One of our subscribers very helpfully pointed out that digest versions do not include message numbers, only dates. So here's a second request to subscribers in this discussion board: if you happen to have digest copies of messages posted here between May 4 and May 19, 2004, I'd be very glad to hear from you. Please email me directly at: nexus23@sentex.net

And yet again, the current discussion board for "The Misbehaviour of Behaviourists" is here: http://www.quicktopic.com/27/H/vJvhV4fDnBgw7

Edited by author 07-03-2004 01:48 AM
After losing most of this board to a QT computer glitch, the good news is we've entirely restored messages 461 through 725 (to be published shortly).

Now I'm hoping that one of our "digest" subscribers will help fill in the blanks, namely the personal edits in messages 258 to 460 (which are not delivered to those who receive individual emails - such as myself).

If anyone has digest versions which include the above messages, please email me directly at nexus23@sentex.net

Many thanks.

Ralph Smith
naacanada

For further discussion in this thread, please refer to: http://www.quicktopic.com/27/H/vJvhV4fDnBgw7

According to the QT Webmaster, due to data error in this thread messages 257 to 725 cannot be restored to this board. We do have copies of all messages posted here, so no one's contributions have been lost. We'll make these publicly available as soon as possible.

In case anyone's puzzled about where two-thirds (messages 257 to 700-and-some), of this comment board went, ask my boss...there was a glitch. He's working on it. Apologies all 'round.

Hi Larry,
 
Most research, even the best Multiple Baseline Design or the tightest Solomon four group design will have some flaws. Even a novice can spot them. Imagine what a Frank Gresham could do. I could no doubt find some flaws in L-Carnosine research if I looked. Also a blind, control-grouped study may be totally inappropriate to your specific independent variable. This design logic makes sense in medicinal research and is depending on how it is actually used, a very strong design.

You wrote “Show me an ABA study with even a control group...”

(Lovaas, 1987; Smith, Groen, & Wynn, 2000; Eikseth, Smith, & Jahr, 2002) to name a few. All being discrete-trial research having control groups and quasi-random or random assignment.

Since the majority of ABA autism research is published in behaviorist journals which typically encourage single subject designs as opposed to group design logic, we see much more research occurring in this sort of format. This method is no less accurate provided it is done with a design logic that shows experimental control. The various virtues of the two design types are discussed elsewhere so I will not go into it here.

This is a very, very short list of single subject ABA research including some PRT and Incidental teaching, since you said “ABA”.

(Grindle, & Remington, 2002; Sigafoos, & Saggers, 1995; Newman, Needelman, & Reinecke, 2002; Woods, 1987; Koegel, & Carter, 2003; Weiss, & Harris, 2001; Kok, Kong, & Tan, 2002)

Also, this is some research where DTT is directly compared to other ABA methods.
 
(Delprato, 2001; Miranda-Linne, & Melin 1992; Charlop-Christy, &Carpenter, 2000)

I restricted this to peer reviewed journals and only used DTT, PRT, and Incidental Teaching. And even then I didn’t even try to put in everything. Just to give you a rough idea on ABA’s research base, a student I know just completed a review of all research articles in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (perhaps ABA’s flagship journal). She found over 900 studies. Many of these include persons with developmental disabilities including autism. And this is only one journal…

Thanks jypsy. Incidentally, it was your site that first connected me to other folks like David’s homepage, Autistics.org., NAA, and many others. This has had a huge effect on my perspective.

Edited by author 05-03-2004 08:31 PM
Hi John,

Of course I shouldn't have generalized about thin-skinned behaviourists. That's merely my experience with, and my reading of, many behaviourists in autism, and I don't pretend to know why they behave as they do.

I forgot to mention that the assumption that autistics (in this case all autistics across the spectrum) who do not get ABA deteriorate is still rolling along unopposed (by anyone else) in Auton.

Dr Smith was working with the Greenspan gang going back to--what--2001?, to organize an ABA vs DRI controlled trial. There would be no reason for this one not to be randomized. But, you can just imagine the diplomatic problems. Never mind funding, logistics, etc. Anyone know what came of this, or if it's still on?

Re Dr Lovaas' elusive aversives data, there aren't a lot of choices. Either the data are good, and one concludes that aversives were an essential "active ingredient" in obtaining Dr Lovaas' big number; or the data aren't good, and Dr Lovaas cited and referenced them anyway, and drew conclusions from them. I'm not sure how conscientious journal reviewers and editors are required to be. But if the data are suspect, then Dr Lovaas would either be incompetent or dishonest, or I suppose both.

In what I wrote I tried to assume competency and honesty so long as I didn't have direct evidence to the contrary. Your point that the data weren't published is important, but it wasn't enough for me to even comment on the veracity of the whole within-subjects-replication-design.

The project where the most data are easily available is the FBP. The JABA case study is awash with data. You have the actual graphs. I'm not sure I've seen an autism case study anywhere near as thorough.

Here's Dr Maurice giving her inspirational speech to the behaviour analysts: http://www.behavior.org/autism/Catherine_Maurice.pdf , wherein the relative merits of behaviourist (organisms emiting whatever) and popular (emotional) language are discussed. There's also a lesson in the quantitative difference between JABA and Reader's Digest.

I have a question, John. I noticed your radical behaviourist rejection of the medical model. This would require you to reject the "medically necessary" label for ABA in autism. Isn't "medically necessary" kind of anti-behaviourist? I'm totally guessing here; I haven't read my radical behaviourist primer for a while, and given my advanced age, need prompting.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

Edited by author 05-03-2004 06:23 PM
John wrote, "Behaviorists must be open to somewhat open to criticism if we are to succeed. "

Indeed. And I wouldn't say that there's anything inherent in behavioural theory per se that requires behaviourists to be hostile to autistic people with opinions.

In fact, given the emphasis on scientific objectivity, you behaviorists should be particularly interested in being open to criticism and scientific discussion.

Which seems to be where you as an individual are coming from (and as jypsy says, it's a refreshing thing to see).

However, there does appears to be a dominant culture within the field of ABA which is very hostile, in a wholly unscientific way, to the idea of autistic people daring to disagree.

If that wasn't so, I doubt very much that Mulick et al would feel comfortable expressing themselves in the way they just have.

As Michelle described, the Feminine Boy Project was subject to widespread criticism on ethical grounds from within the behavioural field, led by Donald Baer.

There seems no scientific reason why the use of ABA to try to make autistic children "indistinguishable from their normal peers" shouldn't be subject to exactly the same sort of criticism by behaviourists, for exactly the same reasons.

But, for whatever reason, it doesn't appear to be happening at the moment.

John wrote, "At least one professor made a personal attack upon Maurice. You can read about it in the book she edited “Making a Difference”. "

Maurice writes in said book - and I think this must be the reference you mean - "One California authority, author of one of the ubiquitous "let's describe the symptoms of autism one more time" books, publicly derided my children, who she has never met, and mocked the notion of their recovery."

Evidently this anonymous authority did not do so in print or in a public statement. So it's impossible to tell what precisely this "derision" consisted of.

But if "mocking the notion of their recovery" means expressing scepticism about claims that any autistic child has become 100% Normal - then I for one am certainly guilty of that.

It is not, however, the same as a personal attack on Maurice or her children.

Maurice devotes a good page in the same introduction to attacking Shirley Cohen for the heinous crime of writing about Lovaas-style ABA as one possible treatment among many, and appears to accuse her of having an especially evil plan to covertly attack ABA by "damning it with faint praise".

So I have a suspicion that Maurice's "derision" threshold may be rather low (she can also clearly give as good as she gets, given how insulting she is in that introduction towards anyone she deems to be an enemy or critic).

Incidentally, if one may make an inference from http://www.mnip-net.org/ddlead.nsf/linkview/Recovery (her "autism = cancer" piece) the "California authority" in question is Bryna Siegel. Siegel is - in print, at least - a moderate ABA supporter.

In any case, so far as I know, no authority in the autism field has gone on record in print or on the net and accused Maurice of a "personality disorder", or of, say, having conned someone in the government into thinking her children were autistic so that she could "live off" the autism field.

If you know of a counter-example, I stand to be corrected.

John,

You may be young but when it comes to recognizing and practicing truth, logic and respect here you seem wise beyond your years. Thanx for your input here, it has been such a wonderful change of pace to observe the intelligent, factual, respectful give and take that has gone on here.
-jypsy

Hi Michelle,

By the way, is that Judy Singer from ASPAR, the same one who is a mainstay on the ISNT.

You said “Clare's observations re the connection between defamation and diagnosis are bang on. Even AutCom, who you mention, has been treated a great deal more politely and accurately (see the Clarifying Comments 2000 paper).”

Unfortunately that is accurate.

I was discussing general behaviorist opinion on the promotion thing, not certifiable reality.

You said “How much good critical writing about ABA have you seen in the public?”

Come to think of it, none. Its even more of the same in most professional critiques.

I have never met or heard Dr. Maurice speak, nor do I recall any advice on selling ABA, although I am sure that it exists.

You said “My conclusion is that maybe behaviourists are very thin-skinned re any criticism whatsoever, especially if it comes from outside the field, and exponentially more so if it comes from a person who uses the very behaviours they "treat" to educate herself and form a critique.”

You are over generalizing more than I can agree with. Behaviorists must be open to somewhat open to criticism if we are to succeed.

You said “Or maybe it's insecurity: if behaviourists don't know other fields, they will not want to hear from them. Easier just to invalidate the other fields from afar. Dr Mulick, for instance, made a large sweeping statement about all cognitive scientists.”

I take note.

You said “Interesting that Dr Maurice was "attacked" by accusations that her kids weren't really autistic. Now, anyone who opposes any aspect of ABA is accused either of not having "really" autistic kids (if parents), or of not really being autistic (if autistic). The irony isn't mine, John; it just arises from an accurate description of reality.”

Yes, the irony is not lost on me. Nor is the irony of the irony, so to speak. I don’t know though…..you claim that Twain was too sophisticated for you, but I think you would have done him proud.

You said “Any behaviourist could earn my support by arguing with my position and winning. I'm not wedded to a particular field. I work in cognitive science just now because my criticisms in this area were greeted not with invective but with the challenge, to me, can I prove it?”

Yes and that is the way it should be. Good for the cognitivists. And unfortunately your most active behaviorist partner/adversary/student/whatever on this site is barely old enough to legally drink, let alone incline you to DTT and ABA.

Thanks Jypsy, I'll show it to everyone.

Hi Clare,

You said “On the other hand, the same individuals do seem to have mostly managed to reply to their other critics without resorting to slander (accusing Michelle of statements she did not make) or crossing professional boundaries to a grotesque degree (e.g. claiming that Michelle "can't" be autistic, or must have a "personality disorder").”

Most journal editors won’t accept really malicious writings, even so, some of the Lovaas and Gresham correspondence was getting a little feisty by the end. But, I agree with what you write here. There is no excuse for it, and I will not waste my time defending those authors comments.

You said “And this is not a question of anonymous writers of hate-mail - this is about well-known professionals (Mulick, Green et. al.) and allegedly "science-based" professional organizations (ASAT) making a public response to science-based criticism.”

At least one professor made a personal attack upon Maurice. You can read about it in the book she edited “Making a Difference”. But all the same, I will not support or justify non scientific attack, whether it occurs from Mulick, ASAT, AUTCOM, or anyone else.

You said “What explains their ability to maintain some sort of professional boundaries when responding to non-autistic critics, yet completely abandon them here?”

They don’t always. And besides, there is no excuse, no matter who does the talking. Even so I think I see your point.

You said “Given how much of the attacks on Michelle have centred round her autism - hysterical claims that she's "not really autistic", not autistic "like their children", is only falsely claiming to be autistic, etc. - I have to say I find it implausible that Michelle's autism is irrelevant here.To use your terminology, it does appear that the fact that criticisms are being voiced by an autistic person makes them especially aversive to some professionals in the field.”

Looking at this again, I suppose that this is accurate. Again, there is no excuse.

Larry wrote, "Show me an ABA study with even a control group..."

To be fair, a number of ABA studies have had control groups, including Lovaas's infamous 1987 study. However, they generally haven't been randomized or blinded (I think Smith (2000) was the only randomized trial).

And of course there's an ongoing question about what variable is actually being controlled for. For example, in Lovaas (1987) the variable which the study's design measured was the number of hours of one-to-one teaching (a lot versus a little) - it didn't in any way study ABA versus other treatments.

As far as I know, the only study to even try to compare ABA with another treatment or form of education with equivalent intensity is Eikeseth et. al.'s 2002 study, and in that instance the alternative was "eclectic treatment" (which seems like a fairly meaningless term, especially since the teachers delivering "eclectic treatment" evidently did so without the training, support or parent training given to the teachers working with the "behavioural treatment" group).

One more thought. What I would have had differently as a
child knowing what I know now:

 1) To know what was going on. Back then it was all our fault
    everyone just assumed we chose to not interact normally.

 2) Protection from bullies, if not home schooling. The amount
    of stress and damage to self esteem school does, seems to
    outweigh any positive benefits.

 3) L-Carnosine, its effect in the past 1.5 years had been
    life changing, its hard to imagine how much different
    life would be having started at a much earlier age.

    One of the only things to actually show a dramatic
    effect in a peer reviewed, blind study with a control
    group. And guess what it really works, amazing what
    real science can do. Show me an ABA study with even
    a control group...

 4) Sensory Integration Therapy done by a compassionate
    therapist.

 5) Access to a word processor at an early age. When your
    severely discordinated cursive hand writting is a waste
    of time. I print in the few rare cases that I need to
    write with a pen. Otherwise type everything.

In response to Lenny Schafer:

> It is time for some people with apparent Asperger's to
> stop dishonestly misrepresenting themselves as typical
> examples of people with autism.

The vast majority of autistic adults look like us, so no it
is not dishonest. Whats dishonest is pretending:

A) That there is an epidemic of autism.
B) That todays autistic children are all doomed without
   drastic therapy.

That said there are and have always been individuals with
very severe autism. There are people who do need serious
help, however the help offered seems quite questionable.

Autism is not a behaviour problem, its a set of neurological
conditions which often lead to stress and frustration which
then leads to behaviour problems. No one would complain
if all autistics where offered an effective treatment
without excessive side effects for sensory issues!

We do complain when people see only the actions and 'treat'
them as the problem without looking at the cause. What if
you had kidney stones and the doctor prescribe behaviour
modification instead of morphine for your screaming? Kidney
stones won't kill you, its just pain, an internal experience
which according to behaviourist theory is totally
irrelevant. Thats how autistics are often being treated!

> Michelle Dawson's apparent high functioning autism looks
> nothing like my son's low functioning autism.

1) Michelle Dawson is alot older than your son.

2) Autism is a spectrum, the majority of autistics are
   atleast eventually what you'd consider high functioning.
   Remember autistics often write better than we speak, and
   you've never seen the personal struggles of anyone your
   talking about.

> What may be appropriate treatment and care for someone
> with one kind of autism just may be a form of abuse to
> another.

This is of course true of any condition. But when it comes
down to ABA, if anything applying a behavioural model of
autism to low functioning autistics is even more abusive
than it is to high functioning autistics. They will have
more capacity to develop PTSD, they will have less chance
of understanding what hoops they have to jump through to
satisfy the demands placed on them.

I'm not saying that no behavoural approachs should ever be
used. There may be forms of destructive behaviour where
there is no choice. But behaviour is not the root issues in
autism.

Instead of fighting with and insulting adult autistics, why
don't you take advantage of this resource to understand your
son better? Many parents on alt.support.autism have found
input from autistics very useful in dealing with there own
children.

> it is about time people with Asperger's stop painting
> themselves as representative autistics.

1) In some countries there is no such distinction. There
   is high functioning autism. I can tell if a 50 year old
   is on the spectrum, I can't tell if they had a speech
   delay.

2) Again high functioning autistics represent the vast
   majority of autistics. So in a technical sense we are
   the most representative, not that it matters, everyone
   is an individual, and its silly to say someone is
   representitave of a broad spectrum.

3) The gap between high and low functioning is one of
   quantity not quality. We experience the same symptoms,
   just in reduced severity.

> There is a valid reason for there being a separate name of > Aspergers to distinquish it from the rest of autism.

Let me see you pick out the people out of a group of 50
year old autistics, which ones had the speech delay.
Basically your trying to define Asperger's as anyone who
at any point in there life can disagree with you. You then
presume to speak for all the 'real autistics' who are
unable to disagree with you in writting.

Hi John,

Clare's observations re the connection between defamation and diagnosis are bang on. Even AutCom, who you mention, has been treated a great deal more politely and accurately (see the Clarifying Comments 2000 paper).

I had overlooked the conflicting ABA confab. It seems, from what you say, that it's the behaviourists who, through their own decisions (conferences are scheduled predictably) are segregating themselves and their science from the rest of the scientific world in the area of autism.

As for the successful promotion of ABA, you are absolutely wrong. See any media stories: they are entirely, unquestionningly promoting ABA. I used the New Yorker article to exemplify this. You would think the New Yorker would be capable of journalism, but ABA in autism repels journalism as well as it repels all other critics. Again, this includes organizations like the CBC and The Globe and Mail in Canada, which are renowned for their journalism.

There's also the acceptance of ABA by autism researchers who don't know the field at all, and simply accept the going "consensus" without analyzing it.

How much good critical writing about ABA have you seen in the public? I've seen none. How many competent criticisms of ABA have appeared in legal proceedings? In Canada, all media reports about Auton assume the parents will win. ABA is described as "scientifically proven" and "medically necessary" and that's it. There's an entire provincial political party which has dedicated itself to promoting ABA, and has refused to speak with autistic people on this issue, see http://www.sentex.net/~nexus23/bio.html .

Have you seen Dr Maurice's advice to some ABA convention (I'm guessing; I have it in my pile of stuff somewhere) about popularizing the science? She advises about what language to use and not to use (she's a literary critic, after all) so as to effectively sell ABA.

Dr Malott wouldn't disagree that the popularity of ABA in autism can be linked to the publication, in a rather non-scientific journal (Reader's Digest), of an excerpt from Dr Maurice's extremely emotional book.

My conclusion is that maybe behaviourists are very thin-skinned re any criticism whatsoever, especially if it comes from outside the field, and exponentially more so if it comes from a person who uses the very behaviours they "treat" to educate herself and form a critique.

Or maybe it's insecurity: if behaviourists don't know other fields, they will not want to hear from them. Easier just to invalidate the other fields from afar. Dr Mulick, for instance, made a large sweeping statement about all cognitive scientists.

Interesting that Dr Maurice was "attacked" by accusations that her kids weren't really autistic. Now, anyone who opposes any aspect of ABA is accused either of not having "really" autistic kids (if parents), or of not really being autistic (if autistic). The irony isn't mine, John; it just arises from an accurate description of reality.

Any behaviourist could earn my support by arguing with my position and winning. I'm not wedded to a particular field. I work in cognitive science just now because my criticisms in this area were greeted not with invective but with the challenge, to me, can I prove it?

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

off topic and garbage!
try this instead - http://www.aspires-relationships.com/artic..._of_a_sterotype.htm

GUYS, guys, I'm completely off-topic again. But one of the guys on Aspergia found this:

http://www.aspar.klattu.com.au/

John wrote, "You probably have noted my dissatisfaction (extinction/aversive stimuli) with some other behaviorists in their means of making replies to your articles. As far as an analysis: I doubt it has much/anything to do with you being autistic. "

On the other hand, the same individuals do seem to have mostly managed to reply to their other critics without resorting to slander (accusing Michelle of statements she did not make) or crossing professional boundaries to a grotesque degree (e.g. claiming that Michelle "can't" be autistic, or must have a "personality disorder").

For example, I have yet to see Gresham or Mesibov being accused of having a "personality disorder"; nor have responses to Boyd involved his personal life (and a diagnosis of autism is certainly personal), accused him of conning professionals, or of wanting autistic children to rot in institutions, etc.

And this is not a question of anonymous writers of hate-mail - this is about well-known professionals (Mulick, Green et. al.) and allegedly "science-based" professional organizations (ASAT) making a public response to science-based criticism.

What explains their ability to maintain some sort of professional boundaries when responding to non-autistic critics, yet completely abandon them here?

Given how much of the attacks on Michelle have centred round her autism - hysterical claims that she's "not really autistic", not autistic "like their children", is only falsely claiming to be autistic, etc. - I have to say I find it implausible that Michelle's autism is irrelevant here.

To use your terminology, it does appear that the fact that criticisms are being voiced by an autistic person makes them especially aversive to some professionals in the field.

Edited by author 05-02-2004 11:03 PM
Hi Michelle,

You said “Last word on Rett's. Dr Lovaas and gang must have known before 1995. 1995 was just the year the Rett's study was published; I don't know when it was submitted.”

I agree. And they should have disclosed it.

You said “I sometimes wonder if this girl, who was the one with Rett's, is the source of the idea that without ABA, autistics deteriorate.”

Maybe, that is not a point I agree with anyway.

You said “Re the within-subjects-replication-design, Dr Lovaas farmed out his data to two of his students, and references these works in his study.”

True, but even then, the data never made it to a peer reviewed journal. This was McEachin’s Dissertation and was Ron Leaf and McEachin who did the APA presentation if I remember correctly. I might be able to get those data. It will probably take me a while though.

You said “Re the assessment of your clients, wow. Of course, everything is geared to the needs of anybody but the autistics. That's not news, but it's discouraging. Accurate diagnosis is a big deal in my area.”

No, I am not always thrilled by it either. I am happy to hear that accurate diagnosis is important in your area.

You said “Where does the info that the new DSM will segregate HFA and LFA come from? And when's this one come out? (I knew at one point and forgot.) This is going to be interesting, given my own work in the science, and the work of the group which puts up with me. My own view is that the demarcation is artificial.”

The next DSM is rumored to be out 2010. The HFA/LFA is only rumor and I don’t know the sources, but I have heard it discussed by several unconnected persons. There is a web site that also says this, I will try and find it. I have not made up my mind as to whether the demarcation between HFA and LFA is artificial.

You said “The isolation of behaviourists from the rest of the science in autism works both ways: behaviourists don't study anything else, and the rest of the field doesn't study the behaviourists. Both sides form their positions on the "other guys" via cliche and ideology rather than study.”

I loosely agree with this.

You said “On the other hand, within (eg) a cognitive group you have people who work in genetic studies, in epidemiology, in statistical analysis, in diagnosis, in neuroanatomy, and in education. All this experience is useful; it represents real expertise.”

Yes, and that’s not a bad thing at all. But this is still not all expertise and maybe not enough.

You said “Looking at the list of participants at IMFAR, I've spotted only three behaviourists. I haven't looked for a while. Maybe I've missed a few. But that's not a strong showing.”

Doesn’t surprise me. The Association for Behavior Analysis convention is this month. And I believe more people attend this than IMFAR (although I might be wrong). This would seem more important to most behaviorists. Lovaas is coming. I believe this is the first time he has come in a long time. It’s also Skinner’s Hundredth Birthday. People are spending a lot of time focusing on this year’s conference. Also as we have previously discussed, behaviorists are a little shy about presenting to non behaviorists, and about hearing non behavioral research. As I said before I was the only behaviorist presenter at the eclectic undergrad conference a few weeks ago. It wasn’t hard to get to. It was held at a College that was just a 15 minute walk from my University. Unfortunately we may have become a bit cliquish. In fact some of sub ABA conferences were begun because some behaviorists got tired of putting up with other paradigms and broke off, and started their own group. So the Midwestern Psychological Association Conference’s behavioral members started the Midwestern Association for Behavior Analysis and their own conference.

The great irony I see, is so many non ABA people are speaking of “Lovaas mania”, and the “ABA industry”, while most behaviorists (even very young ones) lament that we are so bad at promoting our ideas and methodologies. I am not kidding, ask most behaviorists if they think we do a good job explaining and promoting our technologies. They will almost always say we are terrible at it. Interesting huhhh……………..

You said “I don't think ideology ("I am a radical behaviourist") should interfere with pursuing knowledge in other areas.”

I hope it doesn’t. I would be limiting myself in the short term, and those children and University students I hope to teach in the long term.

You said “Maybe, John, since you've mentioned bullies, you can conduct a functional analysis of why, when the critic is an autistic, behaviourists with few exceptions are unable to behave themselves properly when confronted with a fact-based argument. Why the invective?”

You probably have noted my dissatisfaction (extinction/aversive stimuli) with some other behaviorists in their means of making replies to your articles. As far as an analysis: I doubt it has much/anything to do with you being autistic. You make some statements that most behaviorists would strongly disagree with. Other times, frankly, you are hitting the nail on the head and the truth hurts. You are presenting aversive stimuli and some folks are making escape or avoidance responses (negative reinforcement). This is especially true because you have not suggested acceptable (to behaviorists) scientific replacement strategies. There have been times when I have been on certain non/anti-behavioral web sites and even I had to stop and walk away from the computer for a few minutes because I felt more than a little angry (AUTCOM comes to mind). This doesn't mean I wouldn't listen and carefully consider even what they say. I am just sharing an example of an annoyance for myself and other behaviorists. You are also skilled enough to present your work in a formal, logical, and sometimes ironic manner. The irony will especially will push some buttons. So they begin to say things like “she isn’t autistic”, or they respond with blatant sarcasm. Also even most professionals make non scientific based criticisms of DT, or ones that are very sloppily researched e.g. (some Greenspan material, some TEACCH critiques, Son-Rise, etc….). You on the other hand, have clearly spent some time learning about DT and the research base. Your critiques both in paper and message board format, are perhaps the most accurate I have seen.

I should note that invective is not limited to behaviorists or autistics. This general field is one of the more volatile I have seen. Even Maurice writes about the non-fan/hate mail she receives. Also some of the invective behaviorists have put up with feels very aversive e.g. (you train kids to be robots, behaviorism makes pompous decisions about how children develop, and dehumanizes them). These are all being real things that I have read. Even Bettleheim got his two cents in against us. Perhaps we have over generalized across our critics. We might have, to borrow the words of Jim Crawford “thrown out the baby with the bathwater.”

You said “And geez, I thought you were here to learn. That's why I'm here.”

I am very much here to learn. And I am happy to have the chance.

Hi Clare,

Ahh... yes, Julie married Ed Vargas. I was just kidding about Deborah marrying him.

You said “Given that she didn't in fact have autism, which was one of the criteria for involvement in the study, clearly she did not in fact meet at least one of the qualifications”.

But she may have met qualifications by the DSM-III standards. Of course she does not today.

Yes, it should have been acknowledged as soon as Lovaas knew.

You said “As to how it came about that she was included in the study nonetheless, I have no hypothesis - I am merely expressing my puzzlement”

I don’t know for certain but it seems intuitive to me. She was in an early stage of Retts development in an era when we knew less about Retts in general and she was diagnosed autistic according to that (DSM-III) system and included in the study. I expect she still met IQ prerequisites due to being in an early stage.

Edited by author 05-02-2004 02:45 PM
Hi John,

Last word on Rett's. Dr Lovaas and gang must have known before 1995. 1995 was just the year the Rett's study was published; I don't know when it was submitted.

Also, in the 1993 follow-up (McEachin et al), this girl is not followed-up, unlike the rest of Control Group One. She was described as functioning very poorly in an institution. One can assume that her real diagnosis was obvious at this point to the many people charged with assessing the study subjects at follow-up. I sometimes wonder if this girl, who was the one with Rett's, is the source of the idea that without ABA, autistics deteriorate.

Re the within-subjects-replication-design, Dr Lovaas farmed out his data to two of his students, and references these works in his study. So the data exist. I couldn't find the original sources (a doctoral dissertation, and an ABA conference presentation), so I could only list them in my sources, and couldn't reference them. Maybe you can find them, John.

Re the assessment of your clients, wow. Of course, everything is geared to the needs of anybody but the autistics. That's not news, but it's discouraging. Accurate diagnosis is a big deal in my area.

