The Theory Behind Treating Detainees Like Dogs

Jacob Sullum | August 12, 2009

The New York Times reports that the psychological theory underlying the enhanced/coercive/tortuous interrogation methods used by the CIA during the Bush administration was that inducing a state of "learned helplessness" in detainees would make them cooperative and eager to spill the beans:

During a break [at a 2001 meeting on Muslim extremism] , [Jim] Mitchell [a psychologist and CIA consultant] introduced himself to [University of Pennsylvania psychologist Martin] Seligman and said how much he admired the older man's writing on "learned helplessness." Dr. Seligman was so struck by Dr. Mitchell's unreserved praise, he recalled in an interview, that he mentioned it to his wife that night. Later, he said, he was "grieved and horrified" to learn that his work had been cited to justify brutal interrogations.

Dr. Seligman had discovered in the 1960s that dogs that learned they could do nothing to avoid small electric shocks would become listless and simply whine and endure the shocks even after being given a chance to escape....

Dr. Mitchell, colleagues said, believed that producing learned helplessness in a Qaeda interrogation subject might ensure that he would comply with his captor's demands. Many experienced interrogators disagreed, asserting that a prisoner so demoralized would say whatever he thought the interrogator expected.

Mitchell's theory is dubious on its face, since the dogs in Seligman's experiments were conditioned to expect they'd be punished no matter what they did. Their "learned helplessness" meant they no longer perceived a connection between their actions and the way they were treated. Isn't that exactly the opposite of the way you'd want a detainee with important information to feel?

Evidently it took 83 waterboardings sessions to induce learned helplessness in Abu Zubaydah, while for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed the magic number was 183. In Zubaydah's case, the Times says, "the prisoner had given up his most valuable information without coercion." The story does not weigh in on the question of whether waterboarding Mohammed produced anything of value. But I bet neither prisoner tried to escape.

[Thanks to Tricky Vic for the link.]

Comments

squarooticus|8.12.09 @ 12:31PM|#

Discussing the utility of torture is entirely beside the point.

|8.12.09 @ 12:41PM|#

Dr. Seligman had discovered in the 1960s that dogs that learned they could do nothing to avoid small electric shocks would become listless and simply whine and endure the shocks even after being given a chance to escape....

Too bad Hit & Run wasn't around in those days, he could have avoided torturing those poor dogs by just observing libertarian behavior.

|8.12.09 @ 12:47PM|#

War Crimes goddamnit! Decorate a wall with bits of W's and Rummy's brains.

|8.12.09 @ 12:49PM|#

Evidently it took 83 waterboarding sessions

Sigh. Still with the intentional misrepresentations. There were only a handful of sessions with Mohammed, as most people would understand that statement, although there apparently were 83 "pours" during that handful of sessions.

Isn't what happened bad enough, without trying to mislead people?

|8.12.09 @ 1:12PM|#

"Live with a man forty years. Share his house, his meals...speak on every subject...then tie him up, and hold him over the volcano's edge, and on that day, you will finally meet the man."

|8.12.09 @ 1:12PM|#

he could have avoided torturing those poor dogs by just observing libertarian behavior.

ziiiiiiiing

Tomcat1066|8.12.09 @ 1:13PM|#

"The New York Times reports that the psychological theory underlying the enhanced/coercive/tortuous interrogation methods used by the CIA during the Bush administration was that inducing a state of "learned helplessness" in detainees would make them cooperative and eager to spill the beans"

They could have just made them watch American Idol.

|8.12.09 @ 1:14PM|#

yawn

|8.12.09 @ 1:26PM|#

For the record -

I would never treat a dog the way Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed were treated.

|8.12.09 @ 1:28PM|#

Sigh. Still with the intentional misrepresentations. There were only a handful of sessions with Mohammed, as most people would understand that statement, although there apparently were 83 "pours" during that handful of sessions.

I know how to settle this. Let's go to the videotape.

Oh wait ...

Spoonman|8.12.09 @ 1:58PM|#

Ugh. Nauseous.

Nikola T|8.12.09 @ 2:00PM|#

I understand your disgust with torture, but it is a useful tactic. I have stated my opinion in the past to much derision by other libertarians.

