POOGI for ABA

Behavior analysts learn to train others with a procedure called Behavior Skills Training (BST). Part of implementing BST is modeling for the person learning how to implement the skill. Now the usual problem with this strategy is the trainer might have the right letters after their name, but can’t actually work with a person, and/or can’t model the skill well. Of course, that training is ineffective.

But the opposite problem can happen, too. If the trainer is too skilled and is able to do amazing things, it can easily intimidate a new person. Parents or staff who are trying to learn a skill instantly think things like, “I could never do that.” They can become afraid to try, and give up too quickly. Even if the person learning isn’t too intimidated to try, they may attempt to copy fine points that aren’t critical for task at hand, and training can take much too long.  Engelmann warned us about this problem.

Of course, we want trainers to be great implementers. But it is important to try to remember what it was like to be new to a skill. Often, people who have been doing this a long time and are very skilled have forgotten what it’s like to be a learner. It is hard to not model everything you know, but only what the learner needs to learn.

You can improve your training skills by remembering what it’s like to be a learner. You do that by constantly putting yourself in the position of being a learner. You need to do that anyway, because if you aren’t trying to learn new things, you aren’t on a Poogi.

In many movies there comes a point where the hero has to do something crazy. It has almost no chance to work! Why is he or she doing it? Well, there is no choice. If we don’t, everyone in the world, plane, building, or whatever is going to die. Often, the hero is arguing with a skeptic, but the skeptic gives in, and they go for it. It can’t get any worse. What other choice do we have?

As behavior analysts, we also tend to think that we can save the world, but we are taking a long view. By saving the world, we mean things like having an impact on climate change. I have been a professional behavior analyst for 25 years, and in my professional career, I have never faced a situation that where I had to do anything to save the world – at least not anything that required urgent and dramatic action.

But I have frequently used and faced end of the world logic:

“There are 200 aggressions per day, it can’t get any worse.”

“The school district said no to a 1-1, there is nothing else we can do.”

“We need to use X procedure. There is no other choice”

End of the world logic goes like this: There is crisis, and due to this crisis, we have no choice but to do (insert something risky and dramatic here).

In the heat of a meeting, stressful emergency situation, or other pressure, it is easy to fall victim to end of the world logic. We need to realize that end of the world logic is always wrong. Listen for it in difficult situations and it almost always appears.

End of the world logic seems convincing. We’ve seen it a thousand times in the movies.  When you hear EOTW logic, it should be a signal to slow down, think, call a mentor, or review the research literature. Poogi is always possible.

Maybe the solution proposed is a good one. Maybe not. But don’t accept EOTW logic as the reason for doing it.

The common saying “he can talk the talk, but can he walk the walk?” refers to some people who can talk a really good game. But you put a kid in front of them, and they have no idea what to do.

Now in behavior analysis, we believe that “talking the talk” does help you “walk the walk.” If you learn the professional vocabulary and analysis, you will improve your ability to design and implement high quality programs. But there are limits to “talking the talk.” For example, the great football coach Lou Holtz once broke two of his fingers trying to demonstrate a football skill to one of the players. There are plenty of situations where you might be an expert – but that doesn’t mean you can implement.

In order to have a high-quality program, we need both someone who can “walk the walk” and someone who can “talk the talk.” That someone doesn’t necessarily have to be the same person.

When considering who should design and run behavior change programs, I think there are two common mistakes:

Mistake 1: We think that if people can’t “talk the talk,” they shouldn’t work with an individual. Some people are not very strong on academic-type tasks, but, wow, can they teach! Often a behavior change program can make great progress using someone like this – we don’t care that they don’t know what the hell a Conditioned Reflexive Motivating Operation is, as long as they are successful with the student (e.g., reducing problem behaviors and teaching important skills).

Mistake 2: We tend to be overly impressed with people who can “talk the talk.” There are plenty of people that sound great in the meeting, but you don’t want them anywhere near a kid – even to train or coach staff.