?  I linked to their testimonies.

[Tacenda]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yeah, I read it. Where in there is aversion therapy?  You don’t reduce fears by shocking people. 

“Positive” is not aversion therapy.  He saying he is having the client think positive thoughts about women in the case of homosexuals  

There is a huge amount and variety of psychological techniques. A statement saying they can’t detail them is no more an admission than I am admitting I drink beer if I say I can’t detail every beverage I’ve drunk over the years.

Again working with positives, appropriate skills, not decreasing undesired ones

These sentences are the closest possibility, but there is no suggestion that aversion therapy was used. In fact, later on the description is more like telling men to think of hymns when undesired thoughts enter their mind. 
 

Practicing in one’s imagination…where is the straping up and applying shocks when arousal or other undesired behaviour occurs?

So are they walking around wired up and hitting the button to weaken any undesired impulses?  It just doesn’t make sense as described that they used any electrical or vomiting aversion therapy. 
 

How anyone can get aversion therapy out of comparison to Christ resisting temptation…please explain this to me. 
 

This isn’t just reading between the lines, this is making stuff up as far as your quote is concerned and I don’t recall anything else in the article that came any closer. 
 

And this justifies making stuff up about what Bergin said in the article?  I thought better of you.  Please explain that isn’t what you meant. 

I added links and references. If after reading those and you want me to delete all of the post/edits I will. ETA: It looks like it happened, right? Or am I going insane?

I have this quote: https://universe.byu.edu/2014/04/08/a-history-of-the-byu-honor-code/Although therapy was required, Dye promised that “no student working through Standards will ever undergo aversion therapy.” Electroshock and vomiting aversion therapies were nonetheless used in special cases.¹¹⁹

Edited November 21, 2021 by Tacenda

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

After I posted that.  I edited that line out of my post. But the rest of my post seems pretty fair to me.  What do you think?

All I am examining is whether or not the claim Bergin admitted he used aversion therapy of any kind is true or not. 
 

It is not. 
 

Anyone repeating it loses credibility Imo. 

[california boy]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yeah, I read it. Where in there is aversion therapy?  You don’t reduce fears by shocking people. 

Actually, that is exactly what electrical shock therapy does.  The thinking was they could reduce fears of those that have a fear of having sex with straight women by shocking them when images of naked men were shown and then playing soothing music when showing them naked women.  It is how the study was done.

 

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

All I am examining is whether or not the claim Bergin admitted he used aversion therapy of any kind is true or not. 
 

It is not. 
 

Anyone repeating it loses credibility Imo. 

How is that even important to President Oaks denying that electrical shock therapy never happened after he became president of BYU?  Certainly you are not denying that McBride used electrical shock during President Oaks tenure.  

[Tacenda]

 

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

All I am examining is whether or not the claim Bergin admitted he used aversion therapy of any kind is true or not. 
 

It is not. 
 

Anyone repeating it loses credibility Imo. 

I edited to one of my responses and will put it here also:

https://universe.byu.edu/2014/04/08/a-history-of-the-byu-honor-code/

Although therapy was required, Dye promised that “no student working through Standards will ever undergo aversion therapy.” Electroshock and vomiting aversion therapies were nonetheless used in special cases.¹¹⁹

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

1 hour ago, Calm said:

So are you completely dismissive of the men that actually went through thee McBride study and their accounts of what happened to them?  

No, I am not. That was poorly written. I have referred multiple times to McBride’s study and never came close to claiming it was on the arm.  I am talking about both inclinations of the psych department and the hassle of that kind of setup in general likely leading most therapists at BYU at the time to use, if they used EAT at all, to go with the bland variety. 
 

I will rewrite that to make it clear I was speaking generally, I thought the context was sufficient.
 

I was referring to BYU and its own aversion to anything sexual, they had the models in life drawing wear leotards and McBride’s study was an effort to justify using clothed pictures rather than nude, the whole atmosphere at the time was this ridiculous caution about sexuality. Even the inexperienced student I was at the time could see the silliness of it, no doubt helped by the fact Mom drew from nude models as an art student. How in the world is one going to be able to correctly draw muscle definition if it is covered. It is laughable. 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

How is that even important to President Oaks denying that electrical shock therapy never happened after he became president of BYU?  Certainly you are not denying that McBride used electrical shock during President Oaks tenure.  

Because the article is being used as evidence.  Come on, CB, haven’t years of reading my posts taught you that if I see an inaccurate claim, no matter how trivial I tend to challenge it?

I have said multiple times I would not be surprised if aversion therapy was used at BYU, that I wouldn’t be surprised if Bergin used it. And I believe I have even pointed out that McBride identified “electrical aversion therapy” in his title when I was asking for a reference that he also used vomiting…not because I was denying the use of vomiting, but to be more informed. 
 

