Robbi Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 (edited) The South Australian Government in its wisdom has employed Professor Martin Seligman as its Thinker in Residence. Professor Seligman is being much lauded and praised for his theories on happiness but scratch the surface and there is something very dark and horrible. In the early 1960's (1965 I believe)Professor Seligman did a study on learned helplessness in dogs, I wont go into too much detail about what this monster did to a large number of dogs but ultimitely they were placed in metal boxes and given inescapable electric shocks of increased currencey and frequency until ultimitely many were killed This is not research this is just plain cruelty, I have been contacting the media to voice my outrage about this but I cant raise any interest. Today I am contacting the South Australian Attorney General John Rau about my disgust at this appointment, wish me luck.If you wish to contact John Rau his email address is [email protected]. I realise this probably will divide people as to what constitutes valid research involving dogs but after looking closely at this study I feel this went way too far. Thankyou Edited December 12, 2011 by Robbi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raz Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Never heard of him but you're talking 50 years ago. Didnt they have Ethics Committees back then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 As far as I know though he hasn't done any shock work with dogs for a very long time. I've got a bit of learned helplessness stuff in my thesis so I know what you are talking about. LH was something that they discovered by accident and we now use that research to make animals lives better. I'm not sure you'll get far because it's ancient history but that sort of research with shock floors was very common and a lot of older animal psych researchers did it. I'm not sure any dogs died in those experiments at all, the shocks aren't enough to kill. I don't like those types of experiments at all but be careful of who is telling you about them because they aren't as gory as some make them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbi Posted December 12, 2011 Author Share Posted December 12, 2011 The experiments were conducted at The University of Pennsylvania in the mid 60's so ethic standards would have been very different, I think what concerns me is that South Australia has employed an American thinker in residence on the strength of his book Happiness and its causes without looking at his previous studies, I realise there are many experiments on dogs but I just cant get past this not being a well thought out appointment on the SA govts part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raz Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 The experiments were conducted at The University of Pennsylvania in the mid 60's so ethic standards would have been very different, I'm not defending the decision because I dont know anything about it, but you are aware that whenever you see a medical specialist they quite possibly conducted animal experiments at some stage. Do you call them torturers as well? Seems a pretty strong word to be using, especially on a public forum and if you're trying to gain public interest. I dont really know but I'd be having a bit of a think about that, especially in light of Rev Jo's post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 They would be aware of his previous work trust me, those experiments are famous and are key papers so the committee that would have reviewed him would know about them. They are his claim to fame in academia. They probably have a counter strategy ready and form letter for complaints. I don't like his early work but it has lead to good things and that is all they'll care about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbi Posted December 12, 2011 Author Share Posted December 12, 2011 They would be aware of his previous work trust me, those experiments are famous and are key papers so the committee that would have reviewed him would know about them. They are his claim to fame in academia. They probably have a counter strategy ready and form letter for complaints. I don't like his early work but it has lead to good things and that is all they'll care about. Your right Jo,I probably should not have said anything about this and will get a form letter for my response and I realise that good often comes of this sort of research but I just think that the public need to be aware of his past research practices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbi Posted December 12, 2011 Author Share Posted December 12, 2011 The experiments were conducted at The University of Pennsylvania in the mid 60's so ethic standards would have been very different, I'm not defending the decision because I dont know anything about it, but you are aware that whenever you see a medical specialist they quite possibly conducted animal experiments at some stage. Do you call them torturers as well? Seems a pretty strong word to be using, especially on a public forum and if you're trying to gain public interest. I dont really know but I'd be having a bit of a think about that, especially in light of Rev Jo's post. Sorry raz I have modified the title of the post so as not to offend his supporters. You are right there are some very valid experiments that have had brilliant outcomes but I think that people need to be aware of all of this mans research throughout his career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raz Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 No need to apologise, Robbi. You've just got to be a bit careful of accusing people of words like that in the public arena because it can come back to bite not only you but forum