But please review this quote:
If the enemy shall put to death, torture or otherwise ill-treat any of the hostages in their hands,... recourse must be had to retaliation as the sole means of stopping the progress of human butchery, and... for that purpose punishments of the same kind and degree [should] be inflicted on an equal number of their subjects taken by us till they shall be taught due respect to the violated rights of nations."


Any guesses who said that?

We must limit the REASONS for war not the methods.

Spoonman|8.12.09 @ 2:06PM|#

it is a useful tactic.

Who cares? Slavery's useful, to some people. Doesn't make it any less abhorrent.

Les|8.12.09 @ 2:16PM|#

We must limit the REASONS for war not the methods.

We mustn't limit the methods of war? That's a fine philosophy for video games, an abhorrent one for real life.

|8.12.09 @ 2:30PM|#

"Dr. Seligman had discovered in the 1960s that dogs that learned they could do nothing to avoid small electric shocks would become listless and simply whine and endure the shocks even after being given a chance to escape...."

And Thomas A Edison publicly electrocuted dogs, cats, horses and cows. In 1903 he jumped at the chance to electrocute an elephant on Coney Island.

He now has an institute named after him as well as a college.

What did Michael Vic get?

Nikola T|8.12.09 @ 2:31PM|#

No. That's a fine philosophy for ending a war. In unicorn, la la, magic gumdrop, Obama land, wars will end just because people come to their senses. In reality, the methods will be whatever is necessary to complete the job. Each side will use ever increasing methods until one succumbs.

All that being said, I do not agree with the wars in which we are engaged, therefore, I do not agree with the tactics. But if there was a justifiable war, I would not want any means taken off the table to end it quickly.

|8.12.09 @ 2:32PM|#

"Evidently it took 83 waterboarding sessions to induce learned helplessness in Abu Zubaydah, while for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed the magic number was 183"

That's POURS you worthless propagandista. POURS!

Nikola T|8.12.09 @ 2:32PM|#

EAP, was that for me? How nice.

Nikola T|8.12.09 @ 2:32PM|#

(the Edison thing?)

|8.12.09 @ 2:33PM|#

""Live with a man forty years. Share his house, his meals...speak on every subject...then tie him up, and hold him over the volcano's edge, and on that day, you will finally meet the man.""

You are one kinky MF, Epi.

|8.12.09 @ 2:36PM|#

"EAP, was that for me? How nice."

Ego much?

|8.12.09 @ 2:38PM|#

All that being said, I do not agree with the wars in which we are engaged, therefore, I do not agree with the tactics. But if there was a justifiable war, I would not want any means taken off the table to end it quickly.

So you're good with raping little girls a tactic of war if it works, right?

Les|8.12.09 @ 2:42PM|#

No. That's a fine philosophy for ending a war. In unicorn, la la, magic gumdrop, Obama land, wars will end just because people come to their senses.

I don't know what Obama has to do with anything, or who has argued that wars will end "just because people come to their senses." No more strawmen, please.

But if there was a justifiable war, I would not want any means taken off the table to end it quickly.

Who's to say if a war is "justifiable?" The only people who have any say are in the government. In the government's eyes, our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are justifiable, so if they subscribe to your point of view, carpet bombing, civilian assassinations and terrorism, or even nuclear weapons are viable options.

What on earth has the government done to deserve to be trusted with this kind of power?

|8.12.09 @ 2:52PM|#

"So you're good with raping little girls a tactic of war if it works, right?"

I've seen the horror. Horrors that you've seen. But you have no right to call me a murderer. You have no right to call me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that, but you have no right to judge me . It's impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror. Horror has a face, and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and mortal terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies t o be feared. They are truly enemies.
I remember when I was with Special Forces--it seems a thousand centuries ago--we went into a camp to inoculate it. The children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for polio, and this old man came running after us, and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went there, and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile--a pile of little arms. And I remember...I...I...I cried, I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out, I didn't know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it, I never want to forget. And then I realized--like I was shot...like I was shot with a diamond...a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought, "My God, the genius of that, the genius, the will to do that." Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they could stand that--these were not monsters, these were men, trained cadres, these men who fought with their hearts, who have families, who have children, who are filled wi th love--that they had this strength, the strength to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men, then our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral and at the same time were able to utilize their primordial i nstincts to kill without feeling, without passion, without judgment--without judgment. Because it's judgment that defeats us.