Where does the info that the new DSM will segregate HFA and LFA come from? And when's this one come out? (I knew at one point and forgot.) This is going to be interesting, given my own work in the science, and the work of the group which puts up with me. My own view is that the demarcation is artificial.

The isolation of behaviourists from the rest of the science in autism works both ways: behaviourists don't study anything else, and the rest of the field doesn't study the behaviourists. Both sides form their positions on the "other guys" via cliche and ideology rather than study. On the other hand, within (eg) a cognitive group you have people who work in genetic studies, in epidemiology, in statistical analysis, in diagnosis, in neuroanatomy, and in education. All this experience is useful; it represents real expertise.

Looking at the list of participants at IMFAR, I've spotted only three behaviourists. I haven't looked for a while. Maybe I've missed a few. But that's not a strong showing.

I don't think ideology ("I am a radical behaviourist") should interfere with pursuing knowledge in other areas. I started looking at ABA from a neutral position: this treatment had strongly been promoted to me by various people. I also was aware that there were objections. I had no idea when I started that I was going to find what I did. My position remains neutral towards the science: I also criticize cognitive work, and have found errors in epidemiology (and have written in this area), and could form a useful critique of existing diagnostic criteria and instruments had not this been done already so accurately and expertly. I didn't pick out behaviourists for criticism; they selected themselves through their work and their lapses in ethics.

Maybe, John, since you've mentioned bullies, you can conduct a functional analysis of why, when the critic is an autstic, behaviourists with few exceptions are unable to behave themselves properly when confronted with a fact-based argument. Why the invective?

And geez, I thought you were here to learn. That's why I'm here.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

Hi Michelle,
I've been reading these discussions for a short while, and have to admit they are usually over my head, and/or have topics that I'm unfamiliar with. I'm a 57 yr old Aspie, but have had no experience with ABA. Instead, my main problem was with parents or teachers who tried to use reverse psychology to get their desired results. And they were really amateurish attempts to use psychology to motivate me. Needless to say, reverse psychology doesn't work on Aspies, and was another form of abuse.

All I really want to say is that I appreciate your efforts on behalf of autistics everywhere, and have respect and admiration for the way you are able to marshall your thoughts and express them, all the way to the Supreme Court.
I'm looking forward to hearing of that decision, but am confident that you (we) will win. Apart from the persuasive arguments you make regarding the rights of Canadians as defined by the Charter, the point you make about the government in effect making itself responsible for paying for all the ABA treatments and special education needed throughout life, is one that will make them think long and hard on this issue. They would have to question the efficacy of ABA before agreeing they should have to pay for it, I would think.

Clay Adams

Just a history-of-psychology footnote:

John wrote, "This is intersting considering she came visiting to the international ABA conference a few years ago. Someone should have told her she is supposed to dead or crazy."

Oh, Deborah Skinner (the subject of the rumors) knows, and is apparently thoroughly irritated by the perennial claims that she is insane and/or dead.

She once commented: "I'm pretty sure I'm not crazy. And I don't seem to have committed suicide."

However, she isn't married to a behaviorist either - her sister, Julie Vargas, is the one married to Ed Vargas (and I'd presume, the one who came to the ABA conference). Deborah is aparently married to an economist and lives in London.

John wrote, "Did the girl not meet qualifications, or are we to assume she didn’t meet them. "

Given that she didn't in fact have autism, which was one of the criteria for involvement in the study, clearly she did not in fact meet at least one of the qualifications, and this should have been disclosed as soon as it was known (which it was by 1995 at least).

Even if she was misdiagnosed as autistic, the profoundly disabling effects of Rett's would logically seem to place her outside the study's criteria.

As to how it came about that she was included in the study nonetheless, I have no hypothesis - I am merely expressing my puzzlement.

John wrote, "And please define “severe”. "

Actually, girls with Rett's are considered to fall into the category of "profoundly and multiply disabled". Around 50% of girls with Rett's can't walk, for example.

It's thought that IQ testing of girls with Rett's may often be inaccurate because factors like apraxia affect response time, but when it comes to how they test/appear according to the International Rett Syndrome Association:

"Ultimate level of functioning reflects profound mental retardation in all intellectual domains" (http://www.rettsyndrome.org/main/therapists-role.htm).

Therefore, as I've said, I find it puzzling that she was included in a study which had selection criteria aimed specifically at excluding those with severe or profound cognitive delays.

John wrote, "Provided they understood the difference, or effect. "

They indisputably did by 1995, since the girl in question was one of the subjects in their study of ABA as an ineffective treatment for Rett's (Smith, Klevstrand and Lovaas's, 1995).

I'm perfectly prepared to believe that this girl was mis-diagnosed. But as a point of scientific ethics, it would seem necessary to disclose that mis-diagnosis as soon as they became aware of it, rather than continuing to write and speak as if the control group was in fact perfectly "matched".

Last post, then I done for a while,

To any other behaviorist viewers,

I am firmly committed to radical behaviorism and to Discrete-Trial Teaching as an ethical and appropriate way to address the educational concerns of children on Autism Spectrum. I reluctantly joined this discussion, due to my status (undergrad) and my potential naïveté but I felt compelled to do so because no other behaviorist had written a rebuttal to Ms. Dawson, whom I felt merited at the very least, some respectful replies.

I was therefore happy when I first heard that a member of an organization that I greatly support “the Association for Science in Autism Treatment”, had written a reply of sorts to Ms. Dawson. What I found was not a reply of the kind I had desired (point by point and scientific).

It should be noted that several professional behaviorists have made replies of sorts to Ms. Dawson. These being of varying utility, but still not making a point by point scientific reply to the arguments made by Ms. Dawson.

I, who count no day as completed, if I don’t make at least 30-40 mistakes, feel no reluctance to point out that several of these professionals have behaved like (in the words of another list member) “gits.” It should be pointed out that these are professionals who as “behaviorists and persons”, I have the up most respect for, but that is not the point.

I fact, I am aware of only one fully trained professional of a behavioral orientation who has engaged in scientific discussion with Ms. Dawson, and he is autistic himself.

I suppose my point is that Ms. Dawson is presenting written work in an online professional format that I assume took great time and effort, in terms of her personal research. It should be addressed (even in informal contexts) in a manner that reflects our professionalism and orientation to scientific rebuttal.

It is likewise unproductive to call into question Ms. Dawson’s specific diagnosis. Her work would still be legitimate and worthy of scientific rebuttal no matter what her developmental features were. Also, perhaps we have forgotten that the Pervasive Developmental Disorders occur along the so called spectrum of (dis)ability, and persons of highly various skills and levels may be observed as part of this continuum.

Ms. Dawson is not my friend and she makes some arguments that I greatly disagree with, but that has not stopped me from attempting respect and courtesy in my discussion towards her. I request for what it is worth, that all behaviorist who participate in discourse on the work of Ms. Dawson, observe the same debate practices as are typically observed in the scientific community.

Hi Clare,

You said “That's not my point. Regardless of the diagnosis someone has, Rett's is a very severe disability. So I do find it puzzling that someone with that level of disability ended up in the control group, given that the criteria should apparently have excluded that.”

Did the girl not meet qualifications, or are we to assume she didn’t meet them. If she did not, then this was inappropriate, but if she did……..
And please define “severe”. I was once told “Autism Disorder”, was the most severe of the severe. I am still learning even now, how inappropriate that was.

You said “namely that it would seem a basic point of scientific ethics for Lovaas and co. to disclose publicly the fact that one of the controls was misdiagnosed as soon as they became aware of that fact,”

Provided they understood the difference, or effect. And I again state that Retts was no on the DSM III which was revised over the course of the YAP anyway. Not knowing the specifics of Retts is a big deal. When considering that it was not yet a formal category this seems a it more obvious. As a side note, there is a rumor that on the next DSM. Autism Disorder may be split into 2 distinct disorders HFA and LFA. I wonder if one day Lovaas will again be criticized because he may potentially have used more of HFA’s than LFA’s.

You said “Whoever was responsible for the assessments etc., the fact that one of the controls didn't actually have autism clearly affects the credibility of the claim that treatment and control groups were "matched".”

Mis-diagnosis seems more likely to me. This of course is likely when Retts was not a possible category, and so the diagnosticians may not have understood that, let alone Lovaas. In fact Lovaas didn’t seem to have much of an idea about differences in Retts until his own study with the three girls in the matter.

For a side note, some behaviorists also have a little habit of referring to autistic folks as “autistic persons”, as opposed to “people with autism.” They also include everyone on the spectrum as “autistic”, but may not specify (PDD-NOS or Aspergers) Even now, most articles in JABA come saying “autistic children”, not a student with autism (or the specific subtype). This is because of the radical behaviorist rejection of the medical model, and of the ideas that someone can “have autism”, that is, “can not be separated from it.” Obviously there are some exceptions where behaviorists do use person first language.

Some autistics have also adopted saying “autistic people”, but for very different reasons than the behaviorists.

I am well aware of the “People with disabilities”, word formatting. In general, I support this, because advocates and persons with various disabilities wanted this and worked very hard in the 70’s to change this. More recently some autistics have advocated saying “autistic people”, for the proposed reason of autism’s pervasive nature. As I am sure you know, Jim Sinclair writes eloquently about this as does Michelle. You may have noted that I switched from saying “people with autism”, to “autistic people”, because others on this site advocate that approach, and I just think it’s polite to adopt the term they would prefer.

You said “You miss the point. I don't want any more kids slapped around, autistic or not!”

I don’t want to see that either. My point is we can’t be sure of the effectiveness of the aversives even with Lovaas’ within subject design because of the lack of data presentation.

This next part is just a little technical, so I tried to make it as simple as I could. I poured through Lovaas’ original study last night. Lovaas very briefly discusses that within subject design. From the format (replication design) I know this means that he should have presented the those data in graph format, so that others reviewing his article can agree based on those data whether experimental control was actually achieved, or whether we have cause to believe something else was going on. Without these data, we as reviewers, can not honestly agree or disagree that experimental control was achieved. We are on word of faith from Lovaas in this regard. This is unacceptable in scientific terms.

Hi again Michelle,

Our program is attached through a public school. The assessors are not behaviorists. They are an evaluation team of a school psychologist, a school social worker, a speech pathologist, and sometimes an occupational therapist. They provide school diagnostics for our local county. I have job-shadowed them before. They impressed me (a non expert) as very skilled. They are based in our building but are not attached to our program.

The assessments are not based on the DSM but on School diagnostic criteria according to our State and federal laws. But this still includes IQ, adaptive ability scales, and various other scales, as well as direct observation. In school diagnostics, the assesors are usually slow to apply labels like mentally and Autistically Impaired, with very young children (due to possibility of law suits). Instead they usually opt for the (Pre Primary Impaired) school label, or in our state (Early Childhood Developmentally Delayed).
So the children we get typically have a school label of E.C.D.D. Our program in this center is considered an ECDD room, but with an Autism focus. This (more general) label is sometimes done regardless of a DSM diagnosis.

This means that inevitably some of our students will likely not end up with a final diagnoses of Autistically Impaired. Of course, I have watched some other undergrads who help at the center, say "that little boy isn't autistic", whenever we have a relatively high functioning child join us. This is of course partly because, we get more low functioning children, than high functioning. But when our new HF child begins to show some autistic behaviors that are more classic e.g. (throws a fit when furniture is moved, or starts hand flapping). Then even our more naive members admit that they are autistic. But like I said some of our kids never show behaviors that seem obviously autistic

So we admittedly have the additional confound of the students receiving OT, speech therapy, gym, and pool. Also only our program does DT, and the students usually transition as soon as some basic skills have been established. I am also not adverse to any of these services being provided. In fact I am grateful to work with diverse professionals who seem dedicated and helpful to the children.

When our students leave us, they go into one of three other rooms, that are somewhat graduated from each other in skill level. Only one of these rooms does some DT, and that is for maybe 15 minutes a day. This is why I am reluctant to talk of DT's efficacy in this case, because our program is so broad. But this also makes us similar to Smith (2000) who used some non-DT, special ed services, especially for the children who were not excelling in his DT program. I can only speak of the efficacy of our overall program, which includes services beyond DT.

Hi Michelle,

I seem to have missed a response from a couple of days ago.

You said “Re the idea that all of us but 5% are doomed, please see the small article attached to this large comment board. Please also read Rutter's follow-up (the one in 64 thing). Please read recent epidemiology. Many, many people are or have been doomed for reasons entirely unrelated to their abilities.”

True…..Also I do not believe that only 5% are not doomed. I was simply bringing up the DSM. As I said previously, I have no interest defending that book. Which studies are we referring to besides Rutter?

 You said “You seem to be proposing that behaviours are purely incidental to behavers. That doesn't work for me. I'm back to being a person emitting autistic behaviours. So, we take away the autistic behaviours, and presto, a person. Now explain to me who and what this "person" is. How do you decide what constitutes the "person" who is merely embellished by arbitrary (to the "person") behaviours.”

I will not even try to define what a person is. I tried that little exercise before. I failed miserably. I can not answer the second question for the same reason.
 
You said “I don't know why you support DTT. I wouldn't propose to mentalize for you. I don't use motives a lot when examining what others do. I use consequences (very behaviourist of me). This is the point you are missing re Dr Malott.”

I don’t know… You did say “My surprise re your non-interest in science in other areas continues.” ……….So, is interest/non-interest a form of motivation or a lack thereof? I also consider consequences. I believe you used to say “cost” when addressing this. Also, I agree, motivation is not a behavior, it is an operation.

It is true that I can not talk of autistic cognition very expertly. But I can propose ideas and listen to your opinion or citations.

You said “I cannot detach myself from my horrifying autistic behaviours any more than a black person can detach from his skin or an observant Jew detach from the practices required for his beliefs.”

I am not sure it was the kids I work with, who caught a bad case of Pinker. We are back to our question “is there a nature to autism”. Well fire away, I am yours to convince on this.

All this depends on which articles you want to discuss. The 47% was legit for that pre-selected group. Also please see my answer to Clare on the Retts issue. Also, see my first three posts for how I deal with the ethical questions.

The goal of normality is one that I reject, and not just me.
You said “I've found many behaviours horrifying also. I've written about some of these, and done legal cases--eg, intolerance, hate, denigration, etc.”

Which I support in general. We seem to disagree a bit on denigration. I suppose the only comfort for you in that is, if I denigrate autistics, then I also denigrate all organisms, Dr. Malott, and myself. Of course, I do not buy that. Although I admit that I am very intolerant of certain behaviors. For example, I once corrected a typically developing student for bullying. I was indeed intolerant of that behavior and remain so. Would we say that was his nature?……

Edited by author 05-01-2004 10:18 AM
<shifts eyes, shrugs shoulders>

I am *not* a journalist.

It was my response to James Mulick.
---------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm...
  
: This Taken Seriously By The Court In Canada Is An Outrage

: Dr Mulick, is currently a Professor in the Departments of Pediatrics
: and Psychology at The Ohio State University, Columbus. Professor Mulick
: has published over 100 articles, chapters and books in the areas of
: learning, developmental psychobiology, behavior analysis, mental retardation
: and developmental disabilities, policy analysis, and curriculum development
: for advanced and postdoctoral professional education.
:

He is also on one of the councils of the APA, and - as an APA member - has certain ethical standards to abide by. He has chosen not to.

: This is a reaction [email messaged from Dawson supporters
: characterized by hate and personal attacks] that true believers of any
: persuasion are likely to do. They are outraged by logic and free debate.

No, we are not. We love logic and debate, but where is the logic and debate in the rebuttals to Michelle Dawson's essay on the ethics of ABA? I have seen the rebuttals, and I have seen neither logic nor debate. And this piece by Mulick - from whom we should be able to expect far better than this - is no different.
 
: She presented
: herself to me as an autistic journalist (an oxymoron, if taken seriously,
: because autistic people would not, by definition, be interested in a career
: in communication!) and a self-appointed expert on the autistic perspective
: on life.

Firstly, there is a number of autistic people who have gone into areas such as: poetry and other creative writing; psychology; communication; and journalism.

Secondly, she is not a self-appointed expert: she has an affiliation with a specialist clinic in Montreal, at the invitation of the Professor who runs this clinic. This Professor recognises her expertise, even if “professor” Mulick doesn’t.

: People who have had difficulties making a living are not
: considered experts in economics. People who have psychiatric disorders are
: not considered experts in psychiatry. Why is this? This is because learned
: fields are not, we should hope, be based on idiosyncratic experiences and
: personal biases alone, but rather on a demonstration of acquired knowledge
: and on experience of effectively working in the learned discipline.

Indeed, personal experience alone is not the best way to gain expertise on something; one has to learn the ins and outs of the subject, the theories and the pros and cons of the theories; one has to learn about the vast number of research methodologies that exist and their strengths and weaknesses; and one has to learn how to write in a scholarly way. But these conditions do not preclude (and never have precluded) autistic people from being able to become experts in the field of autism. I think here of Dr Theresa Jollife (whom Simon Baron-Cohen supervised for her PhD: the first autistic PhD in autism research). I think of Jim Sinclair, whom I believe to have a master's degree in developmental psychology (but I am open to correction on this matter). I can even think of myself: I am a psychologist, and am an associate editor of an international journal on autism practice. We have had training. We have completed or are completing postgraduate professional or research degrees. We are experts because of our training AND because of our experiences of being autistic.

: She showed sensitivity to my point of view and was a very
: active listener. When she spoke, she offered clarifications if I had
: questions about her meaning. She told me she wanted to enter in to a
: Canadian legal case as an expert in autism, based on her own experience as
: an affected person and on her perspective as a journalist who had
: interviewed professionals who were considered experts in autism. Do you get
: the picture?

What picture might that be, "Professor"?

: She was behaving like a well trained journalist who had decided
: to become a part of the news she was gathering.

What??????? Obviously behaviourism as a way of understanding people is of no use whatsoever then.... missed the point by many many miles, "Professor"!

: These are arguably
: characteristics of a person with a psychiatric disorder, but that disorder
: is not autism or even on the spectrum .

Actually, since the "Professor" was not asked to opine on Ms Dawson's diagnosis, this was a comment he had neither the right nor the clinical knowledge to make. On this point, he has gone outwith his ethical code. And - from my point of view - is no longer a credible professional.

: In popular terms, she impressed me
: as a person who had managed to convince someone in her government that she
: had a disability, and who lived off that status, but the disability she did
: have had perhaps been mislabeled.

Again, since he was not asked to opine… why is he opining?

: Malingering comes to mind.

And this wasn’t a malicious thing to say? And the “professor” would not know this?

: Personality disorder comes to mind.

Mulick… you are NOT the clinician who diagnosed Michelle Dawson, and you were not asked to venture an opinion. Not that your opinion, since it seems to consist of hateful and nasty epithets, is of any value here.

: In fact, there appear to be a number of individuals
: who travel with the autism community as experts based on their status as
: people who had and overcame the disorder, even as they live off that status
: in the public eye; even as they behaved in ways that a person with autism
: would never choose to do (seek public speaking opportunities, seek
: recognition, constantly communicate, etc.).

I have to ask a question here. How many of these individuals has he actually met? Or been involved in diagnosing? Or involved in helping? And – the second clause of this part is based entirely on prejudice without reference to what is actually known about autistic people.

: Remember that autism is a
: disorder that is characterized by particular ways of behaving.

And so, “professor”, is antisocial personality disorder; and – since you were competent (according to your behaviour) to diagnose Michelle – I am diagnosing you. With AsPD.

: I was mentioned in the article Dawson posted as having said that
: autistic characteristics were a hilarious accident . This bit of gratuitous
: out-of-context quoting shows her intention was merely to denigrate the
: people she interviewed, not to create a helpful debate.

She did not actually denigrate anyone. You have, though.

: This is shown by the fact that she did quote out of context. I will
: tell you the context. She asked me about the cardinal symptoms of autism,
: and about the impact of the disorder on affected people. I tried to explain
: to her in everyday language that the disorder's defining characteristics
: were still in flux.

If they are in flux, how can you say what you said earlier???? Recap: “even as they live off that status in the public eye; even as they behaved in ways that a person with autism would never choose to do (seek public speaking opportunities, seek recognition, constantly communicate, etc.).”

: To illustrate this, I suggested that the people described in Kanner's
: original paper shared characteristics he described and that he noticed, but
: that the few individuals and their prominent commonalities represented not a
: complete picture, but were grouped together by Kanner's individual
: perception and the accidental cluster that he thought Made Them All The
: Same.

So…?

: I was not saying that it was a joke to have autism or trivializing
: autism, far from it, I was emphasizing that other aspects than those first
: emphasized have come and gone as diagnostic markers, defining
: characteristics.

What is NOT a joke, Professor Mulick, is to have people in positions of prominence (such as yourself) pulling autistic people down with malicious and spiteful epithets.

: I think as well that a system of psychiatric classification
: based mostly on behavior is a poor way to classify mental illness in general
: and the PDDs in particular.



: We will make progress understanding disorders of
: learning and development when we understand and classify based on causes
: (not on effects), but unfortunately such a system is not yet a reality and
: will not be a reality for several decades (at least that's what I think).

You will learn more about developmental differences more if you approach the topic with a more open and understanding mind, instead of one which hems itself in with prejudices not worthy of someone in your position.

And you are a behaviourist: YOU DO NOT THINK!

Hi John,

Can you tell me who is (I mean what qualifications) diagnosing the kids you teach? Do the diagnoses come from outside your program? Or does your program include assessment and diagnosis?

If I remember, you told me that someone in your program does intake measures. Now I'm wondering about diagnosis. You suspect that a few of your kids aren't exactly autistic. That's interesting, can you elaborate, and how did this happen? Thanks.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

I don't know if I've posted this already, but....

DON'T VISIT THIS LINK.... http://www.wapd.org/bbs/msgs/7497.html

I appear, by virtue of two incisive rebuttals of Mulick the Pillock and Newman the Spewman, to have managed to get that entire thread erased.

Sorry about that.




Oops!

Edited by author 04-30-2004 10:50 AM
John wrote, "Correct me if I am wrong but, Rett’s was not in the PPD’s in the DSM-III, which would be what the assessors used in 1987"

That's not my point. Regardless of the diagnosis someone has, Rett's is a very severe disability. So I do find it puzzling that someone with that level of disability ended up in the control group, given that the criteria should apparently have excluded that.

Of course, there's a further issue, pointed out by Michelle - namely that it would seem a basic point of scientific ethics for Lovaas and co. to disclose publicly the fact that one of the controls was misdiagnosed as soon as they became aware of that fact, as opposed to waiting for Boyd to find out.

Whoever was responsible for the assessments etc., the fact that one of the controls didn't actually have autism clearly affects the credibility of the claim that treatment and control groups were "matched".

John wrote, "Okay, but I would like to see more replication on this before I accept it."

You miss the point. I don't want any more kids slapped around, autistic or not!

But as Michelle pointed out in her original article, it makes no scientific sense to cite Lovaas's "47%" figure without also acknowledging the fact that the same data showed (according to Lovaas in 1987) that physical aversives were essential to achieving that.

In fact, the alleged "47%" was achieved by the use of a protocol that - quite rightly - no-one (barring New Jersey's gang of aversive fans) is using any more.

A M Baggs wrote, "I can state pretty unequivocally that this specific person is limited by *something*."

Thanks for the info. She sounds appalling.

Personally, I've started mentally classifying the "autism experts" I encounter according to whether they are capable of seeing me as a person or not.

For David, there's a short article attached to this gigantic and unusually enlightening comment board (that Misbehaviour of Behaviourists thing). In it I refer to ASAT's position on stereotypy, as well as to one of the studies ASAT refers to.

Hi Dave,

I have never heard a British person properly define the qualifications of being a "git", but I imagine that Dr. Newman qualifies, as does Dr, Mulick for that matter.

He is indeed a git. Although I have this terrible suspicion that one day when I am a Ph.d, that some smart alec behaviorist undergrad will write about all the ridiculous things I've said or done. Oh well,....

You said "Or if he was receiving any!"

Very true, and I have heard of more than one case like that, as I am sure you have.

Hmmmmm...

[You said “(Personally, I've always been intrigued by the fact that one of the children in Lovaas's Control Group 2 - receiving no behavioural intervention at all - met his criteria for "recovery", whereas none of the children in Control Group 1 - on ten hours a week - did so).”

I do as well. But I am not altogether suprised. Unfortunately, we do not know what other treatments he may have been receiving. ]

Or if he was receiving any!

Hi Michelle...

>Re: stereotypy (David posted the ASAT URL), I refer to that in the attached article.

*Attached article? Which one?

>Here's the autistic who was assigned to stop flapping his hands while alone.

*OUCH!

>I didn't use ASAT's info as a reliable source.

*No, and neither would I!

>It's pretty important with their stuff to look at the original sources.

*Yes. Clare told me how they fuck things about.....

Hi Clare,

You said “Lovaas's 1987 study excluded all children whose tested IQs put them in the "severely or profoundly" retarded category, and eliminated them if they were mute past a certain age (whereas children of the same age who had some speech were included).”

This is true and not disputed; it is the inferences sometimes drawn from this that I don’t like. Of course that study still included children who ranked mildly and moderately retarded. That is not what I would call “high functioning”, as others have proposed.

Correct me if I am wrong but, Rett’s was not in the PPD’s in the DSM-III, which would be what the assessors used in 1987. And remember that those in control group one were provided by other diagnosticians not by the Lovaas folks, who didn’t do their own assessing anyway. You’ll remember that the whole concern over random assignment was dealt with by Lovaas, by stating that his undergrads that acted as “therapists”, had uneven time schedules, and that there was only a partial chance that a student could be around to work with a child 40 hours a week. Hence some kids by time default were placed in control group two. Well, not the standard, flip a coin assignment, but that would provide some variability.

I grant that it seems DT looks like the main dogma to folks on the outside and even to “novice behaviorists”, as I was once called by a professor when I brought up this very point.

You said “as DTT and incidental teaching, it is then very hard to make any generalizations about "ABA" as a whole, let alone claim that "ABA is scientifically proven". You can only discuss specific techniques or procedures.”

Maybe we should not be trying to generalize ABA as a whole. I have no problem discussing ABA, method by method. Although, I see that, would invalidate my “I should have said ABA not DT”, comment from last post. I suppose in the future I will just have to list as many ABA methods with multiple research examples, as I can think of.

You said “(Personally, I've always been intrigued by the fact that one of the children in Lovaas's Control Group 2 - receiving no behavioural intervention at all - met his criteria for "recovery", whereas none of the children in Control Group 1 - on ten hours a week - did so).”

I do as well. But I am not altogether suprised. Unfortunately, we do not know what other treatments he may have been receiving.

You said “Nor can it be generalized to ABA programs run by highly-reputed professional agencies, as the Boyd and Mudford studies showed.”

You see, I tend to split hairs on “experts”, being there, and “experts”, who act as consultants.
On Lovaas’ clams on replication……Well I think we can call some of the studies done by his students, or his students’ students, replications. But I see why he is leery. It would be very generous to call some studies even systematic replications. I do have a slight problem with non behaviorist doing DT for the simple reason that they seem to have very little idea how or why it works.

You said “And it is fraudulent to give parents of autistic children not involved in that handful of specific programs the belief that they have a 33% or 47% (let alone a 50/50) chance of "recovery".”

But we can reference the best results and explain to parents how we replicate Lovaas’ conditions, and maybe explain why there may be differences in our program,. The center I assist in will never reach 40 hours per week, because of inherent frameworks. Parents know this, and seem to embrace our program anyway. If have heard an informal report that we get between 10-30% of the kids into a mainstream class without an aid. Lot of variability and I don’t actually know the efficacy of that. But that is what I’ve heard. It seems more akin to Smith (2000) results. Of course we also get kids with Downs Syndrome and autism and some kids who have autism and some other condition. As well as some kids who I doubt autism is the main condition of interest. And some of our kids only get 15 hours a week. So we don’t have just Autism Disorder kids. Obviously this effects results as well.

