[Editor’s notes: This transcript was prepared by Heather Shannon. The editors gratefully acknowledge her invaluable assistance.)
[This memo was typed in capital letters. This transcript retains the memo’s original spelling throughout.]
FF-4-A-3
11-26-77
TO: FATHER
FROM: TOM GRUBBS
SUBJECT: PSYCHOLOGY REPORT
In the following report, I do not want to sound presumptious, nor do I propose to lecture anyone. Rather, I wish to provide a synthesis of thoughts gathered from my readings, experience and present conditions.
It is my belief that we have several youths in various stages of alienation, not only fron the collective as persons, you as the leader, and the collective value system, but alienated from all individuals. This is represented in transactional analysis as the ego state, “I’m o.k. you are not o.k.” the subject believes he or she has been greatly and/or frequently wronged by another or others and has retreated from hurtful situations– isolating and insulating the ego for protection. However, inner needs can not be shut off so a great con job is initiated to justify why the subject should not re-enter personal relationships. An outcome is “I’m o.k., you are fucked up”. In this ego state, the subject provides his own ego food to sustain one or more characteristics of his shaky self image. The concept of self image becomes central to the process.
People in general have a very difficult time conceiving themselves as nothings, zeros. Indeed the more shaky the ego state, the more threatened the subject will be by thoughts of being a nothing or a nobody.
In response to the insecurity produced by insufficient ego feedback, the subject finds he can generate ego or image sustaining feedback in an intense personal manner by the generation of negative or hostile feedback. Each time he receives and endures a strong negative encounter, he has reaffirmed that he is not weak but strong. However, the negative feedback does not have the satisfying qualities of acceptance. Instead, it takes the character of
—–
-2-
the sexually insecure male who becomes emotionally addicted to sexual intercourse trying to affirm that: (1) he or she is not homosexual, or (2) that he or she is accepted. The subject becomes “hooked” on negative feedback, “love me or hate me, but don’t ignore me. In effect the subject is still dependant upon others but has changed the character of the relationship to one he can manipulate reliably.
Again, central to this dynamic is the theme of image identify and power. The subject gauges his power on how often, under what conditions, and to what degree he can anger others to cause them to act silly, foolish, zany or crazy as he (the subject) pulls the strings. The consequences of his acts feed his need for reassurance of personal integrity.
The above description is not intended to describe the masochist, or sado-masochist personalities.
I desire to suggest that there is another glandular response on which some persons become “hooked”. Particularly sneak thiefs and sexual deviates get a “high” very similar to a drug high from the glandular secretions which are pumped into the blood stream in response to high levels of fear and anxiety. Vincent Touchette was shocked when I described how he felt when he committed several of his thieveries and when caught, Jerry Livingston also spoke of the “adrenlin high” he experienced while burglarizing. I, too, have experienced this phenomena while on sexual escapades. This may account also for the statements of capitalist males who get a much better jag out of scoring with a hard-to-get woman.
I propose that we may desire to carefully evaluate our discipline system in regard to the sociopath, isolate and alienated individual.
—–
-3-
While Freudian psychiatry and counciling may perform the function of updating, reevaluating, determining causual factors for behavior and cause and effect relationships, it may be very slow to show results in the behaviorial level.
Rather, for some individuals, I recommend the Skinarian concepts of operant behavioral conditioning. Basic to this school of psychology is the belief that all acts are purposeful and goal oriented. That all behavior patterns are sustained by “pay-offs” or satisfying events. Thus, all behavior can be altered by controlling and changing the environments to withdraw the payoffs for undersirable behavior and provide the same, similar or more desirable pay-off for an alternate desired behavior. This system of analysis and control of sustaining factors has been highly successful with the treatment of sociopaths and psychotics. Central to administration of operant conditioning as a behavior modifying process are the concepts of “shaping” and scheduling of reinforcements. Briefly shaping means providing payoffs or satisfying experiences as rewards for behavior which must get closer to goal with each attempt. Briefly reinforcement scheduling means scheduling the reinforcing or rewards to maintain the operant behavior at the optimum level by not producing satiation of the desire for the reward elements. When satiation occurs, the motivation drops to zero and the operant level of the goal behavior drops off drastically. The goal then is to provide the reward regularly but requiring more performance period to achieve it. There is an entire field of study in reward scheduling.