- Colonel Kurtz

www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGosYIlXdmU

Nikola T|8.12.09 @ 2:59PM|#

See? It happens every time... Blah...

Did any of you read the quote above? That was Thomas Jefferson's view of torture.

If it's good enough for TJ, than it's good enough for me. He did not live in fantasy land. He understood terrible things can be necessary in a time of war. Some wars are justifiable. Most are not. It's the reasons we're torturing that you really have a problem with, not the acts themselves.

Nikola T|8.12.09 @ 3:03PM|#

Ego much?

Edison electrocuted animals in an attempt to scare the public away from the alteernating current being proposed by "Nikola T"

I thought you were making a reference.

Les|8.12.09 @ 3:03PM|#

"I swallowed a bug..."

and

"I can't think of any more dialogue today."

- Marlon Brando, in between takes as Colonel Kurtz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHDjbsydWI4&feature=related

|8.12.09 @ 3:04PM|#

If it's good enough for TJ, than it's good enough for me.

Knocked up any slaves lately?

Les|8.12.09 @ 3:07PM|#

If it's good enough for TJ, than it's good enough for me.

Tom was a genius and often right, but with this, you're saying that slavery is good enough for you.

It's the reasons we're torturing that you really have a problem with, not the acts themselves.

You really ought not to tell people what they're thinking, because, besides it being incredibly arrogant, you'll usually be wrong, as in this case.

Nikola T|8.12.09 @ 3:17PM|#

Ok, Les... When I steal your child and flaunt that I have him hidden away being severely mistreated, we'll see where your principles are overcome by reality.

You would do anything that was effective. If not, then you are a pathetic moron.

The Gobbler|8.12.09 @ 3:21PM|#

I'm with Nikola T on this. The Geneva Conventions are for Pussies.

|8.12.09 @ 3:26PM|#

Mr. Tesla, as has been stated numerous times, "24" is not reality. The ticking time bomb scenario that continues to be flaunted by pro-torture individuals continues to have no merit.

Nikola T|8.12.09 @ 3:34PM|#

ARGH!!!

I'm not saying it's a "24" scenario! I'm saying it's a matter of what the REASONS are. If it is more moral to conduct the torture than it is to refrain, then we should do it. In this circumstance, I'm with you. But I can also envision, as could Thomas Jefferson, instances where it would be justified.

Alright, I'm done... You will continue to argue the utilitarian reasons against torture to support the moral ones and vice versa and totally miss the point.

|8.12.09 @ 4:03PM|#

Nikola, in your child kidnapping scenario, what's to prevent the torturee from giving false information, and causing you to waste time (during which your child is continuing to be mistreated) figuring out that it's false?

Mike|8.12.09 @ 4:31PM|#

And there you have it.

"It may be a moral necessity, but it doesn't work."

On the other hand...

"Ok, it can be effective, but it's not moral."

It's circular logic. You guys are proving his point.

|8.12.09 @ 4:38PM|#

"""although there apparently were 83 "pours" during that handful of sessions."""

Source?

So what's worse, one pour 83 times, or 83 pours one time?

|8.12.09 @ 5:01PM|#

How is that circular logic? Neither statement supports the other, or pretends to?

|8.12.09 @ 5:09PM|#

Torture is never moral. But you may find what you believe is a legit reason to be as unmoral as your opponent. Two wrongs don't make a right.

But three rights make a left.

All the evil people in the world have a justification for their actions.

Les|8.13.09 @ 7:18PM|#

When I steal your child and flaunt that I have him hidden away being severely mistreated, we'll see where your principles are overcome by reality. You would do anything that was effective. If not, then you are a pathetic moron.

What is this "reality" you're speaking of? Your example here is so out of touch with reality that it's useless. Hypothetically, no, I wouldn't torture you, because there is more evidence to suggest that torture is ineffective than otherwise.

I know that it's your opinion that torture is effective. I also know that there are lots of lots of experts in the field who say it isn't. Why would the opinions of a guy who condones slavery and has no experience in the field of interrogation matter more to me, or any thinking person, than the opinion of experts in the field?