You said “Lovaas stated that his within-subjects control procedure showed that without the use of aversives any gains were "small and unstable".”

Okay, but I would like to see more replication on this before I accept it. And since the folks who still use physical aversives are all but gone, we are not like to see that. Also the DT methods of today are different from how they were in 1987. The single subjects designs that are the mainstay of JABA have guided this. Just for a not-so-fun fact, I know that several states in the US still allow for spanking in schools for typically developing schoolchildren. And yes, I oppose that as well. If I remember correctly, spanking was allowed in schools in California for the majority of time Lovaas did his DT work with autistic children. Doesn’t excuse it but it puts it in context.

You said “Indeed. But that does rather suggest that the important factor is the skill of the teacher/therapist, not their methodology.”

Well I wouldn’t have said it like that, but there is no denying that the teacher is crucial.

As far as Mudford and company…..hmmmm….well.. let me think about that a bit.

Hi Amanda,

>"Personally, I'd say that it's silly to try to classify "motivation" as a "behaviour" of any kind, and I think (as my comments on Lynn Kern Koegel probably showed) that they're significantly limited by their attempts to remain "good behaviourists"."

*Yes, I agree with this statement; as Kelly used to say, terms like "motivation" and so on are what we use when we don't want to understand the person.

>I can state pretty unequivocally that this specific person is limited by *something*. She insisted that I sit in a fluorescent-lit room and try to carry on a conversation with two people.

*OMG! No thought for what you were able to cope with?

>She tried to remove my cognitive interpreter from the room.

*Sodding Nora! That is horrible.

>She rejected my explanations whenever I *could* give them -- explanations like "I'm not eating enough, I'm nauseated by these lights, I *cannot* talk to two people at once...

*Ouch.... it is not her place to reject explanations. In this situation, she was actually outdoing the psychanalysts at their game: repeated denial of the client's reality until the client gives in. Nasty stuff.

>She acted as if she knew what my problems were and were not from spending five minutes with me.

*I wish sometimes that we could develop a sort of stupidity index. Anyone wanna help?

>When I started banging my head (from inability to communicate) she simply took me from her autism center to the counseling department where a long talk ensued about whether I should be at university at all.

*Talk about insensitivity. Not very person centred, is she? That is absolutely horrible.

>That was actually my first up-close-and-personal introduction to autism "experts".

*May it serve you well.... ;) I may well be an expert; I hope that I don't end up being judged as she (deservedly) is (in my notsofuckinghumble opinion)!

Hi John,

>Yes, I am afraid that Bobby Newman has a reputation of being a bit of a character (even among behaviorists).


Could we deduce that this guy is, behaviourally speaking, a bit of a git?

I have never read such bollocks from even a psychoanalyst, let alone a behaviourist. And from a PhD, I think I should be able to expect better.

To anyone interested,

There are many reasons DT may be expensive. Legal action is not always part of the equation, but that certainly adds to the cost when it occurs.

I don’t hear of anyone using forty hours a week anymore at the major centers, but I may be wrong about this. But between 15 and 30 hours a week is very common. So if we pay the tutor or teacher or trainer, $10.00 an hour times 30. This adds up rather quick. If you do it 50 weeks a year than you are $15,000 down.

If you add in supervisor costs than this goes up.

Also because of the way health care works in the US, insurance rates also become a factor. In some States the amount of money it takes to insure psychological service providers is very high.

I guess I feel the way this should be dealt with in the US is by holding the local schools responsible. This would be in accordance with provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; which requires among other things that the child be granted a Free Appropriate Public Education.

It may be very hard on families to shell out $15,000 a year. But if the schools could hire a teacher already experienced in DT, which would not be so unreasonable. Some schools do this already. Now the school would have to pay for a new teacher and a few aides, but they already do this with TEACCH and some other eclectic methods.

For a side note, I have heard TEACCH argued as a behavioral method which it is not, although there is no doubt some aspects where “borrowed”, from ABA. All the same, some schools in the US deny DT services, “because we already have a behavioral method TEACCH”. TEACCH is not seen to be the equal of Lovaas style DT, and many of the same methodological flaws observed in Lovaas’ data can be observed in TEACCH. All the same, I don’t think we will ever see Lovaas more popular in the class, because it requires some creativity to make it fit in the classroom, whereas TEACCH fits more readily in a traditional classroom. All this said, I do not deny the effectiveness of TEACCH, I just put it second to Lovaas.

I agree with Clare in her Big Statement.

"If you give someone (autistic or not) information in a format they can understand and make use of, they will learn. And if interaction is accessible and interesting for them, they will interact."

Though I'll inconveniently add that the content (as well as the format) of this information might enter into it for an autistic.

Re stereotypy (David posted the ASAT URL), I refer to that in the attached article. Here's the autistic who was assigned to stop flapping his hands while alone. I didn't use ASAT's info as a reliable source. It's pretty important with their stuff to look at the original sources.

Edited by author 04-29-2004 06:56 PM
Hi John,

No, that info was about Watson, and I read it in a pretty respectable book about the mind. I can locate that book in my head as to where it is in which library (which is how I remember things) but don't know its title. If I have time I'll go back and find it. Some of Watson's family I think have written about him.

Not sure from the structure of your comment which you think is worse, suicide or becoming a psychoanalyst.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

"Personally, I'd say that it's silly to try to classify "motivation" as a "behaviour" of any kind, and I think (as my comments on Lynn Kern Koegel probably showed) that they're significantly limited by their attempts to remain "good behaviourists"."

I can state pretty unequivocally that this specific person is limited by *something*. She insisted that I sit in a fluorescent-lit room and try to carry on a conversation with two people. She tried to remove my cognitive interpreter from the room. She rejected my explanations whenever I *could* give them -- explanations like "I'm not eating enough, I'm nauseated by these lights, I *cannot* talk to two people at once..." She acted as if she knew what my problems were and were not from spending five minutes with me. When I started banging my head (from inability to communicate) she simply took me from her autism center to the counseling department where a long talk ensued about whether I should be at university at all.

That was actually my first up-close-and-personal introduction to autism "experts".

Hi Dave,

I replying to your post (210).

Yes, I am afraid that Bobby Newman has a reputation of being a bit of a character (even among behaviorists).

I think I know why he makes those suggestions, but they are a little to far out there for me or even most behaviorists.

Hi Michelle,

On Watson. I have never heard of his sons commiting suicide let alone becoming a psychoanalyst. I did some checking last night but I couldn't find anything on Watson's personal life besides his father being a ne'er do well, and his affair that ended his acdemic carear.

I think you may be mistaking him for Skinner's children. A poplular myth being that Skinner' first daughter become a psycholoanalyst (a la Anna Freud). The myth goes on to say that his second daughter went psychotic and commited suicide in the late 60's. This is intersting considering she came visiting to the international ABA conference a few years ago. Someone should have told her she is supposed to dead or crazy. Last I heard she is still married to the very radical behaviorist and verbal behavior expert Ed Vargas.

Edited by author 04-29-2004 12:20 PM
anyone got anything say on this... ?

http://www.asatonline.org/resources/library/stereotypy.html

or this.... (http://www.autismbc.ca/discus/messages/13/154.html?1066596084)

[Science based autism treatment.

As a parent of a child who is making strides in recovering from the disease of Autism I have chosen to post information about 'science' as it applies to Autism treatment. This has been a subject of controversy that has begun to create unhealthy divisions within our peer group. This attempt at division is harmful to us all.

The following statements in 'quotation' can be found in the Manual "Behavioral Intervention for Young Children with Autism". The chapter is 'Evaluating Claims about Treatments for Autism". This is a very important chapter and any parent pursuing science based treatment for their child would benefit from reading it carefully.

From the Manual;
'It appears that there is a relatively narrow "window of oportunity" for young children for young autistic children during which the most effective treatment - Applied Behavior Anaysis - can mean the difference for many between lifelong severe disability and some aproximation to normal functioning. (Anderson, Avery, DiPietro, Edwards, & Christian, 1987: Fenske, Zalenski, Krantz, & McClannahan, 1985; Harris, Handleman, Gordon, Kristoff, & Fuentes, 1991; Lovaas, 1987; Maurice, 1993; MacEachin, Smith, & Lovaas, 1993; Perry, Cohen, & DeCarlo, 1995; Smith, 1993).'

Also from the Manual;
'Objective, scientific evidence about treatment effectiveness makes up much of the research literature in Applied Behavior Analysis. Many examples relevant to treatments for autism can be found in a number of scientific proffessional journals - Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis; Research in Developmental Disabilities; Behavior Modification; Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders; Journal of Behavioral Education; Education and Treatment of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disorders; Journal of Behavioral Education; Education and Treatment in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities; and the American Journal of Mental Retardation, to name a few.'

The author of this chapter goes into great detail on this subject; Parents of children who are on a Lovaas ABA program and parents of children who are on a program that utilizes Applied Behavior Analysis can both take heart that their childs right to these programs can be justified using the extensive information within this chapter. Please note that the emphasis in this chapter is not to rely on statements made by figures of authority and prominence regarding past 'studies' of treatment effectiveness. The emphasis is on assessing the use of science based measurement and practices employed within the childs program and the objective measures being used to scientifically quantify that cognitive and behavioral gains are being realized as a result of the treatment and how to go about ensuring that those objective measures can withstand scientific scrutiny.

Please also note that throughout this manual the treatment of choice is 'Applied Behavior Analysis'. Also note that this does not exclude Lovaas but instead includes it as long as the practices live up to the definition of the discipline of Applied Behavior Analysis.

In addition I recommend that parents take the time to read the chapter within the manual 'Identifying Qualified Proffessionals in Behavior Analysis'. This chapter answers the most relevant questions parents might have in regard to who is appropriate to provide treatment to autistic children. It identifies 108 essential skills and competencies across 12 content areas. This is very helpful to making informed decisions. The chapter also explains about behavior analyst 'certification' which currently seems to be a misunderstood concept for many in the province of BC. Again I think parents of children who are utilizing Lovaas ABA as well as those utilizing Applied Behavior Analysis will find this chapter comforting and do much to address the desire of a select few to create division and seperate 'camps' of parents.

Parents want nothing more than their childs right for science based and medically necessary treatment for autism to be recognized as is the right to science based medical treatment recognized for all non - autistic children who suffer from illness in our province.

FEATBC has recently stated that ONLY Lovaas ABA should be recognized as scientifically supported. The administration of FEATBC is not qualified to make such statements in the context of 'absolute truth', it is instead their OPINION. As such it is my personal opinion that they act irresponsibly both to their members and parents of autistic children across this province in presenting their opinions as the only truth. It is an undeniable truth that not every child will make great progress utilizing strict Lovaas ABA programming. Many parents utilizing Lovaas ABA also incorporate 'other' programs and instructional arrangements to realize progress where strict Lovaas protocol does not produce exemplary progress. This is usually done with the support of their consultant who should objectively measure to ensure a positive outcome is being attained. This is what Applied Behavior Analysis is really about; objectively measuring for baseline performance in the target behavior, determining an intervention to change or promote a target behavior based on data collected in the baseline and referencing developmental norms, objectively measuring and assessing the effects on the target behavior, and finally using those objective measurements and assessments to continually improve the quality of intervention to achieve desired outcomes. This is what constitutes the 'practice' of science in Autism treatment. The results of any individual scientific study whose scope, design, and practical attributes can never be precisely recreated should not be the end all for choosing an appropriate treatment plan for any child simply because the treatment provider has borrowed the name of the author to help describe the general parameters of their programming ideaology.

It is my sincere hope that parents will utilize science in making informed decisions in choosing a treatment option for their child. It is my hope that science is utilized within every childs program to achieve success. Most of all it is my hope that everyones child makes great strides in recovery from the disease of Autism.

I also hope that in this forum we can have a healthy discussion which is free of mudslinging at parents, and their choices, who do nothing more than endeavour to help their child recover from the symptoms of the disease of Autism based on a scientific approach to treating the disease. ]

By Alex Barclay, on the above mentioned message board.

Bobby Newman, one of dear Ms Dawson's detractors, has said this in a toilet training web page....

"You begin the toilet training program by moving ALL your day's activities into the bathroom."

Of course!!!!! I'll get Heta to move all of the things that Tuula does into our pokey little bathroom, so that we can't even get in there to do our usual crap (LoL, no pun intended... yeah right!), let alone this stuff here!

"Set up a table and chairs in the bathroom, everything you will need to do all the activities of the day (especially discrete trial teaching materials)."

Is this guy out of touch???? In OUR bathroom? We can hardly fit us in there, let alone a bloody table and sodding chairs! And this guy has a PhD in ... ABA, actually.

"Dress your student in undergarments that will easily allow you to see when elimination HAS BEGUN (not occurred!!!)."

Student? This is the parents' CHILD we're talking about - right? Student? Ah... obviously someone's lost touch with reality here, and I know is bloody-well ain't me!

"Give your student all that (s)he will drink. Use highly favored beverages. Use reinforcers to encourage drinking."

But what about if the chi.-oops -STUDENT - doesn't LIKE strongly flavoured drinks. And is it ethical to encourage a child - yes, Dr Newman, I said CHILD - to drink when s/he doesn't want to?

http://www.tclc.com/research/faq5.html

And he dares to have a go at "wor" Michelle? I know nursery teachers with a better knowledge than that man will every have. I do not do Tuula's nappy so I would never profess on the topic of toilet training. Has this guy ever tried to do what he is suggesting? In the home of a small family with a limited income and very limited bathroom space, and almost no available time between trying to get themselves into work .... Newman, you're an arse. STFU!

To cut a very long story short, I think my basic beliefs are that:

If you give someone (autistic or not) information in a format they can understand and make use of, they will learn.

And if interaction is accessible and interesting for them, they will interact.

Everything else is details <g>.

Michelle wrote, "PECS has a very inflexible ideology and I dislike it for that specific reason (and some others)."

That's a good example in this respect, I think. I worked with one very smart "non-communicative" girl for whom PECS turned out to be an excellent communication tool.

I offered it rather tentatively, and she pounced on it with great glee (and came up with some clever adaptations of her own, including cutting out pictures and logos from magazines so she could ask for things and activities that people hadn't thought of giving her symbols for).

She loved being able to give very precise requests and instructions to everyone around her, rather than being dependent on people's ability to read her body language and guess what she might need (she had oral-apraxia-like problems, so attempting any approximation of speech was incredibly frustrating for her).

But in order to suggest it to her as an option in the first place, I ended up ignoring the official "how to teach PECS" protocol - because I knew it would be counter-productive with her.

She'd had enough bad experiences in the past (usually with people trying to force her to speak) that she would shut down instantly at the merest hint of anything that looked even vaguely a directive "lesson" or instruction. And the "bait and switch" tactic would just have struck her as annoying and patronizing (she didn't suffer fools gladly) .

But presented in a way she could take or leave, as an extension of the choice-making she was already doing, she decided it was an excellent tool which she could make her own.

So I do think it's often possible to separate out a tool that may be useful for a specific person in a specific context from the ideology and one-size-fits-all system that may come "packaged" with that tool.

(It also strikes me as ironic that PECS has been embraced so happily by Lovaas and co., given that it seems to undermine a large number of their basic assumptions - e.g. that children have to sit down on command "comply", "attend", imitate, and so on, before they can learn, let alone communicate).

Edited by author 04-28-2004 11:31 PM
The second pivotal response is response to multiple stimuli. I don't like that any more than "motivation".

Lovaas assumed that language would be pivotal in his program. When it didn't work that way, he decided that all behaviours had to be taught in all environments.

I agree with Clare about extracting the good parts from the rigid ideologues, while discarding the ideology. PECS has a very inflexible ideology and I dislike it for that specific reason (and some others). I agree with John that PECS is behavioural.

Re why ABA is so expensive, it's the layers. There are usually five (is it five or four? I've seen both) layers working on each kid, a kind of pyramid with a PhD type, occasionally a BCBA (the only available credential) at the top, and a ton of part-time hands-on instructors at the bottom. Then there's all those expensive workshops by travelling behaviourist salesmen.

Speaking of which, Watson lost his job as a scientist due to adultery, and became a salesman. Dr Mulick told me that Watson invented salesmanship. For sure he's the ancestor of the AVB marketing squad.

While he was a scientist, he did huge amounts of harm and caused incalculable suffering. He promoted successfully the idea that affection was bad for children. This utterly false and damaging idea was not refuted until Harry Harlow came along in the 50's and tortured a bunch of Rhesus monkeys to prove that emotional needs are real, and when they are ignored or neglected, terrible suffering ensues.

One of John Watson's sons committed suicide and another became a psychoanalyst. I studied all that a while back so I stand to be corrected.

Michelle wrote, "But they didn't tell me why those behaviours."

I believe the theory is that "pivotal responses" are those which remove the need to directly teach everything you want someone to learn (as postulated by Lovaas, who insists that "there are no pivotal responses").

Personally, I'd say that it's silly to try to classify "motivation" as a "behaviour" of any kind, and I think (as my comments on Lynn Kern Koegel probably showed) that they're significantly limited by their attempts to remain "good behaviourists".

But my basic tendency is to steal whatever practical tools I think might come in handy at some point (if and when it actually meets someone's needs and learning style - I don't believe in one-size-fits-all systems), and discard the rest.

(Which is probably why I can't remember what all the current "pivotal responses" are either ...).

And given that the PRT lot started out as students and colleagues of Lovaas, I do find it fascinating to watch their data driving them ever further and further away from Lovaas-style ABA.

Why is ABA so expensive? Is it cover administration costs? To pay the people who do it? Is there something about it that means that it has to be this way?

I also read in an article on the History of behaviourist, right at the start:

"In 1913, John Watson identified observable behavior as the proper subject matter for psychology and stated that all behavior is controlled by environmental events. "

But I have learned to emulate a lot of behaviours that would make me look NT and I have to out them out in everyday life. I might be inaccurate, but by John Watson's theory, does that mean that I am no longer Autistic if I don't *look* Autistic?

It's hurting my head.

Lessee .... http://trainland.tripod.com/glen.s.htm

>Sallow's writing (see his response to Rita Jordan)

Where do I find this?

"Come on Clare, not even Lovaas takes that hard a stance these days. "

Have you read "Teaching Individuals with Developmental Delays" (published last year)?

In the "Are Other Treatments Effective?" section, Lovaas appears to state that no treatment other than his form of ABA (plus PECS) has been supported by "objective data". He even specifically excludes certain other forms of ABA, including PRT, incidental teaching and 'natural language' approaches.

The most he will concede is that if an individual is progressing very slowly with his methods, "alternative intervention should be supplementary".

John wrote, "Please explain Lovaas’ strict pre-selection guidelines."

Lovaas's 1987 study excluded all children whose tested IQs put them in the "severely or profoundly" retarded category, and eliminated them if they were mute past a certain age (whereas children of the same age who had some speech were included).

As I understand it, this is not disputed. Lovaas himself said somewhere that the first criterion alone would eliminate 15% of all autistic children; others in the field put that figure higher (especially given that the data seems to indicate that very young non-speaking children tend to score low).

Sallows' looser version still kept a minimum IQ of 35.

(Incidentally, if these criteria were applied equally to experimental and control groups, it does seem especially surprising that a girl with Rett's ended up in control group 1).

John wrote, "No one behaviorist, not even Skinner, had/has ownership of the totality of ABA."

The trouble is, that's not the way it looks from outside. In the autism field - among parents in particular - "ABA" is overwhelmingly used to mean Lovaas-style DTT, usually loosely based on the Young Autism protocol (mostly minus outright physical aversives).

Many, many, very different methods include behavioural elements, or can be analysed in behavioural terms.

In fact, you'd have a very hard time finding an program which didn't involve some methods which could be seen as "behavioural". For example, task analysis and positive reinforcement are pretty much universals in any good teaching.

The trouble is, though, that if one defines "ABA" widely enough to include methods as diverse - even antithetical - as DTT and incidental teaching, it is then very hard to make any generalizations about "ABA" as a whole, let alone claim that "ABA is scientifically proven". You can only discuss specific techniques or procedures.

"I guess the point is more kids end up needing some considerable support than getting scholarships to Columbia, although that happens too."

But when Kanner's "untreated" group, back in the "Dark Ages of autism treatment", turn out to show more "best outcomes" than a group receiving roughly 30 hours a week of ABA supervised by professional consultants, that surely has to raise some interesting questions.

(Personally, I've always been intrigued by the fact that one of the children in Lovaas's Control Group 2 - receiving no behavioural intervention at all - met his criteria for "recovery", whereas none of the children in Control Group 1 - on ten hours a week - did so).

John wrote, "47% is not 50%. "

The trouble is that even if other studies were producing the "47% recovery" statistic - which they aren't - that's 47% of a pre-selected group.

It cannot be generalized to the population of autistic children as a whole, many of whom would have been excluded by Lovaas's criteria.

Nor can it be generalized to ABA programs run by highly-reputed professional agencies, as the Boyd and Mudford studies showed.

47% is not 50%. "33% best outcome" is not "50% recovery".

But 0% is very definitely not 50%.

Lovaas's own response is that no programs not directly administered by him or approved by him can claim to be "replicating" his methods, and therefore these studies show nothing about "real" ABA, "real" Lovaas, etc..

But in that case, the Lovaas data cannot legitimately be cited to support any other programs than those at UCLA or the "replication" sites.

And it is fraudulent to give parents of autistic children not involved in that handful of specific programs the belief that they have a 33% or 47% (let alone a 50/50) chance of "recovery".

This is on top of the fact that, as Michelle's original article pointed out, the 47% was achieved by a procotol using physical aversives, and at the time Lovaas stated that his within-subjects control procedure showed that without the use of aversives any gains were "small and unstable".

"I would rather have the kids with a competent Greenspan person than with a mediocre behaviorist."

Indeed. But that does rather suggest that the important factor is the skill of the teacher/therapist, not their methodology.

And given that Lovaas's protocol (as of the YAP) was extensively documented in treatment manuals and on film, and that the "ABA" programs studied by Boyd, Mudford et al considered themselves to be trying to replicate Lovaas, this disparity in results would seem to be surprising if there was indeed some special magic in the method.

Edited by author 04-28-2004 04:33 PM
Hi John,

Re the idea that all of us but 5% are doomed, please see the small article attached to this large comment board. Please also read Rutter's follow-up (the one in 64 thing). Please read recent epidemiology. Many, many people are or have been doomed for reasons entirely unrelated to their abilities.

My surprise re your non-interest in science in other areas continues. Good science is good science. You can't authoritatively talk about the role of cognition in autism because you haven't studied it. Your actions indicate you consider your guesses about cognition are more useful than an actual reading of the science.

You seem to be proposing that behaviours are purely incidental to behavers. That doesn't work for me. I'm back to being a person emitting autistic behaviours. So, we take away the autistic behaviours, and presto, a person. Now explain to me who and what this "person" is. How do you decide what constitutes the "person" who is merely embellished by arbitrary (to the "person") behaviours.

I don't know why you support DTT. I wouldn't propose to mentalize for you. I don't use motives a lot when examining what others do. I use consequences (very behaviourist of me). This is the point you are missing re Dr Malott.

You do not, it is true, have to live the consequences of his actions, but I do. If he merely described the colour of someone's skin, or the behaviour associated with exercising a religion as horrifying, I would not consider this excusable or an improvement. I cannot detach myself from my horrifying autistic behaviours any more than a black person can detach from his skin or an observant Jew detach from the practices required for his beliefs.

Re replication, you're saying results are irrelevant? And you're saying the 47% is legitimate? How do you escape from the ethics problems that result?

I didn't argue with Lovaas about his experimental group's characteristics at intake, but he and his gang were completely and knowingly dishonest about at least one of the controls.

Also re replication, WEAP's website and Sallow's writing (see his response to Rita Jordan) emphasize the goal of normality.

I've found many behaviours horrifying also. I've written about some of these, and done legal cases--eg, intolerance, hate, denigration, etc.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

Generally re recovery, here's from a recent Canadian newspaper story (NB Telegraph Journal, April 23 2004)re a human rights case:

>The Manuels say that the cost of private ABA treatment shocked them but they feel they have no choice but to continue.
>
>"We thought it was crazy but that's the only treatment that works for him. What would you do? . . . ABA is the only scientifically proven treatment that works for these kids," Mr. Manuel said.
>
>"The only time that you would stop treatment is when he makes no more progress . . . or when he's at a level where he's in recovery."

>"We have two choices: either we pay or he regresses and we can't handle him and probably send him to an institution," Mr. Manuel said.

Hi again Clare,

Here we go.

You said “You'll allow 3? I thought the traditional claim was "only discrete trials have any scientific proof at all! all others are wicked anti-scientific quacks who have strayed from the One True Way!!"”

Come on Clare, not even Lovaas takes that hard a stance these days. There was a long time, no one but ABA folks thought that it may be a clever idea to do some research and see what happens. Those days are past. You are over generalizing across behaviorist across times a little too much. Even Maurice encouraged more research on several methods, in the both of the skills books she worked on.

You said “Hmm ... off the top of my head, PECS also has some promising data (enough to get it included in many ABA programs, at any rate).”

Indeed, I use it as well. PECS as you know is a behavioral in methodology. Although, I am aware of only one empirical journal article on it. There is another one supposedly coming out in the next 1 ½ years. I just sat through a professor’s speech lamenting the fact that we use this method with so little proof. But having just one study is not the repeated measures I was talking about. So PECS doesn’t qualify on my list.

Many other non behavioral methods have at least a pilot study or two. Gluten free/casein free diet, Social Stories, Dolphin Therapy, etc. A few have case studies like Tomatis, Greenspan, and some SI techniques. And some of those are hard to find. Also, many non treatment based research articles exist. But I was speaking on treatment. Also, even I as an undergrad, can tear apart many of these based on their research methodology. Imagine what someone like Gresham could do if he did a critique.

You said “And there are many, many studies on incidental teaching, pivotal response procedures, time delay, mand-model, naturalistic language approaches, etc. etc. , all very much peer-reviewed (I'm trying to pull together some ideas on incidental teaching, and the bibliography is already drowning me).”

That’s a good point. If I had been wiser, I would have said ABA not just DT. Correction noted. I can actually add a half dozen more sub types to the ones you named, which have some articles as well. I might add though, isn’t it nice to have a lot of studies to build your ideas and your article on. I am a fan on all the above and I am excited to see more research on them. Even though none of these are as researched as DT. I also might challenge you on the PRT a bit, or at least the way it is advertised.

You said “Some of these may technically be "ABA" but they're very far away from discrete trial or Lovaas, and in many cases contradict "ABA" dogma.”

No one behaviorist, not even Skinner, had/has ownership of the totality of ABA. Incidental teaching seems as behavioral to me as DT. There is no one dogma in behaviorism. This is proved by the arguments between Koegel/Lovaas folks, JABA/PBS folks, AVB/DT folks, aversives/non-aversive folks, and Lovaas/Gresham. Even Skinner had Watson and he Pavlovians.

You said “This strikes me as an interesting (not to say disingenuous) use of the word "replication", since the two studies in question conspicuously didn't replicate Lovaas's results.”

Not direct replication, but we may correctly call it systematic replication.

Please explain Lovaas’ strict pre-selection guidelines.

You said “And all of the attempted-replication-of-Lovaas studies on which I've seen published reports have either quietly dropped the term "recovery", or are actively reporting "non-recovery"”

We have indeed moved away from that term. I wonder if recovery is actually a goal anymore. Not at the centers were I assist at. We also have learned along the way.

You said “Beyond that, when it comes to "ABA" as provided outside university clinics, studies are showing results a million miles away from those that parents are being led to expect.”