Using crap evidence does not help credibility of other claims. I would have thought it important to you to remove poor evidence so that there is no excuse to dismiss or diminish other evidence. 

Edited November 21, 2021 by Calm

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, I am not. That was poorly written. I have referred multiple times to McBride’s study and never came close to claiming it was on the arm.  I am talking about both inclinations of the psych department and the hassle of that kind of setup in general likely leading most therapists at BYU at the time to use, if they used EAT at all, to go with the bland variety. 
 

I will rewrite that to make it clear I was speaking generally, I thought the context was sufficient.
 

I was referring to BYU and its own aversion to anything sexual, they had the models in life drawing wear leotards and McBride’s study was an effort to justify using clothed pictures rather than nude, the whole atmosphere at the time was this ridiculous caution about sexuality. Even the inexperienced student I was at the time could see the silliness of it, no doubt helped by the fact Mom drew from nude models as an art student. How in the world is one going to be able to correctly draw muscle definition if it is covered. It is laughable. 

I was an art major at BYU, so yes I am very familiar with the aversion BYU had to nudity in the art department.  A policy that many of the art teachers did not agree with.  

But an art class is not comparable to a student doing his own study using electrical shock therapy to try and cure someone who is gay.  If you look a little deeper into how many of these experiments to change a person to straight, it was not uncommon at all to strap an electrode on the man's penis.  

Quote

An offshoot of these techniques was “aversion therapy,” which was founded on the premise that if LGBTQ people became disgusted by homosexuality, they would no longer experience same-sex desire. Under medical supervision, people were given chemicals that made them vomit when they, for example, looked at photos of their lovers. Others were given electrical shocks—sometimes to their genitals—while they looked at gay pornography or cross-dressed.

 

[california boy]

 

 

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because the article is being used as evidence.  Come on, CB, haven’t years of reading my posts taught you that if I see an inaccurate claim, no matter how trivial I tend to challenge it?

I have said multiple times I would not be surprised if aversion therapy was used at BYU, that I wouldn’t be surprised if Bergin used it. And I believe I have even pointed out that McBride identified “electrical aversion therapy” in his title when I was asking for a reference that he also used vomiting…not because I was denying the use of vomiting, but to be more informed. 
 

Using crap evidence does not help credibility of other claims. I would have thought it important to you to remove poor evidence so that there is no excuse to dismiss or diminish other evidence. 

I guess I am unclear what you are trying to assert about Bergin and how that would discredit what we absolutely know as fact that happened at BYU.

The fact that I do think you try to find the complete answers and deal with issues from as non-bias position as you can is exactly why I am challenging you on some of the things you are stating.

 

Edited November 21, 2021 by california boy

[Calm]

 

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I added links and references. If after reading those and you want me to delete all of the post/edits I will. 

Yeah, I do. There is nothing in there that suggests EAT, especially not controversial placements (saying this because sometimes the wires were placed not on the penis, but next to it on the thigh in many studies from what I read, speaking generally and not in reference to BYU…I imagine that placement would be quite humiliating and painful as well, not dismissing but trying to be accurate in my description of how the technique was performed in general as I think people should be educated about the general technique if reading claims about it for better context. 
 

It is therefore imo irresponsible to use the New Era article as evidence for EAT in any context.  I am not trying to save Pres Oaks’ reputation. That is a separate issue. I have easily (meaning I don’t have doubt so will publicly state it where and when appropriate) admitted Joseph lied to Emma and I believe about polygyny publicly, so if I see sufficient evidence I will state I think Pres Oaks lied.
 

However, accusations of lying are significant. I believe evidence should be solid before claiming lying as a fact, whether for Pres Oaks or McBride or the men who participate in therapy of any kind at BYU for homosexual feelings.  I even think the original claim of the New Era magazine could have been a result of too strong a desire to find evidence leading to a misreading.

[Kenngo1969]

28 minutes ago, california boy said:

I guess I am unclear what you are trying to assert about Bergin and how that would discredit what we absolutely know as fact that happened at BYU. ...

Simply that, whatever else happened at BYU, whomever else was involved, it is inaccurate to say that Bergin used electroshock aversion therapy.

Edited November 21, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

If you look a little deeper into how many of these experiments to change a person to straight, it was not uncommon at all to strap an electrode on the man's penis.  

