Aversion Therapy at BYU

[bluebell]

On 3/18/2022 at 3:35 PM, Canadiandude said:

My accusation was that there appears to be a disconnect between your scholastic expectations for the FAIR article vs. the Wikipedia article, both of which are volunteer based.

I asked someone who had read both articles to give me their thoughts on the one that I had not read, explaining my own bias of it, which comes from my background getting my BA degree in history.  I read the FAIR article and did not find it to be bad scholarship, though it was lacking in some areas.  That would be expected though, from my perspective, given how short it was and that it didn't appear to be trying to be comprehensive.

For me, the questions to ask with these kinds of papers is not whether or not I agree with them but whether or not the conclusions they have come to are reasonable, given the evidence or sources they have to work with.  Often there are multiple reasonable conclusions that can be made from the same sources because the picture is never complete and some interpretation is always required. 

That is how a study of history works.  Most people who have never studied history don't really understand that.  I didn't understand it until I got to my 3rd year of college, many history courses in already.

Quote

I took issue with the fact that you dedicated less space to critically appraise the lack of peer-review and scholarly consultation, compared to how you’ve approached victim accounts which undermine the article.

I didn't feel the need to critically appraise either work.  I read through one and, at that time, had not yet read through the other.   As I was honest about before, I will likely not ever view wiki as being on par with other scholarship.  

Quote

 

I acknowledge that the ‘like’ comment is by itself insufficient. Words. Space. What we’re willing to overlook vs. take issue with.

These are choices that matter.

 

I agree.  We all have to make these choices for ourselves because time is a finite resource.  I have some issues with what you've been willing to overlook vs. what you've taken issue with.  But I haven't felt the need to accuse you of anything regardless.  It's not how I'm choosing to use my time on this board.  

[SwedishLDS]

There is a good FairLatterDaySaint article on this. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu

Some of the most important points are:

1. There is no evidence President Oaks had knowledge of the research during his time as president of BYU. BYU is a large university with many students conducting many research projects. There is no reason why Oaks would have known about the research, and no evidence that he did know.
2. The research on aversion therapy was thoroughly mainstream at the time of Thorne’s practice and McBride’s study. Aversion therapy research was still being conducted by numerous secular and religious practicing psychologists and researchers, and was still considered a mainstream treatment for unwanted sexual attraction leading to unwanted behavior.
3. The electric shocks used in the aversion therapy were extremely weak and not at all dangerous. Subjects were shocked only on the arm or leg, and never on the genitals. The study participants had control over the amplitude of the current, and gave full informed consent to everything that happened. There are FDA-cleared devices purchased for voluntary use today that use far stronger shocks to treat pain.
4. Thorne’s patients and McBride’s research subjects were voluntary participants. Indeed, if they had been under duress they would have tainted the results of the research, so McBride had no incentive to accept reluctant or unwilling participants.
5. The aversion therapy was not meant to change sexual orientation in the way we understand the term today. It was meant to help the patients control their desires and behaviors. It is different from “conversion therapy” as the term is used today.
6. McBride’s disclosure statement to the study participants explicitly disclaimed endorsement by BYU. All subjects signed and had witnessed a prepared statement explaining (a) the experimental nature of the treatment procedure, (b) the use of aversive electric shock, (c) the showing of images that might be construed by subject as offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not endorsing the procedures used.

Edited April 13, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, SwedishLDS said:

There is a good FairLatterDaySaint article on this. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu

Some of the most important points are:

1. There is no evidence President Oaks had knowledge of the research during his time as president of BYU. BYU is a large university with many students conducting many research projects. There is no reason why Oaks would have known about the research, and no evidence that he did know.
2. The research on aversion therapy was thoroughly mainstream at the time of Thorne’s practice and McBride’s study. Aversion therapy research was still being conducted by numerous secular and religious practicing psychologists and researchers, and was still considered a mainstream treatment for unwanted sexual attraction leading to unwanted behavior.
3. The electric shocks used in the aversion therapy were extremely weak and not at all dangerous. Subjects were shocked only on the arm or leg, and never on the genitals. The study participants had control over the amplitude of the current, and gave full informed consent to everything that happened. There are FDA-cleared devices purchased for voluntary use today that use far stronger shocks to treat pain.
4. Thorne’s patients and McBride’s research subjects were voluntary participants. Indeed, if they had been under duress they would have tainted the results of the research, so McBride had no incentive to accept reluctant or unwilling participants.
5. The aversion therapy was not meant to change sexual orientation in the way we understand the term today. It was meant to help the patients control their desires and behaviors. It is different from “conversion therapy” as the term is used today.
6. McBride’s disclosure statement to the study participants explicitly disclaimed endorsement by BYU. All subjects signed and had witnessed a prepared statement explaining (a) the experimental nature of the treatment procedure, (b) the use of aversive electric shock, (c) the showing of images that might be construed by subject as offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not endorsing the procedures used.

If interested there's a new radiowest podcast, local station in Utah, you may be interested in. 

https://radiowest.kuer.org/show/radiowest/2022-04-07/when-a-byu-student-tried-to-cure-homosexuality