True, but teacher skill discrepancy plays a major role in this I think. Also ABA when provided for by many schools will not even reach 30 hours a week. That isn’t even full time pre-school for a lot of kids. Also there is always the danger that the people who are supervising/training teachers are not really behaviorists. I would rather have the kids with a competent Greenspan person than with a mediocre behaviorist. The State of New York is having troubles with this right now. Some of these methods are psuedobehavioral. Not even a BCBA is always able to do DT the right way, as shown by your own examples. .

Having an aid has been criticized as an outcome measure by both behaviorists and non behaviorists. As has having an Individual Education Plan. In the US parents have a great deal of authority deciding the education of their child. They can even sway labeling. I know at least two sets of parents who refused to have an autism label put on her children. The children were very verbal and hand flapped and had other behavior that seemed like a real match with the label. They chose another option. Parents can say “no aid with my child”. And some clearly do. In other cases parents have an aid with the child when they may not be necessary. Lovaas advocated the no label thing for a very long time, this has also been an influence. I myself know three children who came through DT who are now fully mainstreamed. They are still themselves, but I would be pressed to spot the autism in them.

The DSM-IV-TR, somewhat unhelpfully says that around 1/3 of persons with autism are able to achieve some level of independence and that a very small minority become totally independent. I have heard this placed at 5%in Autism Disorder elsewhere. There seems to be a better chance that a person with Autism Disorder will develop seizures (25%) according to the DSM than they will of being partially or wholly independent.

Of course there are statements in the DSM that I don’t care to define, let alone defend. I guess the point is more kids end up needing some considerable support than getting scholarships to Columbia, although that happens too. Correct me if I am wrong about this, I am always happy to learn.

You said “So the fact that parents are being widely led to believe that "Studies suggest that if we do everything right, using ABA, autistic kids have about a 50/50 shot at recovery" (Perry, in "Making A Difference", eds. Maurice, Green and Foxx, 2001) - well, the ethics of that might merit an essay all by themselves, if not a prosecution for false advertising.”

Yes, it was inappropriate. I am less sure about unethical. 47% is not 50%. I don’t mind Lovaas being cited as the best results achieved, as long as we explain what the differences are between then and now, and that we cite the exact statistic.

You said “It is not good science, it is not good ethics - and in fact it is what is traditionally known as "fraud".”

I do not like it when folks generalize 47% to 50% but this seems more like rounding than fraud. Once again Lovaas is the best example, but as you say, no one has ever experimentally directly replicated his procedure in research. But those were the results achieved in that study.

Recovery is an incorrect label. As is “treatment”, in this case. You cited Dr. Mudford who is indeed correct in his analysis. But I think of it as less damning and more a call for improvement.

You said “And when scientists engage in making fraudulent claims, we do not normally pat them on the back.”

Very true…But perhaps we disagree what fraud is in this case. And the theoretical analyses should be viewed independent of the person. This is part of not making ad hominem attacks. Michelle has been subject to this, more than her fair share, it is bad ethics, bad science, and just plain generally lacking in the respect that should be given to all persons.

You said “You obviously never met me as a child”

Nope, that I did not. Although that is why I said “generally”, as opposed to “always.”

You said “Quite possibly - just as they might also display greater latency if they were absorbed in a favourite chapter of a book.”

I agree…

 You said “Which is why I think it's sometimes perfectly reasonable to draw someone's attention to the subject you want them to focus on (which is not the same as saying "pay attention") before you give them a direction or ask them a question.”

But even then they will sometimes lose focus, even with a solid well designed lesson. This is a reality of teaching most children, not just those who are autistic.

You said “(Or one could even be really radical sometimes and begin with what they're already interested in ...)”

Sure…… But that is not radical, that seems intuitive. At least in certain conditions. I already do that sometimes.

You said “But none of this supports the idea that hand-flapping (or book-reading) intrinsically interferes with learning.”

We stop agreeing at this point. Remember it is the context that makes a behavior interferes with learning. It is incompatible with other behaviors at that exact moment in time. Although we both know exceptions, if a child is reading or hand flapping, odds are they did not hear the most recent direction or question. The behavior is only “wrong”, in the context of which it occurs in this case.

Allow me to make a similar example. Let’s say I was still a High School student and that I played soccer outside instead of being in my trigonometry class. This behavior is also incompatible with making a response and it will probably have one heck of latency. But it still was reinforcing for me. And let’s even give this behavior the benefit of the doubt and say it had a positive academic affect because I felt less anxious and hyperactive when I got back in. But I still didn’t benefit from the lesson, and if I found that very reinforcing I am likely to do it again tomorrow and then the next day. The behavior should not stay in this context, in this case. But it doesn’t have to be suppressed. If my teacher makes adjustments, and builds a rapport with me, I am less likely to play hooky, because I am engaged and have some momentum of that engagement. But it was the behavior that was interfering, in my case, in the book case, and in the hand flapping case.

You said “And in my experience, autistic children and adults will typically invest a lot more work for the sake of something purely interesting to us than the average NT person will. In fact, my experience has been that if you present autistic children with information in a format they can process and make use of, many of them will grab onto it like the proverbial drowning person clutching at a lifebelt.”

Really??? Well I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt in this case, because I would like to hear more about this.

Thanks for the solid ideas Clare.

 Hi Michelle,

You said “You're saying the only science you're concerned with is "treatment" options.”

No, my interest goes beyond “treatment”. Maybe I should clarify by saying. One of the benefits of our discussion is that I have a greater understanding of my own position. I guess that I don’t want to treat anything. I do want to teach new skills and serve as a facilitator for more learning. There will be times I want to increase or decrease certain behavior for certain, but that is not the same as treatment. I am coming to resent the fact that certain behaviorists (mis)apply the medical model to behavioral methodology.

I do not share the view that autism is cognition, anymore than I believe that having a hearing impairment is cognition. Cognition relating from a multitude of factors is part of being autistic, just like cognition resulting from a multitude of factors is part of having a hearing impairment.

I don’t mind straying from my field, if it is for scientific reasons. I have no investment in DT. I have gained no money for doing DT. And undoubtedly, I may find it as enjoyable to do Greenspan as DT. Why then do you suppose I vehemently stick with DT?

I am also a major fan of the non behavioral evolutionary psychologist Susan Oyama and of the Developmental Systems Theory that she discusses. She writes how development should not be seen as strictly nature or nurture, or as part nature part nurture, but as a complex interweaving of the two. This is indeed my view. Because of my selected method of training I am most able to intervene and look for a cause on the operant level. Part of my ethical responsibility is to look for the plausibility of operants, not to assume their existence. Even then, operants are but a piece of the whole, but an important piece. And this brings us back to FA in some cases.

You said “Did they get that way through improper reinforcement?”

What’s improper reinforcement? If you mean are likely to be left handed because of reinforcement, then that is possible, but I don’t know. Because I work with pre-school children I see some very interesting things with hand dominance.

You said “Re lefty/righty, to whom did the archers' lefty/righty handedness/ocular behaviours belong?”

You still haven’t told me it means to have a behavior belong to someone.

You said “You still haven't answered my question about someone spreading such views re race or religion.”

Somewhere in my previous posts, I did say “no.” But I am happy to repeat it again. No, I would not support that.

I am happy to compromise and even drop some issues, even if I still disagree (like regression) so that I can focus on issues more relevant to me. But this will not be one of those cases. I reject Dr. Malott’s language choices and the verbal behavior he is like to spread do to that language. All the same, “he”, (as an old guard behaviorist) does not view a person and their behavior as synonymous. He indicated that autistic behaviors are horrifying, not autistic people. That’s his perception and his bias. And one I disagree with.

I said in my second post ever on this thread, that I do not find autistic behaviors horrifying. I maintain that still. But there have been times I have found certain behaviors performed by others, aversive to watch. I remember some rather graphic examples. But even with me, it is not the person who I find aversive, it watching the behavior.

I'm really pushed for time, but I have a question for Clare re PRT. I didn't get to talk with Schriebman; she decided instead to send me a pile of materials, including training manuals, and some studies. This was nice enough, but my concern was ethics (this was before I wrote the article), and the pile didn't go near ethics.

Another question re the PRT gang was why those behaviours (for pivotal responses)? I need help here since I realize they're up to three (from two) pivotal responses, and I can't remember the third. But they didn't tell me why those behaviours.

Also, I think systematizing incidental learning to this extent is ridiculous. I thought incidental learning was already too systemitized when it was just incidental learning. But PRT adds this layer of ideology; it is based on specific ideas about autism which have no basis (that I've located) in reality.

I suggested that if they really, really wanted to find a pivotal response, they should find a response that's important to the *autistic* instead of to the researchers. They didn't respond to that one.

Sorry, must run...

This is utterly off topic, but I tried the visual stim(flicking fingers) and I did find hearing a lot easier. Got a few stares from my family though(they were proberley thinking: "Not another one" .

I've realised that I don't know how to stim properley, and neither do Autistic children. Someone should write a book on how to stim properley!

Michelle wrote: "Also, when I spoke with Dr Lovaas, he had progressed to accepting non-lucrative self-stim in non-autistics. He came to this by observing the behaviour of motorists stranded in traffic: they fiddle, they pick their nose (he said). Just bringing everyone up to date."

So, given that Lovaas has been working in the autism field since the 60s, it's taken him 40-or-so years to get round to considering this. Ah, the wonders of scientific progress ...

Something related struck me recently when reading Lynn Kern Koegel and Claire LaZebnik's "Overcoming Autism".

I actually like a lot of the PRT stuff, and think it can often be useful within a "scaffolding" approach.

But what struck me was how extraordinarily grudging the book's acceptance was that possibly, a certain amount of "stimming" might actually be OK (albeit only in private, behind closed doors, lest it be "stigmatizing").

Koegel actually cites her own research showing that many forms of "stimming" don't interfere with learning - but she still can't wholly step outside the Stimming Is Bad framework.

(There's also a classic bit about how, golly, this strange bizarre behaviours do actually seem to have some sort of function and meaning for autistic children, and maybe one day researchers will find out what it is. Which left me muttering, "Or, of course, you could try asking ...").

LaZebnik describes her son - who is doing well in mainstream but still displaying "special interests", stimming in private, and generally acting like a whole lot of other autistic people. But they still can't quite let go of the idea that autism is simply this arbitrary cluster of behaviours, and that if you get rid of (or teach the child to hide) the behaviours, then they're basically "recovered".

It strikes me as people fighting all the way against what their own evidence is telling them (and they're certainly way, way ahead of Lovaas in terms of ability to learn).

Michelle wrote, "where any progress is assumed to be more than can be expected of these hopeless children, even when that progress is less than should be expected through the natural course of development in autism. So the parents demand the programs be continued indefinitely, up to age 19 to far, and soon to come, into and throughout adulthood."

Indeed, I've seen cases reported where a child has not progressed in any noticeable way at all after several years, but the parents have been told that they must continue the program, 40 hours a week of DTT, to prevent the child from regressing.

Re: Sallows, I've seen the "preliminary results" presentation from 1999 (http://trainland.tripod.com/gleno.htm).

This was one of the studies that fractionally loosened the pre-selection criteria, I believe (although not the IQ criteria), and at that point he was reporting that, one year in, only 33% were achieving average IQ scores, and 17% were still mute. The term "recovery" was notably absent.

Even more fascinating, IMHO, have been subsequent statements from WEAP (e.g. http://www.asw4autism.org/Inhome/weap.htm) which state that they use play-based interventions and verbal behaviour procedures (they specifically name-check Koegel, Greenspan, "Son-Rise" and Carbone) as well as "Lovaas ABA" (similar things are stated by LEAP, the London off-shoot of WEAP).

Which, for me, raises some very interesting questions. If they are in fact using a whole range of other techniques, it strikes me as highly misleading to present WEAP as any sort of "replication" of Lovaas.

(In JASH, vol. 24 no. 3, 1999, p. 200 Barry Prizant wrote:

'For example, the first author recently observed a child involved in a "Lovaas Therapy" replication study in which the intervention approach observed in two sessions was more similar to Greenspan and Wieder's developmental, individual-difference, relationship-based (DIR) approach than the "Lovaas method".'

I'm still wondering if he was observing WEAP, or if more than one of the Young Autism "replication" sites is showing this sort of slippage).

Secondly, it strikes me as hugely ironic if Lovaas proponents like Sallows are in fact (and in practice) stealing from Koegel, Greenspan, and others, given that they (and organizations like ASAT) go out of their way in public to decry all other methods as unresearched, not-scientifically-proven, etc. etc. etc. (see Lovaas's comments in "Teaching Individuals with Developmental Delays" concerning Koegel, Greenspan, and indeed apparently anyone other than Lovaas).

Of course, I won't even go into the ironies of their making major claims on the basis of data which hasn't even been published, let alone peer-reviewed ...

Clare wrote: "...if you present autistic children with information in a format they can process and make use of, many of them will grab onto it like the proverbial drowning person clutching at a lifebelt."

I can only add two things. One, I would not limit that to children. Two, I hope Clare is writing another book.

Re replications of Lovaas, the replication used in Auton is the one not published yet, done by Sallows. Its publication has been just around the corner for four-five years now. Also just around the corner for years is Lovaas' high priority (NIMH grant status) follow-up of his best outcomes.

Also re replications, Smith also did a study about parent directed programs. The kids reportedly improved greatly in the first few months (finally being treated consistently); but over a span of two years there was no progress. Parents regardless were delighted and want more.

This has happened in Canada with all programs where any progress is assumed to be more than can be expected of these hopeless children, even when that progress is less than should be expected through the natural course of development in autism. So the parents demand the programs be continued indefinitely, up to age 19 to far, and soon to come, into and throughout adulthood. The parents have tremendous incentive to demand programs and to keep their kids in them forever, since of course, an autistic without ABA is doomed.

Edited by author 04-27-2004 01:38 PM
"I wonder though, if you tell a child to put the book down while you are teaching, generally it has been my experience that they do that."

You obviously never met me as a child ... <g>.

"If I tell a child to pay attention while I explain something and they are hand flapping while making noise, odds are they did not hear what I just said,"

Quite possibly - just as they might also display greater latency if they were absorbed in a favourite chapter of a book.

Which is why I think it's sometimes perfectly reasonable to draw someone's attention to the subject you want them to focus on (which is not the same as saying "pay attention") before you give them a direction or ask them a question.

(Or one could even be really radical sometimes and begin with what they're already interested in ...)

But none of this supports the idea that hand-flapping (or book-reading) intrinsically interferes with learning.

Let alone what innumerable parents have been told - and are being told - that anything "stimmy" is an unspeakable evil which must be forcibly suppressed.

"At the same time I don’t think we will ever make some lessons fun."

I never said that one always could or should. But it is certainly possible to make lessons interesting.

And in my experience, autistic children and adults will typically invest a lot more work for the sake of something purely interesting to us than the average NT person will.

In fact, my experience has been that if you present autistic children with information in a format they can process and make use of, many of them will grab onto it like the proverbial drowning person clutching at a lifebelt.

I get it! I think I get it. I might get it. I don't think I get it. Now I have it! But now I don't.

I know: I'll get it later.

Edited by author 04-27-2004 12:24 PM
Sally Rogers says "I think that Lovaas’s group have provided the best studies of the method, and we have now two replications of his work (Lovaas, 1987; Smith et al., 2000; Eikeseth et al., 2002)."

This strikes me as an interesting (not to say disingenuous) use of the word "replication", since the two studies in question conspicuously didn't replicate Lovaas's results.

In fact, as far as I know, nobody has managed to replicate Lovaas's results. Some studies have sucessfully got a proportion of kids into mainstream without an aide, but typically a much lower percentage than Lovaas reported - the data seem to indicate that as soon as you loosen Lovaas's strict pre-selection criteria even slightly, the percentage who go into mainstream drops rapidly.

And all of the attempted-replication-of-Lovaas studies on which I've seen published reports have either quietly dropped the term "recovery", or are actively reporting "non-recovery" (i.e. that even their "best outcome" kids continue to show autistic traits).

Beyond that, when it comes to "ABA" as provided outside university clinics, studies are showing results a million miles away from those that parents are being led to expect. E.g.

Boyd RD, Corley MJ. Outcome survey of early intensive behavioral intervention for young children with autism in a community setting. Autism. 2001;5(4):430-441.

and

Bibby, P., Eikeseth, S., Martin, N. T., Mudford, O. C., & Reeves, D. (2001). Progress and outcomes for children with autism receiving parent-managed intensive interventions. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 22, 425-447

Both of which studied children who had received at least two years of "EIBI" directed by professional consultants and found that none of them had even been able to go into mainstream without an aide, let alone become "indistinguishable from their normal peers".

(See http://www.mnip-net.org/ddlead.nsf/0/287ec...67b09b?OpenDocument for Mudford's comments - which, given that he's a staunch ABA proponent, are fairly damning).

In fact, given that a significant percentage of kids with autism who don't get ABA do end up in mainstream schools without an aide (I can think of several people I know first-hand who did so after presenting as "classically autistic" in early childhood), those results actually start to look rather worse than those one would expect through chance alone.

People tend to forget that Leo Kanner's 1972 follow-up of children diagnosed with autism at John Hopkins before 1953 (who therefore received minimal "treatment" or specialist education by today's standards) found that 7 out of the 96 had gone to college or university (including one who had "excelled in mathematical physics on a scholarship at Columbia University"):

Kanner, L., Rodriguez, A., and Ashenden, B. (1972). How far can autistic children go in matters of social adaptation? Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia, 2: 9-33.

So the fact that parents are being widely led to believe that "Studies suggest that if we do everything right, using ABA, autistic kids have about a 50/50 shot at recovery" (Perry, in "Making A Difference", eds. Maurice, Green and Foxx, 2001) - well, the ethics of that might merit an essay all by themselves, if not a prosecution for false advertising.

To my mind, for example, the fact that Gina Green allowed that statement to be published in a book she co-edited - when she must know perfectly well that there are no studies substantiating this claim at all (not even Lovaas claimed 50% for his highly pre-selected group) - is astoundingly unethical.

Leaving aside the entire question of the ethics of trying to "treat" people into normality (which is not a question that one can ignore), reputable scientists should not be making outright false claims.

It is not good science, it is not good ethics - and in fact it is what is traditionally known as "fraud".

And when scientists engage in making fraudulent claims, we do not normally pat them on the back.

No matter how pretty their theoretical analyses.

"Only 3 methods have multiple empirical measures in peer reviewed journals,"

You'll allow 3? I thought the traditional claim was "only discrete trials have any scientific proof at all! all others are wicked anti-scientific quacks who have strayed from the One True Way!!" <g>

"These are DT, Magnesium & B6 vitamins, and TEACCH. "

Hmm ... off the top of my head, PECS also has some promising data (enough to get it included in many ABA programs, at any rate). And there are many, many studies on incidental teaching, pivotal response procedures, time delay, mand-model, naturalistic language approaches, etc. etc. , all very much peer-reviewed (I'm trying to pull together some ideas on incidental teaching, and the bibliography is already drowning me).

Some of these may technically be "ABA" but they're very far away from discrete trial or Lovaas, and in many cases contradict "ABA" dogma.

See, for example:

Delprato, D.J. (2001). Comparisons of discrete–trial and normalized behavioral language intervention for young children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 315-325.

- for a review of 10 separate controlled studies on DTT vs. naturalistic language approaches.

For Lucas...

http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/showth...p?p=91991#post91991

My two-penn'orth.

Edited by author 04-27-2004 11:50 AM
Hi John,

Oh, I see. You're saying the only science you're concerned with is "treatment" options. I don't get it. Don't you want to know *what* you're treating? Oh--you're treating behaviours. Well, I guess we have a QED here re behaviourists not straying from their field.

Re lefty/righty, to whom did the archers' lefty/righty handedness/ocular behaviours belong? Did they get that way through improper reinforcement? I didn't say that handedness couldn't be adapted for, which you describe. Just that teaching a lefty and a righty is different in many tasks; it is important information to have when teaching someone.

I don't support pseudo or antiscience either, which is why I have trouble with behaviourists. One thing I look at in all fields (not limited to "treatments") is methodology and how it is compromised by biases. Those biases, as seen in behaviourists, have to do with assuming what autism is, and what autistics can and should do, and who autistics should be.

Re Dr Malott, disagreeing with his theoretical analysis is one thing, and I may or may not do that (I haven't discussed his theoretical analysis). I object to his blatant prejudices, his gratuitous description of autism as horrifying, etc, and his use of his reputation, whatever that reputation is, to spread these views. You still haven't answered my question about someone spreading such views re race or religion. You would admire him because his theory is the shape of things to come? I've experienced (however irrelevantly) the extreme fallout of "authorities" (including a behaviourist one) using their authority to state that I and everyone like me is worthless.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

Hi Clare,

My semester is over and I have less access to a computer now so I will be slower getting back to you and to everyone else. I will try to answer everything I can until my time runs out.

You said “Objectivity is something to aspire to, although I'm not sure it's something anyone can honestly claim they attain.”

Provided we actually are aspiring for it. Its my experience that professionals often confuse commitment “agreeing to do something”, and adherence (actually doing it).

You said “Arbitrarily excluding a certain type of evidence (autobiographical) from either general understanding of autism or attempts to understand a particular child or adult strikes me as extremely bad science, and very far from objective.”

True, but it depends on how you use it. Otherwise you may not have not escaped bad science.

You said “First of all, you're assuming that "self-stim" is a homogenous category, as opposed to a label covering everything from unusual physical mannerisms to forms of play or learning that NTs disapprove of.”

That’s a fair criticism; I did over generalize in that comment. But I believe I say elsewhere in this thread that I believe behaviors may occur for many reasons. So I do not consider self-stim homogenous. I am also very aware of Lovaas’ writing.

Interesting book example.

I see how that behavior could also be considered as interfering with learning. I wonder though, if you tell a child to put the book down while you are teaching, generally it has been my experience that they do that. If I tell a child to pay attention while I explain something and they are hand flapping while making noise, odds are they did not hear what I just said, and will indeed have a greater latency (time between instruction and response), or will not do it at all without further prompts. Of course I have seen some examples that run counter to this. This depends on the child. And depending on the child certain behaviors may indeed affect their ability to pay attention.

I think I understand your point in the book example and I agree. As I have said before, I do not advocate suppression of what is termed self-stim. My goal is to provide those interesting opportunities and chances you spoke of. If a child has an interesting and engaging lesson they are indeed likely to spend more time with that. It is the same story with the teacher or psychologist. If they find them interesting, and engaging they will spend more time interacting with them. At the same time I don’t think we will ever make some lessons fun. How do you make the holocaust fun? Important and engaging maybe, but not fun. It is my ideology that there is no such thing as a pathological behavior per se. Hand flapping is indeed comparable to book reading in that regard.

Hi Michelle,

I am mostly cut off from computers now. So I will kind of respond to a bunch of things at once.

I do try and determine what aspects of a item a person responds to. But not very well. This is an area we could improve upon. This is currently done moslty through observation and inferences. It is not as strong as the actual preference assesment.

I have a different analysis of the generative grammer bit.
 
I am glad the 63% exists somewhere.

I myself just finished and turned in a review of the different autism treatments which will be used to train grad students, even though I am not a grad student myself. I have been working on this since December. Your criticisms of behaviorists only being familiar with other fields is somewhat accurate. Most of the other methods drive us nuts because they don’t have a shred of empirical proof. It turns us off before we fully listen. My conclusions are similar to Maurice’s. Only 3 methods have multiple empirical measures in peer reviewed journals, which seem to increase verbal communication and decrease tantruming (yes I am simplifying). These are DT, Magnesium & B6 vitamins, and TEACCH. I predict that Social Stories will eventually achieve that as well. FC and secretin seem to have failed when assessed. Others remain mostly unmeasured.

I am familiar with problems of left and right hand dominance. Now let me throw you a curveball. I have worked every summer at a summer camp since I was 14. I teach archery. We have a consistent problem and debate in that field of what to do when someone is cross-dominant (left handed and right eye dominant, or vice versa). We have to train one or the other or that person will never hit the target. I usually train the other hand. It seems to be easier than doing the eye. Of course if a person protests or gets frustrated I have also been successful the other way. Sometimes they just tell me what their preference is. In the end I still have to spend extra time with that person re-training the other dominance. They become adept enough with the other dominance, to perform at a high level. But they remain in other contexts, whatever dominance they were previously. You also did not speak on people who were ambidextrous or ambiocular.

 Looking at our debate over subjectivity, I wonder if our differences at this point lie more in a semantic realm. I agree that persons with first hand knowledge are critical to ethically establishing treatment. I also agree that objective guidelines and criteria are initially based on subjective values. From what I can tell, you believe that objectivity is important in establishing treatment as well. “That”, combined with ethics, is the thing I care most about. From what I can tell we more or less agree on these things.

You said “By saying that there are only individual differences among autistics, you're denying all the science outside your own field.”

I do not state there are only individual differences in autism. I do put individual operants as the most important factor. I do not deny science (but I may and will criticize it when I observe a flaw). This includes my own science. I do not generally support pseudoscience or anti-science, but even then I will listen to what people are saying.

I don’t know what else to say about Dr. Malott. He is a theoretician and makes inferences some of which are indeed likely to be seen as false. I bestow deep credibility on him as a teacher of future behaviorists in general, not as theorist of autism. In the land of treatment theory he is an authority, albeit one I disagree with. You may condemn Dr. Malott based on his theoretical analyses but with him you must also take Freud, Vytogotsky, Piaget, me, and yourself. We are all guilty of making potentially disastrous inferences. This is an indication of how we all work.

Lucas,

Sorry to hear that you been having problems with some of those parents. I think that what happens is very much this good intentions bit: and with good intentions they say something to you and you end up knocked off kilter, and then... there's a kerfuffle, and... "the autistic started it"! People have - by-and-large - a very selective way of understanding others, and it's based on how they construe what they perceive. As Kelly said: "A person's processes are psychologically channelized by the ways in which he anticipates events." And this is based on their experiences.

Your experiences as an autistic person will have "channelised" your processes since your experience is what gives you the way you anticipate events. Mine, as an autistic psychologist, have been developed in similar fashion. Actually... everybody's ways of thinking and feeling and doing are developed in this way: and we call these things - in "the biz" - "personal constructs". This theory is the only theory in psychology I know of that actually addresses mental processes universally well enough to be a theory of "people"... the thing that is different for the autistic, and the schizophrenic, and the ADHD-ic, etc., is NOT the processes themselves (as others would have us believe) but the experiences that go along with being who that person is.

I put this here as a way of trying to help you to understand why - no matter how eloquent your argument may be (and I saw some corking things in there from you) - many people will still fail to "get you" properly. I could see your argument and how people were getting it wrong nearly all the time.... and it was frustrating for me also. Another thing, and - again - it comes down to how we construe things as people, is the way that they were a lot less restrained in their constructions of what any given word would acceptably mean. One reason why people generally argue is that they are going through a semantic battle: trying to find a similar construction of what any given word might mean. And sometimes, they just "fuck up" because they get so stubborn about their own idea of the meaning of that word... their contruct becomes too tight, but - when the pressure is off them again - they go back to floppy constructions again. Autistics tend to be very "pedantic" (the mainstreamers' word for what we actually are: precise); our constructions of things and how they relate to definitions of words and so on are a lot less slack than theirs, and so we can have a much clearer discussion of things than most do. And they can't handle it because our constructions of things have less play on them: and so they think we're pedantic. And we think they talk bollocks all the time, because they have too much play in their constructs than we do.

Did that pile of shite make any sense to you, Lucas? Cos I'm somewhat depressed and don't know if what I say makes any sense at all.

Clare.... thanks for your wishes. Means a lot.

Michelle wrote "Perhaps it could be pointed out (I'm trying to adopt very objective language) that odd/repetitive movements can be directly, in some cases, connected with perception and perceptual needs (eg, as a way to manage or switch modalities)."

Very definitely - which is one of the ways in which they can be very adaptive and enable learning.

I have a lot of trouble following long strings of auditory information in lessons or lectures, and on numerous occasions I've found myself using a visual stim (like flicking my fingers in front of my eyes) to limit overload so I can hear better.