Yes, I know that.  I also know it was not uncommon in my readings and discussions in class (granted, not a popular technique with most my profs as they were not behaviourists except one and he didn’t work in that area to the best of my knowledge, worked with ‘juvenile delinquents’, he did a lot of fostering, I learned how to train chicks to peck a button for food in his class) to read descriptions of placing it next to the penis in context for arousal of anything thought sexual deviance at that time.  I wonder how many who placed it on genitals did it to themselves first in order to understand the client better.   I am guessing placement on the thigh was used because of the squeamishness of the researcher or a desire not to totally humiliate the client, but maybe some were smart enough to be worried about injury. 
 

Now maybe anyone at BYU was more concerned with eliminating homosexuality so that if they used EAT the preferred method was on the penis. Certainly within the realm of possibility for me. 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Simply that, whatever else happened at BYU, whomever else was involved, it is inaccurate to say that Bergin used electroshock aversion therapy.

Not exactly. He very well may have used EAT. The article itself does not prove he didn’t any more than it proves that he did. EAT is not identified in the article, so no conclusions can be drawn about it.  What little I remember about his theories and techniques suggests to me he didn’t, but don’t have anything definitive either way.  I will ask my husband if by chance he has a stronger opinion as he had much more interaction with him than me.

Edited November 21, 2021 by Calm

[Tacenda]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

Yeah, I do. There is nothing in there that suggests EAT, especially not controversial placements (saying this because sometimes the wires were placed not on the penis, but next to it on the thigh in many studies from what I read, speaking generally and not in reference to BYU…I imagine that placement would be quite humiliating and painful as well, not dismissing but trying to be accurate in my description of how the technique was performed in general as I think people should be educated about the general technique if reading claims about it for better context. 
 

It is therefore imo irresponsible to use the New Era article as evidence for EAT in any context.  I am not trying to save Pres Oaks’ reputation. That is a separate issue. I have easily (meaning I don’t have doubt so will publicly state it where and when appropriate) admitted Joseph lied to Emma and I believe about polygyny publicly, so if I see sufficient evidence I will state I think Pres Oaks lied.
 

However, accusations of lying are significant. I believe evidence should be solid before claiming lying as a fact, whether for Pres Oaks or McBride or the men who participate in therapy of any kind at BYU for homosexual feelings.  I even think the original claim of the New Era magazine could have been a result of too strong a desire to find evidence leading to a misreading.

I think what can work is Pres Oaks may not be outright lying, but possibly lying by omission of further information?

Also, in my readings I read that the therapies were taking place in a building not on campus perhaps. Now I need to find where I read it. Also, the instrument didn't shock the penis, but shocked maybe the arm or torso or ? And it happened when the penis was aroused, sorry if I gave TMI. And hopefully, I'm remembering correctly.

ETA: Found where I read where therapies took place. Not sure if they always were done there: 

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/mormon-gay-cures-reparative-therapies-shock-today/story?id=13240700

"BYU said its counseling services never conducted such treatment, but O'Donovan counters that he was evaluated by Joseph Smith Family Living Center, another service on campus."

Edited November 21, 2021 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

50 minutes ago, california boy said:

If you look a little deeper into how many of these experiments to change a person to straight, it was not uncommon at all to strap an electrode on the man's penis.  

And thus was a new kink born.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Actually, that is exactly what electrical shock therapy does.  The thinking was they could reduce fears of those that have a fear of having sex with straight women by shocking them when images of naked men were shown and then playing soothing music when showing them naked women.  It is how the study was done.

 

Yeah, you got a point there. I was focusing on the specific negative stimulus response part that encourages avoidance, not the entire therapy process that is meant to have the client replace the avoided behaviour with the desired behaviour.  Fear of getting zapped or other uncomfortable stimulus (vomiting, rubber snapping, etc) was believed to decrease likelihood of the behaviour desired to be changed by association with the negative stimulus and then the corresponding pleasurable experience would increase the occurrence of the desired behaviour by that association. 
 

The application of electrical negative stimulation in response to a behaviour is punishment (I am using this in the clinical sense where there are four types of behavior modification/operant conditioning, two types each ofreinforcement and punishment, punishment being either the application of a negative stimulus or the removal of a positive one).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning

Hopefully, I haven’t been sloppy in the above. Feel free to point out errors, been way too long since I studied this and wiki is not really a decent refresher course. 

Edited November 21, 2021 by Calm

[california boy]

28 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Simply that, whatever else happened at BYU, whomever else was involved, it is inaccurate to say that Bergin used electroshock aversion therapy.

I agree, without hard evidence it shouldn't be stated as fact.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

 It is how the study was done.

Not McBride’s as his was both clothed and nude. Can’t remember the positive stimulus, bern too long. If by study, you mean McBride’s and not in general, I will take your word for it as that detail is even too trivial for me.   

Dang, having said that, now I want to confirm it, lol.