owners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Just be careful of where your info comes from about him. Just realised I only have a hard copy not electronic of the original paper, but I have an electronic copy of a review he did on LH if you'd like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbi Posted December 12, 2011 Author Share Posted December 12, 2011 Just be careful of where your info comes from about him. Just realised I only have a hard copy not electronic of the original paper, but I have an electronic copy of a review he did on LH if you'd like it. Thanks Jo, will pm you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christina Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I don't know anything about this but doubt you would get much response. It was recently in the media about a mayor in SA who was prosecuted & found guilty of animal cruelty. People objected to someone of these ethics being mayor but it was of no use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trishm Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I don't know anything about this but doubt you would get much response. It was recently in the media about a mayor in SA who was prosecuted & found guilty of animal cruelty. People objected to someone of these ethics being mayor but it was of no use. Sadly this is too true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raz Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Sadly this is too true. Why 'sadly'? Who in their right mind is going to take on a universally respected Prof of Psych on something he did 50 years ago with the approval of his Ethics Committee because one person wants to call him a torturer of animals. I'll ask again, have you ever seen a medical specialist and then abused them for conducting experiments 50 years ago for their PhD so they could cure you? I dont get it because a lot has changed in the last 50 years so bringing something up that he did half a century ago when it was accepted has absolutely no bearing on what he does today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trishm Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Sadly this is too true. Why 'sadly'? Who in their right mind is going to take on a universally respected Prof of Psych on something he did 50 years ago with the approval of his Ethics Committee because one person wants to call him a torturer of animals. I'll ask again, have you ever seen a medical specialist and then abused them for conducting experiments 50 years ago for their PhD so they could cure you? I dont get it because a lot has changed in the last 50 years so bringing something up that he did half a century ago when it was accepted has absolutely no bearing on what he does today. I was referring to the Mayor who was prosecuted and found guilty of animal cruelty, the people have protested about his election to no avail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 (edited) My concern about Martin Seligman becoming a 'thinker in residence' refers to his most current work. Which is extending on his very helpful contribution re the critical role of optimism and resilience. That work saw him being regarded (& fair enough) as having evidence-based practical ideas around 'happiness'. Some of this has been made available in school programs. But more lately he's taken his notions further, like picking up on empathy. One of his supporters, Richard Layard, from LSE, has not totally agreed with how he's done this & his understanding of empathy...and I can see why. (RL assisted getting the school programs up in the UK). Interesting that the OP's worries revolve around empathy in relation to animals. So I would hope that MS does the scholarly thing in his new role, by placing his work in a critical context, which refers to contrary views. There's even a view that (unlike RL's) takes the entire 'positive psychology 'movement to task. Like the publication of Smile or Die! So here's hoping that lots of good debate and thought will flourish around the new Thinker in Residence. (By the way, I agree that there's been great advances re the treatment of animals in research....in more recent times.) http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/15/flourish-science-of-happiness-psychology-review Edited December 13, 2011 by mita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christina Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Sadly this is too true. Why 'sadly'? Who in their right mind is going to take on a universally respected Prof of Psych on something he did 50 years ago with the approval of his Ethics Committee because one person wants to call him a torturer of animals. I'll ask again, have you ever seen a medical specialist and then abused them for conducting experiments 50 years ago for their PhD so they could cure you? I dont get it because a lot has changed in the last 50 years so bringing something up that he did half a century ago when it was accepted has absolutely no bearing on what he does today. For me personally, if I had any say in this decision, which I obviously I don't It would be more what kind of a person is this who could do & approve of this kind of an experiment ? No matter if it was approved in its day or not. How does someone have to behave re their past before we judge them for their current position if it is influential ? I am always skeptical of what is done under the guise of psychology, including the treatment of people too. It was quite torturous & inhumane for many people in the name of science & what was good for them. If I found someone had conducted experiments on people 50 years ago that were inhumane I would not want them treating me. No matter how good they were at their job. People working with dogs should be dog loving, we hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now