I just had a massive arguement:

http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/showth...p?p=91521#post91521

That was bloody traumatic; I've been doing multiple stims non-stop(cracking knuckles, licking teeth, syllable whispers, rocking and blinking all at once.)

David wrote, "sometimes in science, people have gone away from pure objective observation and gone into what may be best described as "instinct"... they follow a hunch, regardless of the known "facts" about something. "

Absolutely. But then it's necessary to go on to look at the evidence as much as possible - questioning the evidence that apparently supports the known "facts", looking for evidence to support one's hunch, and (for the sake of intellectual honesty) looking out for the evidence that might *disprove* one's hunch. You look for the empirical feedback that will tell you whether your hunch was along the right lines or not.

Which is what I mean about objectivity as something to aspire to - we want to end up with something more than just "I have this hunch", even though that's where the best science often *begins*.

"Getting into Kellyan territory here...... careful.... behaviourists don't really like him! :P"

Yeah, but I'm not a behaviourist, so I don't have to worry about that <g>.

(Still sending good thoughts for you to feel better soon, btw).

Somethings in Clare's post I'd be interested on commenting on.

>"John wrote, "But here is a question: Do you know why the student covered his ears, or do you logically suspect? Is that suspicion adequate to make recommendations?"

No - one isolated observation shaped by personal experience is not sufficient to make recommendations, any more than one isolated behavioural observation is!"

Indeed not, but often this is what happens in the so-called objective observational method... the behaviour is interpreted by the observer in accordance with his/her own experience and understanding. Objective observation is, in other words, very rarely possible.

"As it happened, I wasn't formally observing that child at the time. But if I had been, I would certainly have ensured that I kept my eyes open and did not miss further instances where sensory issues might have been affecting his actions."

Yes.

"And I would certainly have cited my own experiences in my report as an example to explain how bumping into someone could be connected with a child's covering their ears."

Yes, I would say so too... and I would advise that people should look for sources of discomfort in the kid's environment and aim to reduce their impact.

">"That said, objective seems vastly preferable when making a decision about an important educational issue."

Objectivity is something to aspire to, although I'm not sure it's something anyone can honestly claim they attain."

There is actually no absolute proof that it is the most preferable way to work: sometimes in science, people have gone away from pure objective observation and gone into what may be best described as "instinct"... they follow a hunch, regardless of the known "facts" about something. This is definitely true in physics (one of my starting disciplines, along with archaeology and mathematics), and I suspect that it happens a lot more in psychology than people dare to admit.

"As I've pointed out, even "objective" records of behaviour such as ABC charts are shaped by what the observer does or does not notice or perceive as salient."

Exactly... and in that way it is not actually objective. In the same way that sensory input is not perceived in any objective way (which is why - when dealing with chronic back pain, for example - one cannot have a single objective scale for it: it is a purely subjective experience based on how the client is able to experience it; no talking about "observing pain behaviours" and "reducing pain behaviours" and going ahead to reduce the behaviours associated with pain is going to actually make the pain go away... it is more likely to do harm than good, since it will teach the person in pain how NOT to express that pain, and the fact of the pain will go un-noticed thereafter... this is why behaviourism basically sucks.

"And to me, objectivity involves considering *all* the available evidence. Arbitrarily excluding a certain type of evidence (autobiographical) from either general understanding of autism or attempts to understand a particular child or adult strikes me as extremely bad science, and very far from objective."

It IS "extremely bad science": this is why I use the Lewinian equation so much to explain why people do what they do. People don't like it because the equation includes THEIR part of the responsibility for people's behaviour, and this goes against whatever it is that helps them stay comfortable. Fact is, we all form a system of behaving organisms and we are all interconnected because we perceive and observe each other and what each other is doing. My one-time professor, Järvilehto, had this idea that what we see as individual behaviour is in fact the result of the behaviour of this organism-environment system, and it actually makes sense (especially in light of what Clare just said there)... individual responsibility for behaviour is actually a convenient fiction used by lawmakers and disciplinarians to avoid having to accept their input into the reason for any individual's behaviour, whether offending or not. But we all cause each other's behaviour... Järvilehto's and Lewin's work go parallel to each other... one at the societal level and one at a sort of social neuropsychological level.

"I think it's also important to acknowledge that moment-to-moment interaction with someone can very rarely be guided by purely "objective" assessment - imagine:

I like this bit.....

"OK, you're tugging on the doorhandle. Let me stop the lesson, fill in ABC charts for 3 weeks, do a formal analysis, then I'll know what this means and decide how to respond."

Bingo. It is too bloody time consuming. It is also not very objective and certainly not likely to make any sense for a while.

"In the very-short-term, our responses have to be shaped by our understanding (both of autism and of the particular person we are working with), interpretations and past experiences."

Precisely.

"Which is far from infallible in anyone's case, which is why systematic observations can be one useful tool - one part of the necessary feedback on whether those responses are in fact correct or helpful."

From a psychological persective, absolutely correct. Part of a tool kit, but not a be-all-and-end-all.

"Another vital part of that feedback, needless to say, is listening to that individual's own indications (verbal or not) about what any behaviour means to them!"

Getting into Kellyan territory here...... careful.... behaviourists don't really like him! :P

"But pretending that any teacher can operate on a basis of pure scientific objectivity moment-to-moment is dangerously naive."

I agree entirely.

"Anyone who maintains the belief that they are or can be 100% objective thereby tends to guarantee that they're anything but."

Yep. Many studies actually attest to this.


David
probably the best psychologist in Finland... except for Prof Järvilehto.

Edited by author 04-27-2004 12:54 AM
From a Sally Rogers interview (http://www.abaforum.dk/artikler/2003/sally_rogers.php):

"What is your opinion about Ole Ivar Lovaas’ study and the replication sites?

I think that Lovaas’s group have provided the best studies of the method, and we have now two replications of his work (Lovaas, 1987; Smith et al., 2000; Eikeseth et al., 2002). And I think that all the Lovaas studies consistently show that children who received the treatment did better than the comparison groups. The degree of improvement varies from study to study, and only one of those has randomized assignment to groups. And it hasn’t been compared to any other specific method, so we don’t have comparative data, but I feel that it’s established that children who receive that treatment do better than those who receive minimal treatment.

However, those treatments were developed in the 60’s, and there’s been quite a bit of modernization of Applied Behavior Analysis since Dr Lovaas developed that technique, and my guess is that the more modern approaches to ABA may be even more effective than the mass trial approach that he used, but it hasn’t been studied in the same way. It’s been studied in small studies."

Apparently, this one's involved in the MIND Institute....

AND.... if this Sally Rogers is the same one....
"2001 Rogers SJ, "L'intervention precoce dans l'autisme: de la recherche a la pratique." Le Bulletin Scientifique de l'Arapi, 7, 29-34" And she couldn't spot a latent francophone? (I'm not sure that she would have employed a translator for that text).

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

Hi Michelle,

"Instead, here's something I saw in a Sally Rogers presentation (in fact the first I ever saw, and that was recently). Dr Rogers extensively uses DTT. She was asked a question she couldn't answer, but I could."

And don't it make you feel good when you can answer questions that professionals can't....

"I had to stay quiet since her introduction made it clear that autistics were not supposed to be in the audience."

So, her philosophy is that we're only there to be treated, not consulted with? Who does she think she is? I don't like her already...

"In any case, she was asked about an autistic kid who had weird word order. He said, my bicycle green; and, my cat white. Dr Rogers had no explanation."

And what comes next is interesting..... but if this is Dr Sally Rogers, "National Academy of Sciences Committee Member, Education of Children with Autism 1999-2001", then I would have expected better...

"I practically yelled, the kid's a latent francophone! Dr Rogers didn't consider the kind of information an autistic might pick up in a society where he is surrounded by a language different from his own."

Which is deplorable behaviour for someone who considers herself a scientist.

Hi John,

Thanks, those are all interesting observations.

Do you make any effort to find out, once you have decided on preferred/non-preferred activities re a client, what it is in these activities which is preferred? I'm unsure about this.

Autistics can, without prompting, extract enough information from a non-arbitrary situation to comprehend it. Doesn't matter whether the situation is social/non-social, or familiar/novel: what matters is the non-arbitrariness. But whether we're able to communicate this comprehension is, you've noticed, up to you.

Re age-typical language, oh my--generative grammar!!! Congratulations! Your kids have come down with a serious case of Pinker.

I have to restrain myself here from using experience, since I've had interesting language problems.

Instead, here's something I saw in a Sally Rogers presentation (in fact the first I ever saw, and that was recently). Dr Rogers extensively uses DTT. She was asked a question she couldn't answer, but I could. I had to stay quiet since her introduction made it clear that autistics were not supposed to be in the audience. In any case, she was asked about an autistic kid who had weird word order. He said, my bicycle green; and, my cat white. Dr Rogers had no explanation.

I practically yelled, the kid's a latent francophone! Dr Rogers didn't consider the kind of information an autistic might pick up in a society where he is surrounded by a language different from his own.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

Edited by author 04-26-2004 11:19 PM
I think Clare's treatment of "self-stim" is easily the most comprehensive and concise I've read. I could add very little apart from agreement, applause, etc. Perhaps it could be pointed out (I'm trying to adopt very objective language) that odd/repetitive movements can be directly, in some cases, connected with perception and perceptual needs (eg, as a way to manage or switch modalities).

Also, when I spoke with Dr Lovaas, he had progressed to accepting non-lucrative self-stim in non-autistics. He came to this by observing the behaviour of motorists stranded in traffic: they fiddle, they pick their nose (he said). Just bringing everyone up to date.

Re objective/subjective, how can one be objective when one does not have access to most of the information involved? This is the situation of non-autistics toward autistics. This is in the science.

Impartiality, necessary to objectivity, does not mean not taking a side. It means considering everything. Autistics are well-equipped for impartiality: you also can find this in the science. Non-autistics, at the most basic levels of perception, are influenced by many things that don't actually exist, and miss many things that actually do.

Hi Michelle,

I’ll get back to you on your recent post.

First I want to talk about some agreements and other interesting things I have seen in the last week.

I visited a preschool boy in his DT program while he was having play time the other day. He has become very social compared to last spring. He asked to play tag and so we ran around a bit. A little girl who is brand new to the program was also there. She is non verbal and in general seems to have less skills than most of our students. She has been having a hard time with transitions especially from a preferred to non-preferred activity.

I noticed that she was watching us. I thought maybe she wanted to join in, but I had never seen her take interest in others like this. So she continued to watch us. She eventually came and stood by us while still watching us. I thought maybe she is just wanted to watch closer. Because, I thought if she wanted to play she would just do what most of our kids would do and jump in. I finally figured out that she wanted to play but wanted us to invite her. Her presence and looking at us may have served as the request “Can I play?” When we invited her, her smile and the fact that she already knew how to play were evidence that she did want to play.

This was a person specific form of communication. She had been trying to get my attention. But I did a poor job recognizing that. I think this is akin to what you referred to in your rainbow example. Another interesting question is “how has that behavior been reacted to in the past by parents and other child care givers.”

My second narrative: I just finished giving an autism rating scale to about 14 pre-school students. There is one four year old who went through DT and is now quite high functioning. He has made some impressive progress in verbal behavior. I noticed that he has begun to make generalized language errors in an age typical way e.g. (it hurted the dog, we goed there, we see deers). Those were all real examples that I can remember. I have seen this before in other children who came through a DT program. I am curious, have you seen this as well?

My third narrative: I have another student who loves to rough house, and play chase games. He also has what we call delayed echoic speech. He repeats whole paragraphs of lines from various TV shows. He makes a strong case for implicit learning, although I would consider this modeling and model reinforcement. This is ironic because his teacher considers him an extrinsic learner big time. Anyway we were on the playground when another HF boy ran up and joined us. This second boy is also rapidly acquiring skills but is not as high functioning as my TV show quoting friend yet. The first boy told me “you have to catch me”, and ran off, the second boy did the same without saying those words. Eventually the first boy had to go back inside. I sat down for a while. The second boy who is only beginning to speak in full sentences ran up and said “you have to catch me.” The only example he had for this, is the one time the other boy said it. Interesting…… Maybe modeling maybe implicit…..

"I think you more or less were correct on the self-stim portion. I might add though, that in a direct teaching circumstance, self-stim may interfere with learning. "

First of all, you're assuming that "self-stim" is a homogenous category, as opposed to a label covering everything from unusual physical mannerisms to forms of play or learning that NTs disapprove of.

(Side-note: in "Teaching Individuals with Developmental Delays", Lovaas goes into the most extraordinary contortions trying to explain why autistic forms of 'self-stimulation' are bad, whereas NT behaviour which is apparently equally 'self-stimulatory' in nature is fine and good. Towards the end of the chapter, he acknowledges that professional golf can be seen as a type of stimming, but that it's okay because people get paid for it).

But I'd say the key issue here is that of the interpretations being placed on the data.

As I understand it, this whole claim originated with a few studies showing that if you present an instruction to a child while they are absorbed in a physical stim, they will respond more slowly.

Well, yeah. If I presented an instruction to a child absorbed in reading a book (or any other interesting activity), I'm sure they'd respond more slowly too.

Similarly, if you had a population of children who were denied any lessons they could understand or opportunities to interact, but allowed them access to books, I'm sure you'd find they spent much of their time reading.

If you suddenly started providing them with interesting opportunities to learn or enjoyable opportunities to interact, you'd expect that the proportion of time spent reading would decrease as the time spent on other activities increased.

However, no-one would look at this data and conclude that "books interfere with learning" or that "book behaviour must be suppressed before a child can learn" ("NO! Book down!").

If a child was found reading a novel during a maths lesson, we might interpret that they are not paying attention and might find it reasonable to redirect their attention to the lesson - and, hopefully, deduce that they are finding the lesson boring and that it should be made more interesting for them. But we would not see novel-reading itself as pathological (in fact, we might see it as extremely desirable in many other contexts).

And we would also understand and accept that other forms of "book behaviour" during the lesson - for example, looking at the maths textbook, or taking notes - might actually not only be compatible with paying attention but play a vital role in facilitating learning.

At any rate, I don't imagine that we would spend a quarter of a century lecturing and writing on how "book behaviour" is a bizarre, abnormal, pathological behaviour that prevents children from developing and must be suppressed.

(Personally, I too have seen children hand-flap and not follow directions. I have also seen children hand-flap and follow directions. And I've seen children not hand-flap and not follow directions. I also tend to think that there's a lot more to learning than just following directions, but that's me ...)

John wrote, "But here is a question: Do you know why the student covered his ears, or do you logically suspect? Is that suspicion adequate to make recommendations?"

No - one isolated observation shaped by personal experience is not sufficient to make recommendations, any more than one isolated behavioural observation is!

As it happened, I wasn't formally observing that child at the time. But if I had been, I would certainly have ensured that I kept my eyes open and did not miss further instances where sensory issues might have been affecting his actions.

And I would certainly have cited my own experiences in my report as an example to explain how bumping into someone could be connected with a child's covering their ears.

"That said, objective seems vastly preferable when making a decision about an important educational issue."

Objectivity is something to aspire to, although I'm not sure it's something anyone can honestly claim they attain.

As I've pointed out, even "objective" records of behaviour such as ABC charts are shaped by what the observer does or does not notice or perceive as salient.

And to me, objectivity involves considering *all* the available evidence. Arbitrarily excluding a certain type of evidence (autobiographical) from either general understanding of autism or attempts to understand a particular child or adult strikes me as extremely bad science, and very far from objective.

I think it's also important to acknowledge that moment-to-moment interaction with someone can very rarely be guided by purely "objective" assessment - imagine:

"OK, you're tugging on the doorhandle. Let me stop the lesson, fill in ABC charts for 3 weeks, do a formal analysis, then I'll know what this means and decide how to respond."

In the very-short-term, our responses have to be shaped by our understanding (both of autism and of the particular person we are working with), interpretations and past experiences.

Which is far from infallible in anyone's case, which is why systematic observations can be one useful tool - one part of the necessary feedback on whether those responses are in fact correct or helpful.

Another vital part of that feedback, needless to say, is listening to that individual's own indications (verbal or not) about what any behaviour means to them!

But pretending that any teacher can operate on a basis of pure scientific objectivity moment-to-moment is dangerously naive.

Anyone who maintains the belief that they are or can be 100% objective thereby tends to guarantee that they're anything but.

"I agree with your last statement, but where is that shown? To my knowledge you must extrapolate from other research like the AGRE. "

Sorry, you've lost me. AGRE? The only one I can find is the Autism Genetic Resource Exchange. And which last statement are you referring to?

Michelle wrote: "But I'd really like to know, and probably I've asked before, why autistic gestures and movements were singled out, among all other available human gestures and movements, as being useless and wrong. "

Assuming that was not a rhetorical question, it's what I think of as the Procrustean ideology: the belief that non-NT people are simply an arbitrary bundle of "behavioural excesses" and "behavioural deficits", and if you just chop off the bits that stick out, and stretch out the bits that are too short, then we'll be "normal" ...

(Procrustes, in Greek mythology, was of course enormously successful in getting people to fit his guest bed by this process - although they did end up somewhat mutilated as a result ....).

I don't think behavioural theory per se inevitably leads to this ideology, but it has certainly dominated the field of "ABA interventions for autism".

"Where I might differ is the idea that certain materials go with certain ages, which might not be true in autism. Another differences is that I think you can also use, for some kids, great quantities of cheap materials in order to cater to various needs and interests."

This is why I don't like Piaget. He would, on the basis of his very dodgy theory (described by someone as "untenable"), say that materials do indeed go with ages. I would say that Vygotsky would have disagreed somewhat. For Vygotsky, the important determinant of what comes next was the child's zone of proximal development. His view was a very child centred one, so he is very under-represented in theoretical debates on autism, since most folk seem to want us to imitate the "normal"; personally, if "normal" is to wage war on a sovereign nation under a grossly false pretext, then - sorry, but I'd rather be dead than normal any bloody day.

Recommended reading: http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?r...4:24:370080:OPINION

re: message 165

Thank you, Michelle, that meant a lot to me.

Hi Clare,

Good examples. I would have missed that reason why the student covered his ears. Your personal experience is a tool for you. This is one more piece of good evidence why the views of those on the autism spectrum should be paid attention to.

But here is a question: Do you know why the student covered his ears, or do you logically suspect? Is that suspicion adequate to make recommendations? Is there a time you want something more than logical inferences when making a decision?

Here’s what I think in general, about subjective vs. objective. The line between subjective and objective can be thin. That said, objective seems vastly preferable when making a decision about an important educational issue. Objective means an observer must take the time to really focus on what is currently happening. They must collect data, preferably simultaneously with another person, whose data can then be compared. I have found it ironic how often I and others are wrong about a behavior when we sit down and collect the data. Techniques exist to help facilitate this process. When these are used it forces observers to more than go through the motions. It seems to me that personal experience is valuable in lending a guess as to why something occurs. Based on that, we can better recognize what to look for in our assessments.

Many techniques exist for conducting functional assessments. ABC charts, scatterplots, and true functional analysis. They all have their respective strengths and weaknesses. I use a type of ABC analysis most commonly (but a more technical form). I am also reasonably familiar with functional analysis. It is true that just 4 permanent categories would be crude. I just finished critiquing a functional analysis research article two days ago. I know from this that functional analysis can have many conditions of varying types. But because it requires a considerable knowledge of ABA it is usually done poorly if at all. Even PhD professional behaviorists regularly get this all confused. This is not a simple analysis, but darn hard stuff to learn correctly, let alone master.

The four (or whatever) categories should be used when we have a pretty good idea what is going on already and are trying to pin it down. We can conversely use this technique when we have no idea hat is going on. For example, maybe I can guess what is happening with an autistic child and for a child with ADHD. But maybe I have no clue for a child with borderline personality disorder. Beginning with observation then functional analysis, I may come to identify, more or less what is happening. The burden of proof is seeing if a change occurs between the different phases. The possibility exists that I may see no change. Then I have to sit down and re-think what is going on.

If we were really clever we would use a series of functional analyses to pin point what is going on. Preference and avoidance assessment are helpful in this way as well.

But all this takes time and energy. Functional assessment is a tool, whose usefulness or accuracy is based on how it is used.

Let me further explain. I also remember a case very similar to yours. A preschooler when he came to group with his schoolmates would scream and cry. I thought this had to do with the fact that immediately prior to this he had free-time, which was for him, highly preferred. We did not force him to come. We noticed that he would go back and continue to play with whatever he had been doing previously. I think we were guilty of a double escape contingency called, the sick social cycle e.g. (he has access to his toys, we tell him to come to group, he cries, and he has access to his toys again). So the staff and the student were reinforced. No more crying for us, and he gets to leave group.

I watched this behavior occur only occasionally at the start of the year when staff were more insistent, to every day by the end of the year. Now I don’t really know if this escape contingency is what caused the increase, but I can guess. And based on that guess I can set up a functional analysis.

I do not take the position that all behavior is communication; I do think all behavior has a function and a logic. Whether I can pick out that logic is the question I want to know.

I think you more or less were correct on the self-stim portion. I might add though, that in a direct teaching circumstance, self-stim may interfere with learning. I have seen children hand flap and not follow directions. I suppose that it is hard for most young children to engage in sounds and arm movements and focus on what is going on. The reverse is also true. This is why a decrease in self-stim is often observed as children learn and use language. The research is there. The behaviors are somewhat incompatible. I see a child who stims so much that are not learning than I will focus on teaching language and other interaction skills. That debate on self-stim is not new, and goes back to the 60’s and Dr. Risely’s experiments if I remember correctly.

Most people stim to some extent, albeit for different reasons. Self-stim is not proven to interfere with learning, but it may. Just like a child with conduct disorder jumping out of his seat during a math lesson may not interfere with his learning, but may. Our questions are how often does this happen and why?

I agree with your last statement, but where is that shown? To my knowledge you must extrapolate from other research like the AGRE.

Also, there is no such thing as a meaningless behavioral excess. All behavior has logic. Our question always remains; “does it matter one way or the other?”

One thing I admire absolutely about autistics is our apparent ability to be clear and helpful and generous regardless of our own circumstances and our constant experiences of rejection and futility. Thanks David.

Michelle wrote, "In a state of confusion we may require a reliable response, and one of the few available is how people respond to someone who has lashed out. Speaking from both experience and observation here."

A big YES from me here (also from both experience and observation).

And that's one of the areas where I think some tools from ABA can sometimes be useful - in ensuring that other people are consistent and respond in reliable and predictable ways.

But for me, the importance of that is in allowing the autistic person to take control and discover that they can get these predictable reactions without having to kick people - making humans more like materials for learning, really.

Whereas the standard ABA ideological assumption seems to be that the adult should direct and control the interaction.

"Re Montessori, there is a specific Montessori autism school, here it is www.torontomontessorischoolforautism.com . You can see they do ABA."

Yes, I came across that site a while back and thought it seemed like a very contradictory combination, since their ABA approach seems to be entirely a DTT one. Which really doesn't seem compatible with the Montessori emphasis on children's right to independence and child-directed learning.

Maybe other approaches from the broader field of behaviour analysis, like incidental teaching or natural language approaches, *might* be more compatible, but certainly not generic-Lovaas-style-ABA.

(I've already had an argument with David in another context about whether incidental teaching can be counted as ABA at all - but it was invented by Todd Risley, among other people, so it certainly originates within the ABA field, even if it looks amazingly similar to what people with completely different theoretical backgrounds are doing).

"Where I might differ is the idea that certain materials go with certain ages, which might not be true in autism. Another differences is that I think you can also use, for some kids, great quantities of cheap materials in order to cater to various needs and interests."

Agreed and agreed.

But I think the Montessori materials are a good example of how intellectual concepts can be explored in a solitary, sensory way, and how self-directed learning can be facilitated. And a fascinating example of a context in which this sort of learning is actually accepted as positive.

Hi John,

The 63% does exist somewhere. I believe that's where they did no intake measures.

Re criticisms of behaviourists by behaviourists, they don't have lots of choices; in autism, they don't know any other fields. So they must criticize each other. They do also criticize easy targets (FC, Secretin) in obvious ways.

Re John Money, I know he is not a behaviourist. But he is an example of what happens when "objectivity" fails utterly at every level. The consequences are severe. And I disagree with you, John, that the argument was academic, a fight among professionals. John Money was denounced by his "client". We who are treated also exist, and as more than reports and data, however imperfectly "subjective" we are.

As to behaviour belonging to the behaver, I'll use for clarity left-handedness. Left-handedness is treatable, with about the same apparent "success" rate as autism. Brain imaging shows significant functional differences between lefties and righties. There are also significant differences in function between "corrected" lefties and righties, even though the correction was far in the past, and the behaviour appears "indistinguishable".

Now let's get "subjective" experience in here. I worked for a very long time in an environment where important parts of the equipment used were not adapted for lefties. Everyone had to be able to use all the equipment, so it was all made for righties.

This had to result in significant differences between how lefties and righties work. The only other choice would have been either to hire all righties, or to oblige lefties to become righties.

I'm a righty. I knew all the lefties in this situation over a long time and in various different locations and not one chose to become a rightie in order to work like everyone else. They all worked differently, and these differences were visible and striking.

Now, when a new person came in, if she was a lefty, I would not have been able to train her. I couldn't properly imagine and simulate the way a lefty would work. Lefties were trained by lefties. They every one of them worked differently from righties, even though there was of course individual variation among lefties, and individual variation among righties. But you could walk into that workplace and see there were two ways to do this work.

In this case, being objective (this is the right way to work) would be wrong and very hard on lefties, who would have to "convert" or leave. Being subjective (this is how lefties have figured out how to use this equipment) was effective and allowed the lefties to work.

That's the simplest example I can come up with.

If I understand properly, you're saying, re Rekers (and it was not just Rekers; it was Rekers, Lovaas, Green, Rosen, Low, Bentler, etc) it was just too bad, and we should not learn from it. And if we really screw up with autism, that will be just too bad too. And I suppose we will not learn from this either. We must stay within the parameters of objectivity. That would be your "objectivity".

Also, if I understand properly, you're saying that autistics really have nothing in common. You're claiming the position Lovaas has taken, where individual behaviours are analyzed and treated as individual behaviours and nothing else. This was the rationale behind treating the Rett's girls. This rationale has been a scientifically-proven failure. I used the example of a blind boy, apart from the Rett's girls, in my article to show that the nature of the person to whom the behaviours belong may have some importance. This is not being subjective.

By saying that there are only individual differences among autistics, you're denying all the science outside your own field. That is not objectivity, it is absence of same. That's your privilege, but it's your loss, and I can't believe it helps your clients, any more than it would help blind kids to have their central differences (however variable within that difference) ignored. I can say from experience that blindness has an effect on most aspects of apparent behaviour, even though all blind people don't act exactly the same.

Re Dr Malott again, you ignored the second part of my question, which was the important one. To what extent are you willing to bestow credibility on a person so thoroughly violating principles of science and ethics? I've read a lot of Dr Malott's writings about autism, some of which are posted very officially on major sites, and nowhere does he let on he does not have a clue about autism. In fact, he presents himself as an authority. Sorry John, but that's inexcusable and dangerous, and says a great deal about how this person works and how his work should be regarded.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

Hi Michelle....

"Re Vygotsky, can someone tell me (David, we need you) how he would have coped with kids who are better (faster, innovative, just more capable) than their instructors in some areas."

It feels weird to be needed. I an so fucking not used to it. I think, but I can't be sure, that Vygotsky would have loved the idea. The main thing in his theory is that the child learns in a social context which, naturally includes whoever that child is with. There is a saying that if you want to learn something properly, you have to teach it. And I have seen this, both in personal life and in academic life.

"Also, what happens if the child to be instructed has a different "culture" than the ambient one?"