In order to impliment such a program here would require a full time program here would require a full time program: developer/coordinator/monitor and analyst. I believe such a program has merit in areas that are hard to reach with guidance counciling such as isolates, alienated persons and sociopaths. Indeed, such a
—–
-4-
program may work very well as a pre-requisite to guidance and counciling.
Operant conditioning is concerned primarily with behavior modeling. Once the behavior is modeled, the new behavior is less apt to produce the negative feedback which fed the undesired behavior. This break in the cyclic system leads to extinction of cause as well as the observable effect.
The foremost difficulty with initiation of an operant conditioning program is the availability and desirability of rewards. I feel certain, however, that something could be done to implement the program.
Part no. 2. In answer to why some individuals function better and seem happier under closely supervised situations.
The need and desire for close structuring is common throughout the capitalist system. The volunteer military system has proven that young men will make many personal sacrifices to achieve a security provided by closely structured military behavior. Many will frankly admit, “I like it because I don’t have to think or make decisions, just do as i am told”.
I desire to consider two aspects of the situation. Both aspects involve education, but differently.
Education in the home by precept and example is (under capitalism) geared to the rational functions and deny, discredit and contradict the emotional aspect of children. Chikdren are, however, basically emotional animals until they develop sufficient tools of language to process abstract thoughts. So, in essense, the major part of the child’s life experience, being, is denied by unwitting adults who insist the child’s feelings are unreal or without justification. The net result is a great chasm between the raticial functions (emphasized greatly though superficially) and the emotional. In brief, the system creates schizophrenia. The person functions on two non-integrated levels. Since the person has received
—–
-5-
mostly negative feedback on his emotional nature, he learns to distruct [distrust] not only his emotions but also his ability to cope or control them. Emotions unexpressed seem to loom inside very large and very powerful – very devestating. The individual may be more freightened of the consequences of acting on his compulsions than being structured in a situation which does not emote those feelings or does not afford an opportunity for expression. The controlling structure then is viewed a haven, or shelter.
Secondly, education under classical education of capitalism is geared to knowing rather than doing. Knowing does not give sufficient feedback for the individual to develop a positive attitude and belief in his ability to control. To the contrary, the education of knowing as opposed to doing is so irrelevant and devoid of basic applicable meaning that again the individual does not develop a belief that he of she can function in the real word without supervision. The superficiality and hypocricy of capitalist life only emphasize the confusion and inability to cope with /s/ out seeking of guidance and structure. Persons lacking a basic training in cause-and-effect relationships feel deeply ill-at-ease making important decisions. They may come to believe that their mistakes are worse than others and learn to rely on the decisions of others.
Basically, the free individual begins learning early cause-and-effect relationships as the basic logic structure with which to evaluate events, their relevance and the validity of emotions.
The good training procedures do not deny the existence of “feelings” or emotions but recognizes that they are real things and helps the child examine them. By practice and experience the person finds confidence in his ability to evaluate, update, eradicate, foster, and emphasize his feelings. However, in order to achieve this, friends, guides, teachers and councilors treat the discussion (not the acting out) of feelings as real as apples. Then help the child determine the validity of those feelings. The child evaluates the feelings, the guide guides the introspection.
—–
-6-
As the child learns that the thoughts and feelings themselves are not harmful, he learns he can deal with them safely — they have no more power than he gives them, that he can examine them, disarm then, render them harmless and forget them.
The how and now
We can impliment the educational outline as described above. Basically, it begins first as teacher effectiveness training. Such training should include also supervisors. The conditions described for guidance and counciling should be a way of life expressed by all who work with children. We presently have many young “cottage parents” who lack basic understandong and awareness. They are now complicating the lives of children.
Please note: I do not propose a softy-soft, patsy approach to child rearing. I merely believe that we must treat all feelings as real things that can be evaluated objectively to determine validty. Feelings must be examined dispassionately. Irresponsible behavior must be dealt with more sternly. Behavior must be controlled by thoughts, not feelings (emotions).
/s/ Tom Grubbs
TOM GRUBBS