That would be interesting. In Vygotsky's work, the emphasis seems to be NOT on the social teaching of people, regardless of culture, but the fact that knowledge is socially constructed between the participants in the process. In that sense, the adult/teacher-rôled-person would be in as much of a position to learn as the kid is.

"And can someone tell me if the "scaffolding" has to come from social interaction with a person, or is allowed to take place from the materials provided by the person?"

Interesting point, and we have to remember that his work was not complete: he died of TB before his big research project was completed. So, given the issue was never really researched. Therefore I can't give a definitive answer to that. What I can say is that, whilst learning is said (in the Vygotskyan framework) to happen in a social context, its actual process depends on the starting points of the people involved. So, to answer your question, it could just as easily be either, according to how the child best learns.

"Vygotsky doesn't account for those who don't think in words, so far as I can tell, though being generally clueless in this area, I stand to be corrected."

This is a problem in his work for me also, in that he didn't get chance to explore this notion. As far as I can tell, his theory was based partly on the idea that what Piaget called egocentric speech was infact what the kid did to internalise the instruction sequence for performing any particular task.

I'd do more but I am tired and depressed and need to die soon.

Edited by author 04-25-2004 02:48 PM
Re discounting experiences, I can add to Clare's example that an autistic in an incomprehensible or even painful situation may seek a reliable response. Mostly when we speak or act we're responded to arbitrarily according to what everyone else has decided we are saying or doing. In a state of confusion we may require a reliable response, and one of the few available is how people respond to someone who has lashed out. Speaking from both experience and observation here.

I'll keep going on this theme in my response to John, which I hope to get to shortly.

But I'd really like to know, and probably I've asked before, why autistic gestures and movements were singled out, among all other available human gestures and movements, as being useless and wrong. This alone should cast doubt on the concept of "objectivity". And if there really has been a change in this area, why is the inaccurate and misleading term "self-stim" still used?

Re Montessori, there is a specific Montessori autism school, here it is http://www.torontomontessorischoolforautism.com. You can see they do ABA. I think in Ontario, you don't have much choice any more. Clare, can you tell me what you think of this? I mostly agree about the materials; they are beautiful and "reliable". Where I might differ is the idea that certain materials go with certain ages, which might not be true in autism. Another difference is that I think you can also use, for some kids, great quantities of cheap materials in order to cater to various needs and interests.

Re Vygotsky, can someone tell me (David, we need you) how he would have coped with kids who are better (faster, innovative, just more capable) than their instructors in some areas. Also, what happens if the child to be instructed has a different "culture" than the ambient one? And can someone tell me if the "scaffolding" has to come from social interaction with a person, or is allowed to take place from the materials provided by the person? Vygotsky doesn't account for those who don't think in words, so far as I can tell, though being generally clueless in this area, I stand to be corrected.

Feeling very depressed just now, so am not really up to posting much, and this may last a few days or longer, I don't know.

Talk to you all soon.

Michelle wrote, " I wonder how far you would take that, that is, whose experiences you would be prepared to discount in favour of your observations about what a person is doing, and in your decisions about what that person should be doing."

This is a particularly interesting issue to me.

I do think there's a great value in systematic observations, and something like ABC charts can be valuable in so far as they force people to put aside any assumptions or theories and simply *look* at what's happening (although I wholeheartedly agree with Michelle that trying to categorize the results into 4 categories is ridiculously crude).

For example, I once volunteered to do ABC observations on the "challenging" classroom behaviour of a boy I was working with.

After doing that, I was able to show that while a small amount of his challenging behaviour seemed to occur when he was very excited, the great majority fell into a particular pattern, which went like this (and I saw it and recorded it repeated again and again and again):

The class would be listening to the teacher talking at a quite complex level (bear in mind that this is a boy with high energy, minimal speech at that point, and limited auditory comprehension, much less than most of his classmates).

After a certain amount of time without any activity he could engage in, he would start vocalizing and touching the arm of a teacher or assistant. Invariably, they would shush him and direct him to sit quietly and pay attention.

Then, a few moments later, he would pinch them, and/or kick at their legs. And they would exclaim in pain, leap to their feet, he would have people telling him not to pinch, might be removed from the circle of children, etc. etc. etc. During all of which, he'd be alert and clearly engaged.

Very obvious analysis: this was a child who was bored and frustrated (entirely reasonably given that he was being expected to sit through lessons which were totally unsuited to his needs). And he had a genuine desire to interact and engage with people.

But the environment was (unintentionally) doing its best to extinguish his positive and developmentally-appropriate attempts to initiate interaction (vocalizing and touching someone's arm), and teaching him that the only effective way to get any sort of interaction was to lash out.

Now, I'd definitely had some hunches about this before I started the charts (for example, I'd already noticed that he loved "big" reactions, and loved interaction but didn't seem to distinguish much between positive and negative responses). But I'd certainly not expected to see this particular pattern so clearly and dramatically.

And it was enormously helpful to be able to talk to the teachers and show them this pattern in black and white so that they could see what was going on (which they hadn't been able to do while in the thick of it). He was being completely reasonable - they were the ones creating the situation.

(And because they were generally smart and well-intentioned, they were able to recognize that, and make changes accordingly).

So yes, I think those tools of observation and analysis can be invaluable.

But I also know that I draw strongly on my own experiences, and on the experiences on other autistic spectrum people who I've spoken to and whose work I've read, in my work.

Intuition and recognition play a big role in shaping what I try and how I respond, even as observation (informal and formal) provides me with feedback and guidance as to whether or not something is useful for the particular person I'm with.

And I'm extremely wary of any crude dichotomy between "scientific, objective" observation and "personal, subjective, unscientific" first-hand experience.

I'm not even sure that you can have purely objective observation - just picking out what you think are the salient elements to record imposes a perspective. I got asked by this school to do observations a lot precisely because they found that I often spotted things that other people didn't see.

For example, at one point in a classroom situation, one of the teachers wondered aloud why a particular child had his hands over his ears. And I replied, without thinking, "Oh, because [other child's name] bumped into him at the schedule board."

To me, that was the obvious antecedent, and I guessed from my own knowledge that either the unexpected physical contact had overloaded this child in general (so he was trying to cut down on input by covering his ears), or he was unsure which sense the input had come in on.

But that is a factor that someone else might not even have noticed or recorded.

First-hand experience isn't ever enough to provide a complete guide, because people on the spectrum vary so much: for example, I've met people whose sensory issues are diametrically opposite to mine, hypo- where I'm hyper-sensitive and vice versa. There are people with language issues that I've never personally experienced. I always have to be willing to watch, and pay attention, and *learn*.

But.

As I hope I've made very clear, I don't think first-hand experience can be discarded either.

And when it comes to decisions about "what someone should be doing", and to the broader ethical/political issues of what the goals should be in educating children on the spectrum - that is where first-hand experiences absolutely MUST be heard (and, judging by the responses to "The Misbehaviour of Behaviourists", there are a lot of people who really don't want to hear them).

John wrote, " The grad student, despite being very intelligent, failed to consider if it is actually necessary to decrease that behavior, and what function it may fulfill."

But the whole idea that stimming may have a positive function, and not preclude learning (or even assist learning in some cases), is a pretty new one in the field.

Your grad student's response is hardly surprising, given that most of the textbooks on behavioural "intervention" with autism I've seen firmly state (on the basis of a few very small scale studies dating from the 60s, which now seems to be being superseded or re-interpreted) that self-stimming is "proven" to interfere with learning and "needs" to be suppressed.

Apparently research evidence is now showing this to be far from true - but people weren't able to start looking for that contradictory evidence until they were willing to consider the possibility that stimming might be more than a meaningless "behavioural excess".

About John Money, I read this:

http://www.infocirc.org/rollston.htm

Absolutely unprofessional and, to my mind, sick, this man.

Hi Michelle,

First I need to make a self correction. In my original post I stated that Lovaas’s data were not the best ever achieved (I claimed 63%). This was based on a figure I heard when I was first learning about autism. Unfortunately, after a lengthy search I have found no peer reviewed article that supports that. This nullifies the statistic in my view. I suspect it comes form some program somewhere that reported its findings in something besides a peer reviewed journal. My apologies to yourself and to all other viewers of this board.

I have been mostly critical as of late. I will write about my agreements in my next post.

I will be happy to adjust my terminology.

I am sorry, I can not give you any autistic peer articles. Those do not exist to my knowledge. My example was merely a case study. Although, this is a special interest of mine. I hope this research of this sort goes up in the future. And I also wish (If it did any good) that you could have spent time with other autistics as a child.

If you have time; How is the PRT (Koegel) stuff going.

And for my part I do not equate effectiveness with “radical.” Although, I repeat my statement; ethical should be implied in radical behaviorist as much as it is implied in cognitivist. We can both cite poor examples in each category. Also, technical effectiveness and “impeccable”, are relative to the cultural times. Reker’s study failed long term on both of these accounts. That includes reviews from his peers.

You said “It is judged that these policies have also to be checked for their ethics (not, does it work, but, should we do it and what are the other consequences).”

Amen……..

You said “You seem to be telling me that this kind of examination is unnecessary, and the knowledge of those who could help in making ethical decisions is suspect or useless”

No, I said in another post that “their contributions (autistics) have already proved valuable.” But scientists are doing their job when we are skeptical. This takes us from false truths and the land of pseudoscience/antiscience to real science. I reserve the right to be deeply skeptical of any context especially subjective ones applied to other subjective ones. I welcome alternative scientific thoughts though and from what I have seen, you do as well. I also greatly distinguish between listening, considering, and coming to the same conclusion. Part of being ethical means I must both listen and consider. Agreement is another matter,

You said “I wonder how far you would take that, that is, whose experiences you would be prepared to discount in favour of your observations about what a person is doing, and in your decisions about what that person should be doing.”

This would depend on the individual situation. I have never believed in the concept of one size fits all (This includes early intervention). Said more simply, “If I didn’t believe your views were important I would not contribute to this site.”

You said “How much are you willing to discard the possibility that behaviours may belong to behavers, and not to social (or other) reinforcers? Do you go as far as John Money? Dr Money went very, very far until he was denounced by one of his reported successes.”

Define belong……..

I do not appreciate the works of John Money who was not a behaviorist anyway. I have read “As Nature Made Him”, as have you. I consider that work to be one of the influences in my ethical view. Money was displaced by Goldiamond, who did not denounce him, but presented better scientific evidence (including some persons Money failed to help). Goldiamond had too much class to denounce anyone. I find his professionalism admirable.

You said “You are also saying that a person with the same kind of cognition as those you are working with cannot be helpful, since your duty is to your technique, or as Clare put it, to your ideology.”

I do consider differences. This includes cognitive differences. But I consider those secondary to individual differences. Every student has a quasi-unique genetic makeup and learning history. These individual operants are more important to me. You seem to me, to be on the edge of making a genetic dogmatic error. Do autistic traits always exist in every individual? Why or why not? What about cognitive differences between one child with autism and another? Why do those exist?

You said “would you support Dr Malott if he expressed his wish that all those of your (for example) religion, or perhaps race, are horrifying and should not exist.”
 
No, nor do I supports this view with autistics.

Maybe I should explain that Dr. Malott is a novice in the autism field. . He has less practical experience than I do and freely admits that. I suppose his opinions right now are more of reaction and discovery than of clinical enlightenment.

One more thing. It doesn’t bother me whether behaviorists are actually are own worst critics or not. The important thing to me is that we remain highly critical of our own work.

I got into a little verbal argument today with a grad student over whether we should suppress self-stim. I said no, and he said yes. He felt that a child he had worked with who is now in a higher, non behavioral program is practically being abused because he now self-stims a lot. I just finished a skills check list scale on this child. He has more skills than ever, which I attribute to generalization. Seems like he is doing just fine to me. I do not know what purpose the self-stim serves for him. He came to this new program and his self-stim went up, but another boy’s self-stim went down in this same program Both are high functioning and very verbal.

Why does this happen? I repeat, individual differences are critical. This also makes my view different from the grad student’s. The grad student, despite being very intelligent, failed to consider if it is actually necessary to decrease that behavior, and what function it may fulfill.

Clare yet again.

"Fascinating, given that this is the exact behaviour that's so often treated as "pathological" or non-functional when displayed by autistic children!"

Much of clinical psychology, as I keep saying, is purely an applied fundamental attribution error.

Not much else one needs to say on that one, is there?

Again, Clare....

["... much of the responsibility for a person being socially remote lies with the rest of us, particularly those of us who are near the person every day.]

Absolutely. We're all in this world together, actually.

[It may be our failure to be sensitive enough to that person's needs and understandings, to picture the world from his/her point of view, and particularly our failure to allow ourselves gradually to learn how to interact effectively with that individual, which is the most powerful factor in the withdrawal."]

Yes. This has been my point over the past 6 or 7 years that I've known Clare and that I've been studying psychology. I see precious little (if any at all) of this attitude from those who have been disparaging Michelle of late; and I know I'll come in for the same shit myself; but I'm ready for them.

[(all quotes from "Access to Communication", 1994).]

Would be interested in getting a copy of this text.
David

>I'm going to see if I can mention Vygotsky here before David does! <g> (Clare Sainsbury)

Y'see... youz wimmen.... tae bloody fast fer me..... (to be read, thinking of how Billy Connolly would say it)

Phil's thing is now here:

http://www.autistics.org/library/anotherparent.html

Michelle wrote, "I simply am not sure that social interaction results from "teaching" social interaction,"

In fact, I'd say it's one of the areas where a directive "teaching" approach can actually prevent genuine interaction.

On the other hand, I do think there is a great deal that a communicative partner can do, not to "teach", but to *enable* - by providing means and opportunities, responding in a way which supports someone's communicative abilities, etc.

And I completely share your biases on this topic.

"responding to this by providing information or materials to allow futher learning at various levels is necessary."

I'm going to see if I can mention Vygotsky here before David does! <g>

I think his idea of "scaffolding" may be very useful here - the idea that you facilitate someone's learning not by taking over and directing it, but by providing the right supports/tools/information/encouragement/expansion at the right moments: "scaffolding" their own learning process.

Re: materials for implicit learning, I've always wondered why no-one seems to have researched the Montessori materials as tools for autistic spectrum children (my personal bias: I found them wonderful as a small child).

If you haven't come across them, they're beautifully-made materials designed to allow a child to explore concepts (shape, size, number, order, categorization, geometrical, mathematical) in a sensory and concrete way, through solitary, repetitive exploration.

When reading Montessori's writings, I was absolutely fascinated to find that she describes in great detail this sort of solitary, self-chosen, "repetitive" exploration of materials as a developmental *necessity* for all children at particular stages of learning. And the materials are designed as tools to support this.

Fascinating, given that this is the exact behaviour that's so often treated as "pathological" or non-functional when displayed by autistic children!

Probably not coincidentally, Montessori began working in education with institutionalized "retarded" children (some of whom were probably autistic), before going on to see if the same tools could be valuable for NT children too.

Edited by author 04-23-2004 08:27 PM
Thanks; those quotes are very helpful. I was working with a much more limited view of Nind and Hewett's work. The specific idea I dislike is that the work of therapists results in there now being social interest in autistics (or others) in whom it previously was absent.

Some of your quotes are reassuring; they show an understanding of the true source and nature of the apparent absence of social interest.

I agree wholeheartedly (that is an understatement) that autistics sometimes or even often are given no opportunity to succeed at communicating and the whole show becomes inaccessible and foreign to us. Yes, I am quite familiar with that one.

I simply am not sure that social interaction results from "teaching" social interaction, instead of just from the person finally having the means and opportunity to show that they are social. I'm showing my biases here, since I think autistic ways of being social are valid, and don't have entirely to be replaced with non-autistic ways of being social.

Nobody has studied implicit learning in autism.

We do learn from materials just because they are there. I am guessing but both the kind and quantity of materials are important (basing this on some science, some observation, some experience).

I wrote back somewhere in the pile about a young boy who made rainbows; he had access to materials of various colours and noticed the relationships between the colours. This ability was encouraged by providing more materials he could work on this idea with. The "repetitive" behaviour was not extinguished but encouraged, on the grounds that it represented learning. In this case, the quantity of materials was important also; this boy was extracting from many examples perfect sequences of colours.

There are materials which are just attractive to autistics, since reliable information can be absorbed from them (clocks, maps, calendars, dictionaries and some other books, trains, musical instruments, computers). But reliability can also be established through quantity of one particular material, or through properties and configurations (shapes, colours, volumes, textures).

Implicit learning also sits around and doesn't do anything until necessity strikes. Necessity may be someone posing a question (not necessarily in language) which engages what the autistic has learned. You can see this in some IQ tests, where very young autistics with few other apparent skills can easily do some of the tasks (which they were never taught).

I think the property or properties of the materials is more important than "appropriateness" of developmental level of the materials. But kids are going to learn different ways within implicit learning, just as there are great variations within explicit learning.

The most important factor in implicit learning takes us back to Nind and Hewett to some extent: you have to notice what the autistic is noticing (this anyway is a kind of communication); responding to this by providing information or materials to allow futher learning at various levels is necessary. I'd call it "reciprocity". You kind of have to be there.

By the way, I'd be really interested to know your thoughts about the best materials for supporting implicit learning.

Michelle wrote: "I don't think that those who are finally allowed to communicate, having previously been ignored and often abused, then "learn" to be social, etc. That's insulting. They were never given a chance to be social, or to interact."

But if you haven't ever had a chance to do/experience something, it's very hard to learn how to (or practise if you have managed to learn).

When it comes to communication, for example, it's very hard to learn to deliberately communicate specific messages if there's no-one able (or willing) to receive or respond to your signals.

I do see the point you're making, but personally, I don't object to the idea of "learning" (which is very much *not* the same as passively being "taught") in this context.

I've encountered people for whom the very idea of sending a signal and having it be received and responded to is news, a discovery, something they haven't previously ever had the opportunity to learn or develop. And that's often because their existing signals have previously been misunderstood, not noticed, or deliberately ignored.

But when they have an environment which provides those opportunities, their communicative abilities can emerge and expand.

And this is something that Nind and Hewett do acknowledge in various places - that the issue is of changing the evironment around someone to make it responsive, e.g.:

"It is for those people whose signals we do not understand and whom we may have difficulty in perceiving as being social and communicative."

"... they may have been giving us all sorts of signals in their view, but we have not been watching sensitively enough to pick them up."

"We now take the view that whatever a person does is likely to be meaningful to that person; it may simply be the case that sometimes we are not able to share that meaning and understand it."

"... much of the responsibility for a person being socially remote lies with the rest of us, particularly those of us who are near the person every day. It may be our failure to be sensitive enough to that person's needs and understandings, to picture the world from his/her point of view, and particularly our failure to allow ourselves gradually to learn how to interact effectively with that individual, which is the most powerful factor in the withdrawal."

(all quotes from "Access to Communication", 1994).

As I said, there are things I'd disagree with them on. But they may be closer to your perspective than you think.

Edited by author 04-23-2004 01:19 PM
I looked a little harder at Nind and Hewett. I do not totally agree with their "ideology"; I don't think that those who are finally allowed to communicate, having previously been ignored and often abused, then "learn" to be social, etc. That's insulting. They were never given a chance to be social, or to interact. They didn't have to "learn" this; they needed the terrible obstacles in the way of their being social removed.

Otherwise, I'm glad they exist and are doing what they're doing.

I disagree with Phil's idea that autistics have to learn how to learn. Nothing wrong with the way we learn, except that it isn't the way non-autistics learn.

If Phil means that we have to learn to learn like non-autistics learn, he is right, autistics have to learn this way of learning, which is called explicit learning. We are, like I note in the article, very bad at this way of learning, which is why we're assumed to need intensive interventions rather than plain education like non-autistics. We often fail terribly to learn things explicitly. This is where ABA comes in, and "teaches" us to learn "right".

On the other hand, there is more than one way of learning. If explicit learning (as in ABA) was all there is, there would be no splinter or savant abilities, and there would be no peaks of ability. Peaks of ability are characteristic of autism. So are savant and splinter abilities.

I have argued that our way of learning is okay also. It may even be very good. It is called implicit learning. It is how I learn; I am terrible at explicit learning and perform almost all tasks the "wrong" way. I can't take an explicit instruction and carry it out in front of someone. I can get the task done, I can often do it better than average, and sometimes better than most people, but I can't do it the "right" way.

In an ABA program, I would have been a "failure", even though I have the ability to learn. My ability to learn, in an ABA program, is "wrong". I'm not sure all or even most autistics have my extreme problems with explicit learning; but there is good evidence that our strengths are in implicit learning, which is discarded and "wrong" in an ABA program. The rather exuberant and unusual materials that enable implicit learning are also "wrong" in an ABA program.

I agree that some tasks may have to be taught explicitly, and in autism, because we're lousy at explicit learning, this may mean applied behaviour strategies (breaking tasks down, being consistent). And some autistics are better at explicit learning than others, or more willing to discard what they have learned implicitly. But to say that autistics must dedicate ourselves to learning to learn the "right" way is not, in my books, okay.

I spent more than three decades rejecting my own differences and trying with all my effort to be the right kind of person. This is not a real life. And I flunked anyway. Then I didn't get help in the sense Phil did. Instead, I used the law to try to establish if the kind of person I really am is allowed to exist and work in this society. That question is still open.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

Michelle wrote: " I agree totally with the "not surprisingly" part."

Exactly, and one of the things I like greatly about Nind and Hewett is that they are among the first to point out that much of what they're saying is in fact, looked at in the right way, completely bleedin' obvious.

They also seem to spend an unusual amount of time consciously reflecting on and discussing ethical and ideological issues in their work, which strikes me as a healthy sign.

Clare Sainsbury wrote, recently:

>Personally, I do believe that there are some tools
>originating within the wider field of applied behaviour
>analysis - such as incidental teaching - which can be very
>useful (when used ethically and wisely). But the dominant
>*ideology* of "behavior modification" (as articulated by
>Lovaas, Weintraub, et. al.) appalls me.

My opinion exactly.

I am the father of an autistic son.
I'm also Aspie myself.
Ten years ago, my son attended the preschool program of the May Center in Arlington, MA, which uses ABA teaching methodologies.

These teaching methodologies work beautifully for some autistic kids, to teach them to learn how to learn. They do so *precisely* because they leverage the children's specifically *autistic* strengths: good memory, attention to detail, attention to patterns and to the continuation and breakage of patterns. They also break cognitive steps down into units that can be tuned to match the children's cognitive and sensory bandwidth and attention span -- both at the outset and as they increase over time.

In Jeremy's case, this made a world of differnce: it made it possible for him to enter public school in kindergarten, in aide-assisted inclusion.

But I think the goal towards which so much autism-parent-driven ABA is geared -- that of rendering the child "indistinguishable from typical peers" -- is a dubious one at best.

I predict there will be a lot of business for psychotherapists in another ten to twenty years, as kids trained to be "indistinguishable" encounter one or another set of stressors in their lives that kick the legs out from under the behavioral structure they are trained into, to adopt a set of behaviors and perspectives that not only run contrary to the instincts and sensibilities they were born with, but which are presented to them in a manner which thoroughly devalues those instincts and sensibilities as inferior, worthless, meaningless. When it becomes too hard or stressful to maintain the facade of "indistinguishability", the implosion of their self-esteem may be catastrophic.

This needn't be.

I am not advocating doing nothing. That is an egregiously dishonest false dichotomy into which the parents and professionals who subscribe to the whole nine yards of "indistinguishability" as the goal of ABA teaching for autistic kids try to force anyone who disagrees with their dogma. Let me put the lie to that false dichotomy right here and now. If anything is "festering" (yo Lenny Schafer...) it is the dishonesty with which ABA is all too often oversold and misapplied. To its own detriment, I am convinced.

I think it is very necessary to teach our autistic kids all about NT social norms and how to engage in them sufficiently to effectively and harmoniously accomplish their personal goals in an overwhelmingly NT world.

But that is very different from teaching them that their own autistic instincts are bad, or inferior, or meaningless.

Two analogies:

When I visit the home office of my employer, I adhere to its dress code: I wear a suit and tie. I need to do so in order to work effectively within the established norms. But I do *not* wear a suit and tie when I am in my own office (which has a "business casual" dress code), and I don't even wear "business casual" when I am not at work -- much more comfortable in my well-worn jeans. Different rules for different contexts. No single set of rules is "better" than any other; each is appropriate for its own context. We should be teaching our autistic kids behavior that way; instead of over-application of a single set of rules, they just might learn how to navigate a more complex set of differing contexts by learning how to *detect* those contexts and then apply the rule-set that is valid for each.

This analogy is beautiful in another respect: I decide how much time I want to spend in a suit and tie, in business casual clothes, and in jeans based on *my* goals for operating in the contexts associated with each. If our kids crave down-time in which they can be flappy and stimmy, don't waste your energy and theirs attempting to totally extinguish that craving. Instead, teach them in *which* contexts that behavior will undermine their personal goals, and in which contexts that behavior is safe and harmless to their interests. And allow them *some* time and space in which the latter is the case, so they can recharge. I can tolerate several hours in a suit and tie if I know I can kick into my jeans when I get home.

The other analogy has to do with what we teach our kids about their innate autistic tendencies. I think we should teach behavior the way American business people are taught the language and social and cultural skills necessary to effectively do business in Japan. We don't train American business people to become indistinguishable from their Japanese hosts; that would be folly. We don't attempt to "cure" them of their Americanism. We don't reinforce implicit messages that their American ways are inferior or meaningless. We *do* teach them all about what the cultural and social expectations of their Japanese hosts will be, and how to effectively engage with those expectations in order to accomplish their business goals.

*That* is how we should be teaching NT behavior to our autistic kids.

It will prevent a lot of implosions of self-esteem and crashing and burning in late adolescence and young adulthood years down the pike.

I know because I have *been there and done that*. As my self-awareness began to kick in in late adolescence I started to try as hard as I could to be as "normal" as I could. I could never get to 100%. I always felt inadequate or lacking depth or resilience in comparison with the "normal" people around me. I became depressed, as so many Aspie young adults do. After gingerly skating around the edges of a nervous breakdown midway through college, I spent seventeen years in talking therapy of one kind or another for depression and dysthymia... until Jeremy was diagnosed, and we started reading about AS and realized that the profiles we were reading of AS described *my* developmental history. When I started to encounter other Aspies and auties, and realized how much I shared with them in terms of cognitive style, aesthetic sensibilities, sensory needs, and social preferences, I started to give myself permission not to try so damn hard to be "normal". And *that*, more than anything in seventeen years of therapy, helped heal my wounded self-esteem.

I don't want any kids on the spectrum to have to go through such an implosion and reconstruction of self-esteem.

And I think that the *way* we teach NT behavior, and the way we characterize autistic behavior as we teach, is a critical factor in that, and needs to be examined and rethought.

I think the drive towards "indistinguishability" as a goal bespeaks an inner conviction that society cannot be made to accommodate even harmless eccentricities in individual behavior, preferences, and social style. I think we need to challenge that assumption. I think that at a certain point, we need to decide that we have pushed for enough change in the individual, and that now we need to push for change in the individual's surrounding *social environment*, to accommodate the individual.

I think that autism is not just a disability issue. When the really significant disabling factors are overcome, the remaining eccentricities become a *diversity* issue.

If our workplaces and other social institutions have managed to come to terms with other forms of diversity -- racial, religious, ethnic, gender, physical-disability -- then surely they have the resiliency to come to terms with *neurological* diversity. Surely we can demand -- and succeed in obtaining -- accommodation for the harmless eccentricities and divergence in cognitive style, aesthetic sensibilities, sensory needs, and emotional repertoire that are part and parcel of our kids' identity as people on the autism spectrum.

And for that reason I think that we need to consider how to add another component to successful, state-of-the-art teaching/intervention for autistic kids: how to become effective self-advocates. How to live life proud to be autistic, and at the same time skilled in navigating an overwhelmingly NT world.

And *that* is what I think ABA-based teaching should be.
As I wrote almost ten years ago (http://www.autistics.org/library/pschwarz.html): I truly do not understand why more people are not capable of laying down their ideological battle-axes and joining me in the middle ground.

I still don't understand it.
And I welcome all who read this who find that they are ready to do so.
I'd like to work with those of you motivated to create ABA curricula that operate as I have described above, that teach our kids to navigate, not self-negate.

-- Phil Schwarz
Vice-President, Asperger's Association of New England (www.aane.org)
pschwarz@ix.netcom.com

Edited by author 04-22-2004 07:09 PM
Sorry Clare, I wasn't clear. Margaret combined my and Jim's names so I was just sorting us out with added geography.

I didn't know about Nind and Hewett. I did a quick jog around to get an idea what they do. I'll go look a bit more. I agree totally with the "not surprisingly" part.

Then there's the essential phrase "or considered meaningless." That's it exactly, isn't it. No one whose communication is considered meaningless is going to do very well. This is maybe a more useful way of stating that those assumed not to communicate will be unable to.

One thing that made me furious (back when, I've just remembered) was that scientists have found ways to elicit communication from "shut-in" stroke victims. Meanwhile, autistics get written off because our communication is "wrong".

Michelle wrote: "Both Jim (who is in Australia) and I (Canada) wrote responses to Margaret."

Yes, I saw, and hope I didn't seem to be ignoring (or pointlessly duplicating) your replies.

By the way, I wondered if you are familiar with the work of Melanie Nind and Dave Hewett? They've done some interesting work on developing interaction with people (autistic and non-autistic) considered "non-communicative" (not to mention "hopeless", "unreachable", etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. - including people with profound and multiple disabilities, and people who have survived decades of institutionalization), largely through "tuning in" and responding sensitively to signals previously not attended to or considered meaningless.

Not surprisingly, they've found that this enhances people's motivation to communicate, their ability to communicate intentionally (if they weren't already doing so), and to make use of whatever communication tools are available to them.

I wouldn't agree with them on everything (I don't agree with anyone on everything), but I do find their work unusually respectful and thoughtful.

Hi John,

Thanks for your message, but your timing is a bit off. You picked an "inappropriate" time to explain to me that behaviourists reserve their strongest, or perhaps most strident, criticisms for each other. I have a great deal more proof than I wish I had that you are wrong.

Can I ask you a favour? This comment board is a public kind of thing, and you're writing lots of interesting things. It would help if you used terms that more people could easily understand. I can just about keep up with you, but I've studied the field and not all the readers here will have, though they could equally profit from your experiences and comments. Thanks.

Another favour, since I haven't got through my pile of PRT stuff, could you give me a study that uses autistic peers (I've seen non-autistic peers)?. Thanks.

I thought I had made it clear that I don't equate "effective" with "ethical". If the terms were interchangeable, then Lovaas' work with feminine boys (oh, they used peer stuff too, was effective) was ethical, since it surely was effective in the area of measured observed behaviour. It was a roaring success, actually. "Effective" as all get out. Technique was impeccable. Results indisputable. So a behaviourist determined to be very, very effective can qualify (apparently) as radical, but I would not equate this with ethical.

There has been writing about this in the area of ethics, about procedures or policies which seem effective and good. It is judged that these policies have also to be checked for their ethics (not, does it work, but, should we do it and what are the other consequences).

You seem to be telling me that this kind of examination is unnecessary, and the knowledge of those who could help in making ethical decisions is suspect or useless.

I wonder how far you would take that, that is, whose experiences you would be prepared to discount in favour of your observations about what a person is doing, and in your decisions about what that person should be doing.

What is your baseline, and how far do you extend it? How much are you willing to discard the possibility that behaviours may belong to behavers, and not to social (or other) reinforcers? Do you go as far as John Money? Dr Money went very, very far until he was denounced by one of his reported successes.

Re the (empirical) differences in autistic cognition, you are saying, so what? You are also saying that a person with the same kind of cognition as those you are working with cannot be helpful, since your duty is to your technique, or as Clare put it, to your ideology.

Re Dr Malott. I guess many things are matters of opinion. Some are not, not when they are stated by professionals in public, when those professionals have the means to act on these matters. I have another how-far-do-you-go question, which is, would you support Dr Malott if he expressed his wish that all those of your (for example) religion, or perhaps race, are horrifying and should not exist. Because I wouldn't, even if it was not my religion or my race. I would not say, jeez, but his technique is impeccable, and he does a great t-shirt.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

Edited by author 04-22-2004 10:55 AM
Both Jim (who is in Australia) and I (Canada) wrote responses to Margaret. I have also read Dr Jordan's book and have respect for her. But I don't agree that any autistic is hopeless, and Maragaret correctly attributes the statement of hopelessness to a parent. I don't think this is Dr Jordan's view.

Many, many of us have been considered hopeless.

Thank you Clare, it is a pleasure to meet you. I do think that communication, recognizing and responding to it, is essential. I can say from experience how painful and frightening it is to communicate with all one's effort, and have this communication rejected because it is not "right".

Because of the new UK draft law about maximizing capacity, the group Autism and Computing put together a proposal for the relevant government officials. This has to do with providing tools and possibilities for autistics (often those no longer young, and labelled as "hopeless") to communicate, expressing their needs and abilities.

A&C included a short, informal case study of an autistic who would "present" like Margaret's son. "No" communication, severe learning difficulties, severe self-injury. However, this person was clearly able to communicate when assessed objectively. This person was provided with technologies which allowed the expression of choices when those choices were offered. Eventually, this person was able to control the presentation of a video documenting new accomplishments and abilities.

This would have not been possible except with the acceptance of the premise that this person could communicate and in fact had been communicating all along, and that this communication should be acknowledged and responded to.

The change in the "behaviour" of this autistic was described as remarkable. But this was no miracle. It was just that finally this autistic was recognized as a person able to communicate needs and preferences. When these needs and preferences were recognized as valid, abilities "emerged".

By the way, I do think that Michelle's point in her original reply to Margaret (post 29) is extremely important.

Everyone communicates - at any rate, I have never met someone who doesn't. It may not be formal communication (e.g. using speech, sign, or symbols), and it may not always be intentional communication ("I will do this so that you will understand such-and-such and therefore ..."). But it *is* communication.

It may also be highly idiosyncratic and personalized - it may take observation and patience to learn that, for one person, gaze aversion means "I'm overloaded" while for another it may mean "I'm really interested in what you're doing and want to watch you with peripheral vision".

There are lots of reasons why it can be tremendously helpful to introduce a system of "formal" communication which that person can comfortably use and which is easily understood by those around them.

But beginning where they are, and learning as much as possible to "read" what they're already communicating, and respecting and acknowledging their terms - IMHO, that's a pretty crucial starting point.

That depends on what sort of hope you're looking for.

I know it can be extremely demanding looking after someone who has very high support needs.

But in my experience - working with kids and teenagers diagnosed with autism plus SLD (often plus "challenging behaviour") - there's usually a huge, HUGE amount that can be done to improve mutual understanding and communication, to give someone alternatives to self-injury or aggression, to reduce their stress levels, to provide an accessible and comprehensible environment, and so on.

Your son may always need a lot of support and assistance, but that doesn't mean that he can't have a good, interesting, meaningful life.

How old is your son? I don't give specific advice about anyone I haven't met, for obvious reasons (everyone's different, and what matters is what works for your son, not for other autistic people). But if you give some more information I may be able to suggest some books or UK resources that I (or parents or professionals I know) have found helpful.

To Jim Dawson (reply to message 37). Thankyou for your reply. My guess is that you are in Australia (we are in the UK). I haven't replied earlier because of exhaustion and illness: it's very hard caring for my son who I love very much, but I seriously doubt my ability to keep going. I was re-reading Rita Jordan's book Autism with Severe Learning Disabilities and can't find any hope in it. She quotes a parent as saying they foresee their child's future as being in a benign prison and says, sadly, that's not too far from being the case.

Edited by author 04-21-2004 08:24 PM
Hi Michelle;

Thank you for the citations. I apologize again for the length. You gave me a lot to answer.

You said “I'm sad that you find autistics acting kind of just like we're human to be unusual.”

Not so, I was just sharing my enthusiasm for something I had not seen before. Remember, I am still learning myself. Thank you for your patience in this regard.

Depending on the program they may go out several times a day and certainly have some play time inside (structured or unstructured).

You said “You don't know what these kids are up to or whether it is because or in spite of you.”

But I can make a logical guess. Especially if I have taught them the basic steps of certain play skills. If this is what you would consider to be “in spite of”, then my students are welcome to do so.

You said “I guess also you disagree with Lovaas, who wrote, even quite recently, that you can't put autistics together. They will regress.”

I disagree with Lovaas in that regard. I have heard this before from children’s parents as well. Last semester I did an interesting little project when asked to do so by a teacher. She asked me to see if her students would learn from their autistics peers. I set up a sequence for three children who had all been through DT previously. Two high functioning and one low functioning. The “tutor”, was the “bright boy”, I taught the “ing”, endings to. Of course, previous research shows typical peers can be effective teachers for their classmates. If I remember correctly, the studies tell us that this is true if the teacher stays out of the interaction altogether and if the peers are somewhat extroverted. Although the students must be high functioning at the time…Interesting…..And this is behavioral research…..

Basically, I had a peer co-teach a discrete trial session with me. For the two high functioning children this produced better results than what I was getting singly. The low functioning student only did as good with the peer as when I taught singly. I used a mini, Alternating Treatments Design.

Of course, I was reminded by my supervisor that this also meant I had to switch to co-teaching for the remainder of the sessions for the two children because I had proven this to be the most effective teaching method for the two HF children. This was more work for my supervisor and me. She was also more radical than I am. Why do you suppose she was so concerned about ethics, she would definitely identify herself as a very radical behaviorist (her descriptor of choice).

You said “And regression is not an accurate way to describe how autistics change over time, regardless of its popularity.”

I will spend some time thinking carefully about what you and Amanda said.

You said “You dodged my concerns about choices.”

No, I gave a very general answer, to a very general question.

You said “I also don't see how you can take cognition (mostly invisible) into account when you're busy accumulating behavioural data.”

Multi-tasking, behaviorists are pros at it! Okay, just fooling around. To my understanding the thing that separates radical behaviorists from empirical and other types is that we are the only subtype (besides cognitive-behavioral) to give some explanations of covert behaviors. We address it as rule-governed-behavior and analog contingencies. Yes, we also make some inferences when addressing this. We have not abandoned it as others have incorrectly proposed. But we seldom deal with very young children of any sort in terms of cognition. For example if we know that a child is likely to be a strong visual learner (insert mentalisms here) we can add stimuli and prompts that are likely to cause/facilitate more learning.

We an also make comments and propose questions that are likely to increase/promote certain kinds of cognition. I use strategies like that on a nearly daily basis. Versions of Ellis’s rational emotive behavior therapy come to mind (really a cognitive strategy, but one that I like). Also there are certain cognitive strategies invented just by behaviorists. In the general field there are certain systematic desensitization strategies as well as acceptance and commitment therapy. These are not Skinnerian behaviorism concepts, but they are still radical behavioral concepts. Also performance management is thought based. The delay in the outcome, means that this would not work with a rat or pigeon but would work with a human. Covert behavior is a part of this. This is where a cognitivist would insert the term beliefs and I would talk about rule governance. Although, you are right I am not grounded in autistic cognition besides the fact that I look for logical patterns in many kinds of behavior including those I make inferences about.

Please consider the following carefully:

(Watson) “is probably responsible for the persistent myth of what has been called “behaviorisms counterfactual dogma.” And it is a myth. No reputable student of animal behavior has ever taken the position that the animal comes into the laboratory as a virtual tabula rasa.”

“If we are going to tell the whole story, we must deal with private events in our natural science.”
       -B.F. Skinner

When you speak of a blank slate or of not believing in cognition, you fail to account for Skinner and by extension, my own views. My concern is in the relationship between covert and overt behavior, not on assuming overt is based on covert.

I am not a major fan of social stories however. Although I grant that they have likely helped some children and are easy enough for classroom teachers to use with relatively little training. I am aware that they are related to TOM and Simon Baron-Cohen. I just finished critically reviewing some research on social stories. The authors used a reversal design which is a poor design for showing effects of teaching. The authors can not truly establish experimental control using such a design for that task. But that is just my analysis.

You said “I have a question. Why don't behaviourists care about what autistics say about why we hurt ourselves?”

I can not speak for all behaviorists. For myself, I will always listen, but that does not mean I will agree or generalize to another situation. I look at every situation and learner as unique. Behaviorism used like this is a powerful tool. Please see my next comment as well.

You said “I can pretty much figure the thoughts and emotions of your little kid hitting his head on the floor.”

You see…… even if I personally believe that, scientifically I reject that without more evidence. Even for myself, I reject making these inferences. I am your to convince on this, so fire away.

You said “without diminishing the autistic, however successfully.”

By FA? This technique certainly does not sum up a life or a learning history but it does give some ideas about what operants are going on, so to speak. Any limited analysis is in danger of this (or inference for that matter), but consider the purpose.

You said “Another question, which is, in behaviourist language, what is generalization? I don't mean how it looks; I mean, how does it happen? What's the mechanism? I honestly don't know, though of course I should.”

To my understanding we consider it phenomena. Failure to distinguish between related stimuli or an over distinguishing between related stimuli. This has been demonstrated in both animals and humans.

Yes, Dr. Wolf had his participants give feedback as part of social validity.

I believe you when you say you are rougher on cognitive scientists. Behaviorists are usually their own toughest critics and there are some notable bad feelings between certain sects of behaviorism. The JABA folks and the PBS folks come to mind. But also, the Lovaas and AVB folks. And the aversive vs. non aversive groups. I probably missed a few. We are our own worst critics. Perhaps that is as it should be. As you observed, Gresham is unapologetic in his critique of Lovaas, but he is a famous supporter of ABA in general. Why do you suppose that is?

I cite Tinbergen in the category of “talented people who say/do vacuous things.” Noam Chomsky, Steve Pinker, and John Broadus Watson also belong in that category.

You said “If you had carefully read the materials you found written by autistics, and considered their ramifications, you would either no longer be a behaviourist, or if you remained one, your descriptor of choice would be "ethical", not "radical", and you would not under any conditions quote Dr Malott except to point out that those who believe the world would be much, much better if everyone were like them should not be supported in their efforts.”

When I first “defected”, from cognitive to behavioral psychology (before I knew much about either) I couldn’t imagine anyone seriously opposing behaviorism anymore in this day and age. The internet “cured”, my of my naïveté. Though most of my friends and even the folks at the conference seemed to think Lovaas was the unchallenged winner of the autism teaching debate. So does Dr. Malott for that matter. They are unaware of the criticisms you have made or of the counter arguments I make for that matter. Undoubtedly some would think that this dialog is ridiculous and that I am silly for continuing it. This is not my position.

My alignment with radical behaviorism is one of science not faith. I have another religion for purposes of faith. “Ethical”, should be implied in my self label of radical behaviorism. It should not be seen as any different as say, a cognitivist. If it has been, than I know what area I should work on when I do get my Ph.D. While Dr. Malott and I disagree in many respects (including nearly everything he says about autism) we also agree in many areas. I am proud to support many of the things he says. Once again, no not his autism opinions. Incidentally, I also disagree with some of the things you write. This does not negate the value of your other points in my view, nor does it with Dr. Malott.

I still wrestle, but as not as often. For some side trivia, I have even heard of some autistics being good wrestlers.

Thanks

Edited by author 04-20-2004 05:24 PM
See that Clare there.....


I know her, I do.........


Hi Clare... thanks for coming in here.... do come in again ;)

And - re: ideology of Lovaas, etc - I agree with you. It IS the ideology that is so abhorrant. Which is precisely why - even though I have used things like DTL in my own teaching practice - I have problems with the ABA-salesforce.

Edited by author 04-20-2004 03:20 PM
<peers in shyly>

Quick introduction: Aspie, wrote the article on holding "therapy" which Michelle just cited, wrote a book on the school experiences on children with AS/HFA, and work with "low-functioning" kids with autism on communication.

So this discussion is interesting to me for a number of reasons.

I get overloaded quickly by debates so I'll probably run away shortly, but I thought "The Misbehaviour of Behaviourists" was a beautiful piece of work.

Personally, I do believe that there are some tools originating within the wider field of applied behaviour analysis - such as incidental teaching - which can be very useful (when used ethically and wisely). But the dominant *ideology* of "behavior modification" (as articulated by Lovaas, Weintraub, et. al.) appalls me.

Edited by author 04-20-2004 01:48 AM
Sorry John, that wasn't quite all.

I forgot two more things.

One, Niko Tinbergen. He won the Nobel prize along with Konrad Lorenz. His work in ethology has stood up over time, better than Lorenz's. In contrast, his work in autism was both idiotic and extremely harmful to autistics. The first part of this has been acknowledged. The second part really hasn't, though it has been written about by an autistic: http://www.nas.org.uk/nas/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=364&a=2179 . Tinbergen is surely not the only extremely accomplished person to have behaved totally stupidly and unethically when confronted by autism. That is the lesson to learn from him. Breland and Breland did not propose a pet theory about autism, which is greatly to their credit. Their article is so well-written and well-constructed that I could not read more than a few consecutive paragraphs without bursting out laughing.

Second point: Your favourite writer. Mark Twain is too sophisticated for me, but I can understand his shorter statements. My own favourite is what he said about Wagner: "He's not nearly as bad as he sounds."

That's my three rounds.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

Re: Apparent "regression", I definitely believe that "regression" is not what people think it is. I've seen a number of *reasons* that things that *look* like "regression" can happen, but the entire idea of a person growing backwards is nonsensical to me.

Edited by author 04-19-2004 10:02 PM
Hi John, forgot two things:

Didn't Montrose Wolf <searching memory> require the participation of consumers? Just like I did? Or is this just the problem of autistics not being considered consumers, or human, all over again? Or perhaps we who are untreated have no social validity whatsoever?

Also: I've reserved my strongest criticisms, by far, for cognitive scientists in autism. Behaviourists have, in comparison, had it easy.

That's all I think.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

Edited by author 04-19-2004 08:48 PM
Hi John,

Not sure where to start; I was strongly influenced by Round 3, but maybe my guard was down.

Many, many cognitive scientists in autism support and promote ABA. Check out Geraldine Dawson (no relation) for an example. Epidemiologists support ABA. So do geneticists (and claim they are trying to find which kids would benefit from what treatment). And those developmental guys, well, I covered them in my article and gave a source for the classic instance of ABA in developmental treatments. So, it's (almost) unanimous.

What has happened in cognitive science in autism is that those studied are predominantly adolescent or adult AS/autistics with normal or superior measured intelligence. I know of exceptions, but there are few, and this problem has been studied and documented (I can give you directions). It has been proposed that this is not okay. Also, the kids with below normal intelligence are just consigned to the behaviourists. What you encountered is just to be expected. I'm glad your presentation went well.

I'm happy that you've rejected the halo.

I'm sad that you find autistics acting kind of just like we're human to be unusual. I'm thinking I would've given quite a lot to hang out with other autistics when I was a kid. Many (not all, as you noticed) autistics are happy to interact with other autistics, as the huge autistic community can attest. It might be good to remember that autistics progress through development. You don't know what these kids are up to or whether it is because or in spite of you. "In spite of" is an autistic specialty. They were under no constraints that you describe, and how often does that happen?

I guess also you disagree with Lovaas, who wrote, even quite recently, that you can't put autistics together. They will regress. This is a view shared by many, in programs where autistics are totally isolated from each other and "hidden" in classrooms (see Sally Rogers).

Speaking of regressing, there is good debate that this is not a real phenomenon (as opposed to an apparent one). I've proposed a reason for apparent "regression". But there is actual dispute of the observations, and there is evidence that parents are not always accurate when describing (or even filming) their autistic children. And regression is not an accurate way to describe how autistics change over time, regardless of its popularity.

You dodged my concerns about choices. I don't know if you read that Rekers/Lovaas case study, but the data don't lie. They checked thoroughly to make sure that the boy was responding to "treatment". They could control his visible behaviour to a degree I find extremely disturbing. The treatment was a success, remember: this boy became "indistinguishable". He had no choice that I could see. And I believe you read the follow-up.

I also don't see how you can take cognition (mostly invisible) into account when you're busy accumulating behavioural data. Also, so far as I can tell, you don't have much grounding in autistic cognition (forgive me if I'm wrong about this). So how can you take it into account?

I have a question. Why don't behaviourists care about what autistics say about why we hurt ourselves? I can pretty much figure the thoughts and emotions of your little kid hitting his head on the floor. I've done that, though mostly I used and use walls and corners and available objects. I think you can't use the reductive three reasons for this (positive, negative, sensory reinforcement) or anything else without having reductive byproducts, ie, without diminishing the autistic, however successfully.

Another question, which is, in behaviourist language, what is generalization? I don't mean how it looks; I mean, how does it happen? What's the mechanism? I honestly don't know, though of course I should.

If you had carefully read the materials you found written by autistics, and considered their ramifications, you would either no longer be a behaviourist, or if you remained one, your descriptor of choice would be "ethical", not "radical", and you would not under any conditions quote Dr Malott except to point out that those who believe the world would be much, much better if everyone were like them should not be supported in their efforts.

Back to my corner. Sorry, that's boxing isn't it. Do you still wrestle?

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

errrr.....

[Hi John,

Re, round one, round two, round three: You Win!! <throws in towel>...

...Just kidding. I will absolutely get back to you when I've properly considered everything. <looks around for referee>

Thanks John.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada]

I'm not the referee. I dunnwannabe the referee. And if any of yez hits me I'm off to tell me dad on yez all!!!!

*WÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄH!*

I know how to run and tell tales coz Lovaas taught me how :(


:D

I love an opportunity to take the piss out of Lovaas! ;)

Edited by author 04-18-2004 06:30 PM
Hi John,

Re, round one, round two, round three: You Win!! <throws in towel>...

...Just kidding. I will absolutely get back to you when I've properly considered everything. <looks around for referee>

Thanks John.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

Hi again Michelle,

Round 3

My apologies to you and to everyone else for writing so much. I promise to take a break for a while after this. But I wanted to discuss the two things that surprised me the last couple of days.

Yesterday, I gave an oral presentation at an undergrad psychology conference. I poured through the literature and made some suggestions on how we can increase the effectiveness of discrete-trial. I was the only behaviorist at this 200 presenter conference. I just knew that all the vehement young cognitivists were going to give me hell.

I was wrong. They were very enthusiastic about my presentation. A non behavioral professor called it best presentation of the day. Another student said that she was glad that we have continued to develop this science over the years. My impression for these comments were “so far so good”.

Then they began to say things that were disappointing. This ties in to the portrayal of autism/autistics that we were previously discussing.

One student said that she was glad people like me could work with these special children.

My impression: I like what I do, but that’s not the point. No one should not be seen as nobler than any other practitioner (or educator) because they work with this population. These “special children”, are as deserving of respect (yes, dignity and freedom) as anyone else. So while this comment complemented me, it took something away from autistic children. This is a reason behaviorist and many others fall into the reifications and errors of circular logic we have already discussed and agreed upon.

Another said that it was good that we can recover some of these kids.

My impression: Recover from what? Learning new things is not recovery. The only time we can maybe speak of a recovery is in the case of a student who loses skills (degenerative autism) and then regains them later. This occurs in maybe 20% of the cases according to the DSM-IV-TR. Unfortunately behaviorists are guilty of misunderstanding this.

Another one said “Why do work in that field, I guess it must be rough.”

My impression: Well it has its ups and downs like every other job, but it’s what I and some of my friends enjoy the most. It’s very reinforcing to work with someone and to see progress. Or just to watch as they do something by themselves for the first time, for that matter. Most people can be effective in interactions with these children. The few university students who do quit our program do so because they don’t want to change diapers or do toilet training. And they always leave in the first couple of days of the semester. The ones who stay beyond the first week always stay for the rest of the semester. Many students joke about adopting their children. Two weeks ago, I obtained permission for a former tech to come back and visit her former student who is now in regular kindergarten. She told me, it made her day. Her student is still labeled autistic and will doubtlessly always be. But he has valuable skills that she and others taught to him.

My second big occurrence was that one Friday I myself visited some former DT students all in an eclectic special education preschool for children with autism. They all received DT previously, but in varying levels and sometimes sub-programs.

They were having a large group conversation/argument of at least 4 people, about what game they would play. I remember when some of them didn’t have any words. They were using some words that I remember teaching them. Interesting……..

On the playground I saw something totally unexpected. Eight of these preschoolers with autism who had been through DT were doing some sort of chase game as a group. Up slides and down slides and all over the play ground. It usually ended in them piling on each other but that is age typical. They were talking and laughing and sometimes saying rules, an example was “no, do it this way”, as one child showed another the way to go up a slide. This was a true large group activity and I was astounded. Although I have seen small group (2 person play) I have never seen large group play by preschool children with autism. It’s also true that some children who had been through DT in this class did not participate in that activity.

I remember facilitating the first play interaction for two of these children two years ago. I was happy that day because they smiled and laughed during the activity. They smiled and laughed and talked even more on Friday. But I was not a part of that specific interaction. I was watching on the side lines, so to speak. On free time they can do whatever they want. They “chose?” to do group play. The teacher never said go play in a big group, all she said was “we have free time, let’s go outside.” They initiated themselves.

So maybe the big question is “why did they do this as opposed to something else.” This is what behaviorists call a free-operant situation. There is no strong, obvious evoking stimuli (actually there are, but this is theoretical). Why did they do this activity that we loosely taught, but to a level and generalization we did not work on? I have never seen such strong proof for the concept of a behavior trap. Why do it if it isn’t valuable or if it didn’t matter. Why laugh and smile if it wasn’t reinforcing. They were paying me (and every other teacher no attention during this). Perhaps they found these behaviors of use. They definitely were not doing it for my attention, but they possibly were for each others attention. I don’t know by I suspect.

These children are not cured, or recovered. That is not the goal. The goal is and was to teach them the most adaptive (my definition) skills as possible and to generalize the skills the best that we can. I think this is akin to what David refers to in the Vytgotskyan concept of allowing for greater and greater freedom as a way of increasing learning.

I believe that others have taken a different rout (other therapies, their own implicit learning) to get to a high level of functioning. And not that large group play is necessarily the most adaptive behavior possible, but it meets my definition. I have no doubt that this skill which I helped teach and which the students themselves seem to have cultivated; will be an asset for them in future learning.

Many apologies for hogging the space.

I am honored to have been a part of those children’s early education.

Hi again Michelle,

Round two

You said “Re learning, I was trying to establish two things. Is it possible for your kids to learn their way in your program? And, how much in the way of "choice" (I was going to use freedom) do they have?”

Depends on their level of functioning and what they seem to respond best to. Either way it is individually based.

You said “In the first question, you've just eliminated the possibility of implicit learning. You've returned to all-behaviour-all-the-time; you've built yourself a blank slate. What is observed is all there is.”

Tabla rasa? Not really, I do focus on overt behavior but I do not disregard covert behavior like cognition. The difference here seems to me to be one of “which came first”, or “how are they related”.
 
I’ll double check about the Skinner pigeon deal. I don’t actually know.

You said “So if your data are really showing you are being "effective" (definition, please), they also reveal the total absence of "choice", or freedom of the child to, among other things, learn in any way except your way.”

Effective is subjective. Although, measures of social validity sometimes add credibility to this. Please see another classic article, Montrose Wolf’s “Social Validity: The Case for Subjective Measurement How Applied Behavior Analysis is Finding It’s Heart”. As you are aware rejection of the null hypothesis is dependent on a predetermined statistical value. This is also subjective.

As for your second comment in that section. DT is a beginning and a source of training that leads to gains in adaptive behavior (refer to my definition). This is not the completion of an education experience. That is ongoing and by no means limited to behaviorism. When we don’t see evidence of adaptive or even functional behavior it is time to consider a solid DT program. The point of good behaviorism is, (that may have eluded our conversation so far) the program is tailored to fit the child, not the child is tailored to fit the program. This is by the way also a subjective measure.

You said “This is one of the reasons why I decided to look at ethics. Re choice, I was told flat out by a behaviour analyst that people make bad choices anyway. They really, really want something, then when they get it, they're disappointed. So, (my conclusion) we take these incompetent decision-makers into our competent hands, and presto, effective treatment and here we go, beyond freedom and dignity.”

You are the sugar in my caffeinated tea.
Your nicotine gets the best of me.
And driving fast gives me a rush.
Oh guilty conscience why don’t you hush.
There is no question.
There is no doubt.
Immediate reinforcers can wipe us out.
  -Dr. Dick Malott

No, I don’t agree with Dr. Malott across the board. But, there is a grain of truth in that. I respect the subjective ethical principles of dignity and freedom. My own early education training, rather hammered this into me. I also believe reinforcers make people do dangerous, violent, or maladaptive things (we can start but not end with the example of drugs) as well as beneficial things. The burden of whether a DT program will display those aspects will predictably, be dependent on how we do it.

Yes, sadly, wrestlers still starve and dehydrate themselves. Some States have implemented Alpha Weight programs which doesn’t allow wrestlers to lose any more body weight, and specifically body fat than is healthy (7%). Healthy is considered 12% for males and a little higher for females. But this is not total protection. I spent some days (when I was 12-17 years old) not eating much because my weight was a pound or two over. Seems stupid now. But if I missed, my coaches would seem disappointed, my teammates would be furious with me, a younger sibling who was also a wrestler would act disappointed with me, and the younger members of the team (who I new respected me) would act let down. It seemed easier sometimes just to skip the meals and wear heavy clothes during practice than have to face those aversives. Like I said, seems silly now, I encourage everyone if you must lose weight for wrestling to do it right and safe.

I know I said I would talk about the two thing that I found interesting the last two days in this post but I have written too much already. I will wait till next time.

Hi Michelle,

Oh my, this is going to be a long post. Maybe I’ll do it in two parts.

Also, I had two very interesting experiences the last two days, as they are related to our conversation. I’ll tell you about them in the next post.

To start, correction noted. You are right, I got sloppy and mentalized.

The child we were discussing kneeled on the ground and slammed his head into the floor. This occurred in variety of situations. Usually when he had been told the correct answer after making an incorrect response. Other times included transitions from preferred to non preferred activities. Although this is actually escape maintained.

Your criticisms were accurate based on my “seemed”, comment. Although, this leads me back to functional analysis due to its likelihood of demonstrating why a behavior may be maintained. I let this go way too easy last time. I am rapidly beginning to regret that.

You said “Clearly I'm not offering the right kind of reinforcement. I suppose I should do a functional analysis...”

My money is on escape….. Okay, in a more serious sense, I do not disregard that fact, but that may not lead me to a conclusion you have made.

I apologize for going out of order, you said “But then, you're saying, even when we communicate ("make known"), you won't listen.”

I will always listen, of course I will also always respond in the way I think is best as well. I have spent time with a fair amount of autistic children and make an effort to recognize patterns. Not everyone knows or understands this. I try to be accommodating and I enjoy teaching new skills especially ones that look for generalizability. This is a critical point.

You said “So what happens when your bright kids get out of a controlled environment?”

If he finds that behavior reinforcing he will continue to make use of it on his own.

You said “ I thought your program was a bit more flexible, and it looks like I was mistaken.”
 
You determined that after a few examples of varying levels of structure?

You said “I'm not sure I can properly explain myself so long as the problem of how non-autistics respond to us is ignored.”

Hard question Michelle, and maybe hard truths as well. I am not the designated speaker of radical behaviorism, just a contentious undergrad. I speak for….well….…when it comes down to it…..just me and those with identical views as me.

I take no satisfaction with the common portrayal of autism/autistics.

I am afraid you are right, I have said this before on this site, I am guilty of not being more involved in that regard. This has been a learning experience for me. I found David’s, Amanda’s, Jim Sinclair’s, Jypsy’s, the ISNT, and other sites just two or so years ago. And yours this year. This coincided with some real life experiences with HFA and Aspergers individuals who were older.

The trouble lies in varying perceptions of what are the correct ways of behaving for an autistic person. And also delineating who should do what, when, where, and how. I have seen emotional language used by parents, professionals, and yes, autistics advocating various ideas or treatments. We wouldn’t have to go any farther than this site to find examples of all three. I don’t scorn that, or consider any view irrelevant even when it conflicts with mine. You have demonstrated, that you suffer fools readily, I desire to do no less, regardless of talking about behaviorists or otherwise.

I believe my favorite author; Mark Twain once said “It is good to be noble and still nobler to teach others to be good, and less trouble.”

Happily or sadly, there is a grain of truth in this, at least from a governmental point of view. One more person not on aid and who can pay their taxes on time. Of course the same author also said “There are three kinds of lies; lies, damn lies, and statistics.” I am sorry, you are right, but there are no easy solutions or answers. It will have to be enough at the moment that I agree with you, at least till I sort out my own thoughts.

I finished “The Misbehavior of Organisms.” A classic piece and well written. But very old (1961). Breland was one of Skinner’s first students. A better animal trainer, there may have never been. I respect his work as a scientist and as a behaviorist. But flash forward to 2004, and he is of course, outdated. In a historical context that article still makes more sense. (1961) was just two years after what most behaviorists consider to be the first applied behavior experiment. The applied science of behaviorism was theoretical, or non existent. The next big applied work from Baer, Wolf, and Risely, was still a few years off. The behavioral revolution was in full swing but the science was very different from how it is today. We had much unaccounted for and much to learn. Breland quoted several ethnologist. Not surprising because some behaviorists site Darwin as influential to behaviorism in terms of a scientific study of organisms. But he quoted Niko Tinbergen who would later write a book called “Autistic Children”, (which I actually have sitting in front of me) which advocated for holding therapy and a psychogenic theory of autism. Ironic? Now in 2004, how much seems true? Not as much.

Muchas gracias, usted estar hablando la verdad. (thank you very much, you are saying the truth)

Edited by author 04-17-2004 11:32 AM
Hi again John,

Re learning, I was trying to establish two things. Is it possible for your kids to learn their way in your program? And, how much in the way of "choice" (I was going to use freedom) do they have?

In the first question, you've just eliminated the possibility of implicit learning. You've returned to all-behaviour-all-the-time; you've built yourself a blank slate. What is observed is all there is. And here's Dr Lovaas from JABA in 1993: "Now, I had the chance to build language and other social and intellectual behaviors where none had existed, a good test of how much help a learning-based approach could offer."

In the second question, yes, I'm familiar with the manipulations you mention, as well as within-subject designs like Lovaas did to prove that aversives are an effective "active ingredient" in his program. I don't know if you saw the Rekers/Lovaas case study in JABA. They manipulated variables and had the boy totally regulated. They could get him to do whatever they wanted. This is like Skinner promising (did he really? I'll apologize if he didn't say this) that he can determine the precise height of the pigeon's head. And who decides how high the pigeon's head is?

So if your data are really showing you are being "effective" (definition, please), they also reveal the total absence of "choice", or freedom of the child to, among other things, learn in any way except your way.

This is one of the reasons why I decided to look at ethics. Re choice, I was told flat out by a behaviour analyst that people make bad choices anyway. They really, really want something, then when they get it, they're disappointed. So, (my conclusion) we take these incompetent decision-makers into our competent hands, and presto, effective treatment and here we go, beyond freedom and dignity.

Do wrestlers still starve and dehydrate themselves (and in one case I know about, give blood) in order to be at the right weight?

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

Edited by author 04-17-2004 02:29 AM
Hi John,

Just a quick correction. The great time lapse between question and response has caused confusion. I was refering to the very young kid who, you reported, banged his head, looked "surprised", and burst into tears. The looked "surprised" part is the mentalizing. Lots of autistics don't have facial expressions corresponding to non-autistic norms (the proper affective display problem). Assuming this injury was not accidental, you reported you do immediate extinction. My question is, how on earth did this, the self-injury, happen?

I never hear, in all the horror stories of self-injury, what happened before. Not ever, when it is reported by non-autistics. And I know I have never been asked why, the few times I have hurt myself around other people. Assumptions were made about what I "seemed" to want, even when I had functional speech.

I have heard accounts of autistics hurting themselves and they are immediately familiar to me. I would suggest you be extremely cautious in assuming (you use the word "seemed", which seems, excuse me, very vague in such a critical situation) that the autistic is looking for positive reinforcement, ie, attention.

Temple Grandin, who does a better job than most of us of appearing typical, reports being spotted by very young children because her timing is slightly off. Most autistics are more "off" than that, and tolerance for differences often diminishes with age. But I can't seem to get you to take that into account. Clearly I'm not offering the right kind of reinforcement. I suppose I should do a functional analysis...

I'm not sure I can properly explain myself so long as the problem of how non-autistics respond to us is ignored.

It's not a small problem. I can't offhand think of another group of people, never mind children, who can be described as festering, a plague, tumours, horrifying, worthless, better off dead, and everyone applauds and has award banquettes and buys the t-shirts. Since this view of autism is pervasive at very public levels (government, courts, media), it does represent the public will about what we are worth.

Can you tell me where this comes from? Because you claim not to share these views, and I believe you, but knowledge carries responsibility, or it should. You have a much greater ability to speak out than I do. You are not autistic. If you want to know why there is a communication problem, you can read Schafer, and you can read Weintraub, and study their respectable contexts, and the absence of apparent objections from non-autistics.

So what happens when your bright kids get out of a controlled environment? You can say that all our experiences never happened and we don't know what we're talking about. But then, you're saying, even when we communicate ("make known"), you won't listen.

I'll get back to you on learning. I thought your program was a bit more flexible, and it looks like I was mistaken. I hope your Spanish is flourishing. Oh, and choices: that's interesting. I'm not sure I could deal with the Skinner quotes that would ensue...Forgot to ask how you're enjoying Breland and Breland.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

Hi Michelle,

Reading your reply I have a sneaking suspicion that “choices”, will be our next big topic. Oh well….

You said “It sounds to me exactly as though your "teaching" is purely incidental to the rate of learning. The guy already knew. He doesn't want you to keep telling him what he already knows ("errorless learning", where the autistic never gets a chance to be autistic, ie, wrong).”

Hmmm. well….that is always a possibility, but I suspect not. As a person interested in research, you know about different levels of research control and internal/external validity and all the rest. DT procedures often are designed like mini “Alternating Treatment Designs”, or “Changing Criterion Designs”, and sometimes “Multiple Baseline Designs.” We see repeated and varying manipulations of the independent variable that those designs provide.

Those designs are generally considered strong both in and outside of behaviorism. When a change in behavior is observed in accordance with these designs logic tells us that something has caused that change. When this change attends to a sub phase, where we see a repeated or steady increase it is very convincing. So, I have a logical reason for believing this change or learning was caused by the DT procedure. A more accurate criticism could be made for internal validity in that other factors may have made the DT more effective e.g. (speech therapy). Another problem is describing all this so that another person could replicate your IV in away that could reproduce the results (threats to external validity). These are the criticisms I suspect are valid. For these same reasons, not only is speech a good example it is a critical one.

You said “I wonder how it came to be that the choices for autistics narrowed down to errorless learning and no-no-prompt.”

I suspect the answer lies in the observed effectiveness of errorless learning and also research on the subject. I have had a few cognitive professors who were interested in trial and error and methods of cueing. They were passionate about his but I wondered where their research base was.

You said “My question to you about your bright boy is, what's going to happen to him when he finds out speech doesn't work either?”

Fair question….. But one I disagree with. You are operating under the premise that
He will find it ineffective. But I will answer your question anyway. We would have to look for another functional method of communication. (Please read the next post I make, I plan to mention him again). You fail to account for too many variables by stating speech will not work. It has worked, I have seen it do so in the sense of effective communication of needs, ideas, and thoughts.

You said “Anyway, your reward is to get what you have been told you need. This is communication?”

Do you really think I wouldn’t learn to do that with time and reinforcement? Are all communication modalities the same? I recall that the !Kung people of Africa use vocal clicks as part of their language. Non typical but highly effective as part of their language.
This is doubly true if “what I have been told I need”, is something I am after anyway.

You said “Would it not help you tremendously in understanding what's going on, and in translating the language you have into the non-language communication you lack, to have people consistently respond to your communication.”

Please offer a definition of communication when you get time.

Also what about the research that shows self-injury and tantrums go down when functional communication is taught (this almost always involves mands). All three of my students who had self-injury seemed to have it based on attention. Extinction eliminated this behavior at school and at home.

You said “Obviously, if you're emulating someone, you're doing it as a choice, not as a forced necessity imposed on you because if you don't, you are ineligible to participate in society and may be locked up.”
 
That’s true… Although, if I find emulating that models behavior reinforcing, then I also have a natural aversive contingency hiding in the shadows. Seems like coercion according to some folks?

You said “Autistics do not hurt ourselves because we're autistic. I'll let you get away with mentalizing for the guy who hit his head; but I wouldn't, unless I'd been in his shoes, presume to know his emotions or how it feels before, during and after.”

You may have never said anything I agreed with more on the self-injury due to autism part. As for the wrestler, actually, in way I have kind of been in his shoes, or he had been in mine. We both were 17, and High School Seniors. We both were wrestling for the State Championship at 171 pounds at a large professional venue in front of hundreds of people. We both had injuries going into our matches. We both lost to better wrestlers in front of all those people after four years of hard and sometimes painful work. He was not nearly the only wrestler to flip out. Another kid who should have won our division (no question the best athlete there) was disqualified for injuring an opponent. He nearly attacked the referee. The parents and coaches were nearly as bad.

What you would be correct to say is that I don’t know what his previous learning history had been like. That would be absolutely true. Not only do I hold myself to not make such inferences but others as well. By the way where did I mentalize (in terms about offering inferences about the thoughts of others)? I am usually careful about not doing that. I will be very happy to retract it.

You said “But I don't understand why any dependent autistic is put into a situation so painful and disturbing to him that he hurts himself.”

Makes a good ethical question. I can only speak for a few ABA folks, and maybe not even in a way they would agree with. We try to be sensitive to situations were a strong aversion is noticed to activities. This has meant abandoning a carefully planned hand washing training procedure because one student found running water terrifying. We used special sanitizing hand gel. We could have used systematic desensitization but no one in out lab was familiar enough with that technique. Part of being ethical is only using those techniques you are familiar with. And we are some of the most radical behaviorists you will find. Actually, children with specific functional communication could tell us what they don’t like and maybe why (as I have indeed seen). All this helps.

Please see my previous comments for your last paragraph.

Edited by author 04-16-2004 11:51 AM
About some of Mulick's research (http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2003/G/20034861.html)

>The researchers did a variety of assessments to see what effect EIBI had on the children. Results included:

*Hit me with it, Jimmy....

>Before EIBI treatment, all students had IQ scores below 51, which puts them in the moderately mentally retarded range.

*There is no mention of having looked into the possible reasons WHY these results were obtained: were the kids tired, or stressed, or at least apprehensive; or were scores prorated, and if so, from what sub-tests? All these can affect scores.

>After EIBI, all of the children had IQ scores above 70, with one child reaching 114.

*What was the increase due to? Where was it most great - verbal or performance tasks? This can be important, since it gives the impression that EIBI made the kids more intelligent when this statement is made. If the increase in IQ score was mainly from performance in the verbal tasks, then the increase is not likely at all to be in overall intelligence; rather, it is likely to be due to increased verbal ability... and - given that many autistic children to develop speech spontaneously later in childhood (according to Rutter's study at any rate!) - it is still not certain what has brought the gains.

>The researchers have preliminary results of three students one year after enrollment in this study. All three had made more gains in IQ scores: 4 points, 8 points and 30 points, respectively.

*A four point gain in overall IQ is, to be honest, not significant, and nor is eight. 30 points is, and so - after one year - there is a significant gain recorded for ONE child out of eight. Impressive result. Not.

>Seven of the eight students had made significant gains in adaptive behavior, such that they are ready for mainstream schools. This means they can do things like dress themselves and wash their hands.

*Now THIS is the important issue: functional behaviour. This sort of improvement I applaud - the only thing is, this is possible with interventions other than IEBI!

>All of the students showed borderline to normal scores on nonverbal cognitive skills (an example being knowing how to unlock a door or solve a puzzle).

*Which means that the improvements seen in the point on IQ scores were largely in the field of verbal skills.

>Language skills remained a problem for at least four of the students. "Language is one of the most impaired areas in autism," Mulick said.

*This would tie in with one good result out of eight attempts. But it isn't merely that "language is impaired in autism"... Mulick fails to take into account much that is missed by the ABA fanatics; namely the socio-linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects of language development in autistic people. Plus, I note in his lambastment of Michelle Dawson that he doesn't allow for technological remediation for speech-based difficulties, and the vast majority of ABA fanatics have a tendency to confuse speech and language.

>All eight students showed academic skills to a level where they were ready for school. While their language skills were not up to par with their peers, Mulick said they were good enough for school.

*Mulick said it, but what was his basis for doing so? We are not told.

>Only one of the eight students had autistic symptoms severe enough to be classified as autistic by the time of this study. This suggests a marked improvement.

*This is a matter largely of clinical opinion. Mulick's is not one that will find a lot of value here.

>Only one of the eight children showed emotional or behavioral problems at a level well above normal.

*And did anyone attempt to find out why they were there, outside of using a behavioural paradigm? I don't think so.

*Moreover, the statistics given are absolutely meaningless without explicit reference to the individual children they were collected about: they tell us nothing.

Ralph...

LS exposure? To what LS have you been exposed/exposing yourself? LoL

Now, the chocolate withdrawal... THAT I know about .....


*munch munch munch...... my daughter's great, she gets a shitload of Easter eggs but doesn't want tham all.... chockychock for mummy and daddy!!!!!!!!! YUMMMMM!!!!!!*

Edited by author 04-16-2004 12:15 AM
Hi John,

Felt like an archeologist looking for your message, the one I haven't responded to yet. Oh, yeah, that was back at #83, in my youth.

Well, we've maybe had quite enough excrement in this space lately, but if you don't think staying in your own crap for a week is "effortful", you are an interesting kind of fellow.

Re your autistics who seem so good at "explicit" learning: speech is a bad example, unless the autistic is also deaf. It sounds to me exactly as though your "teaching" is purely incidental to the rate of learning. The guy already knew. He doesn't want you to keep telling him what he already knows ("errorless learning", where the autistic never gets a chance to be autistic, ie, wrong).

If someone gives me no choice as to how I respond, I will commit astounding feats, spilling my implicit learning all over the place, to have this coercion stopped. By coercion, I mean, "do what I want how I want now", which behaviour is duly rewarded. This may be progress or "learning" by some standards, but I'm surely not the only autistic who can do stuff like this perfectly without having any idea what anything means. I wonder how it came to be that the choices for autistics narrowed down to errorless learning and no-no-prompt.

My question to you about your bright boy is, what's going to happen to him when he finds out speech doesn't work either? I've mentioned this developmental milestone before. Speech is hard and effortful (you don't get better at it; you accumulate endurance) and the effort displaces other things. Which would be fine if speech "worked".

Here's an example for you, about you. Let's say you're a little kid again. You're typical so you develop speech on time. But, you seem to be in the wrong place. Nobody around you is like you. You come to notice this, then it is impressed upon you.

For example, when you speak, either (a) everyone ignores you, or (b) someone claps their hand over your mouth. Eventually you are singled out because you aren't functionning properly and can't communicate. So, someone decides what you might need and believes he can increase that need through manipulation (the EO). Then, he asks you to ask for what he's decided you need.

Let's say the proper way to ask here is by being silent for a precise amound of time, down to tenths of a second, then humming an exact middle C. You try and try and try and finally you succeed in being close enough, though you just aren't any good at this stuff. You're not equipped with precise time or perfect pitch. It's exhausting and nerve-wracking and meaningless to you. Anyway, your reward is to get what you have been told you need. This is communication?

Would you not be dying to have your consistent, patterned, accurate communication understood and responded to such that you can truly express your knowledge and needs? Would it not help you tremendously in understanding what's going on, and in translating the language you have into the non-language communication you lack, to have people consistently respond to your communication?

Well, you see, it's hard to explain. It's easier just to bang your head while everyone decides your very remarkable way of doing things is totally wrong and must be replaced with "functional behaviour".

One "functional behaviour" I've learned through decades of consistent reinforcement (using your terms here) is never to ask anyone anything that they have not indicated that they are willing to offer. Given my differences from most people, that means that if I want my real needs met, I have to accomplish this myself. Anything that requires me genuinely to ask others is out of bounds.

The only exception I make, besides being free to ask autistics, is in my research. But, my supposedly very functional language does not function like language at all; I can only say or ask for very limited things that have nothing to do with my needs and everything to do with everyone else's.

Obviously, if you're emulating someone, you're doing it as a choice, not as a forced necessity imposed on you because if you don't, you are ineligible to participate in society and may be locked up. I also emulate people, which is my choice. But I'm forced to act like someone I'm absolutely not at the same time, and I can tell the difference. The effort in emulation is freely offered and a pleasure; in forced imitation it is exhausting and futile.

Autistics do not hurt ourselves because we're autistic. I'll let you get away with mentalizing for the guy who hit his head; but I wouldn't, unless I'd been in his shoes, presume to know his emotions or how it feels before, during and after.

I understand why Jim's clients hurt, bite, fight back--they've been abused. I'm pretty disturbed when your clients act that way. Yes, extinction of self-injury in any one environment is possible and sometimes easy. In my case, I can't stand people running or even walking towards me. I learned in a wink that I had to hurt myself when I was alone, that the need had to be deferred. But I don't understand why any dependent autistic is put into a situation so painful and disturbing to him that he hurts himself.

I'm not the only adult autistic who has learned through experience that hurting oneself is often better than the forced alternative of becoming mentally and physically immobilized by fear and confusion (which is impossibly painful). Children should never be in a situation where their experiences teach them to hurt themselves.

Now imagine yourself back as the little boy who has normal speech in a world where communication happens otherwise, through means you're neurologically unequipped to access or practice. Imagine the pain and frustration, even though there's really nothing wrong with you and you're doing exactly what you're supposed to. Now, add it up.

If I'm not clear, I apologize (pauses for 2.7 sec and beeps at x khz).

Incidentally, the ineffable rainbows are a true story.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

Previous comment withdrawn; was suffering from LS exposure and chocolate withdrawal.

Dave, am still laughing re 116. :)

Suggest everyone read this http://www.autistics.org/library/time.html

Ah-ooh, Lenny Schafer, Ah-ohh, Lenny Schafer....

http://www.ascendgroup.org/SCHAFER%20AUTIS...%20January%2014.htm

... where he says: "In the name of autism awareness clarity, I'd even take it a step
further: the Asperger's label ought to be kicked off the spectrum
altogether."

My big question is...


WHO MADE LENNY SCHAFER GOD?

This is that Ralph guy....

http://www.sentex.net/~nexus23/bio.html

:)

He definitely not as pig-ugly as me, is he?

http://dna1fi.tripod.com/intropage/

I have *no idea* who this "Ralph" guy is. [folds arms]

Edited by author 04-15-2004 09:58 AM
Thanks Amanda.
Thanks again Ralph.
Gracias, John (and if I spelled that wrong, I'll retire in shame).

ABA Proponents Attack Autistics: Showing Their True Character, by Frank Klein
http://home.att.net/~ascaris1/attacking-autistics.html

Added.

http://www.autistics.org/library/dawson-response.html

[goes off to crash somewhere]

Fair enough ma'am (laughing).
All right, back to spanish books with me.

Hi John,

I'm beginning to think of the title of my article as just an accurate prediction. Anyway, I promise I'll get back to you as soon as I get some consecutive hours of sleep and rescue my language from legal strictures. Later,

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

Amanda,

Please if you want post my response to Schafer on autistics.org. It incorporates my response to ASAT, which they have not replied to.

Schafer has responded to my letter to him. He is refusing to put my response in his report. He was rude in a way I suppose would have shocked me if I weren't so well trained in being insulted.

Thanks (and what a totally inadequate word in the circumstances).

Okay, folks... from hereon in, I must maintain a face of dignity about this ABA-lot's digs at us. Thanks for your indulgences while I got it out of my system (how the hell Michelle copes, I do not know... fair play to her, I say).

I am hoping to do a review of the methodology of behaviourism - right from the first famous reported experiment in behaviourism: I have the paper as part of the study materials for the course in Developmental Psychology of Childhood and Adolescence. I would rather have done Lifespan Development though.

Edited by author 04-14-2004 11:42 PM
I got a nice response from Dr Rita Jordan (Reader in Autism Studies at the University of Birmingham, UK), who is my course leader. If she is okay with me posting it here, I'll do that.

She was very supportive and thinks that we should be heard. And treated better than we have by these people. That much I can tell you.

Dedicating this little bit of poetry to Professor Mulick:

"Your dirty name gets passed about when something goes amiss.
Your attitudes are platitudes,
just make me wanna piss.

What kind of creature bore you
Was is some kind of bat
They can’t find a good word for you,
but I can...
TWAT."

John Cooper Clarke.
http://www.cyberspike.com/clarke/twat.html

Is that alright, Michelle? Bit of silliness? ;)

Hi Alyric,

I'm getting totally pissed off with the arrogance of these idiots. I finally figured out why it is that they go for ad hominem.... they can't think of anything else to do if someone disagrees with them. So they go all personal. Because they just haven't got the logic to understand the science: if they had, they'd know well why the objections to behaviour analysis AS A SOLE "TREATMENT" FOR AUTISM are sound. The evidence of over 30 years of studies shows that nothing stands out as a really effective intervention on kids (my supervisor, Glenys Jones did her PhD on this, and that was like 15 years' work!)... Other studies before that show that spontaneous speech occurs in many autistic kids (as it did with me), as evidenced by one of Rutter's studies. Pat Howlin, at the recent Conference on Autism and Asperger Syndrome in Copenhagen, gave another review of the work (with Rutter present) and concluded the same. And anyway.... doesn't take a fuckwit ten minutes, let alone a scientific practitioner/researcher, to realise that ANYTHING that absolutely NEEDS 40 hours a week in order to be any good HAS to be CRAP in the first place! Even sitting and talking for 40 hours a week (yes... that nasty word - psychoanalysis!) can do better than ABA at 40 hours a week.

There's two kinds of ABA workers it seems: there's those who use ABA techniques as part of a comprehensive package of support and assistance, and there's those who can't think about anything BUT ABA .... if it were us going like that, it would be labelled an obsession. Why isn't their cultish religious fervour seen for what it is? An obsession....

As for the defamation suit.... if someone makes a sensationalist article about something, and another set of people produce a "reasoned and very modest response", why the hell are these FEAT people not able to contain themselves with enough grace and decorum to stop going crying to mummy? How does a modest response constitue defamation? And why is that defamation, when their "reasoned responses" are clearly personal attacks on people who have studied more than just the basics of ABA and forgotten the rest of the stuff they learned in college? Defamation is defamation: and what ASAT/FEAT Wisconsin did to Michelle was defamation. She didn't go running with her head up her arse to the courts, did she? She confronted them.

AND THAT IS WHAT THESE PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE. They want all the autistic people to have no say in anything and to be compliant little nobodies.

Balls to that.

As to your ideas.... I'd love to hear them.

http://dna1fi.tripod.com/intropage/

I don't see the point in being temerate about the ABA lot. They take reasonable sensible analysis as personal afront, so... by that reasoning (which is worse than anything I have ever seen in people with IQ<70: I have an autistic nephew whose IQ I measured at about 86 FS, and at 70 on verbal, using a Wechsler) if I go at them and call them all the stupid buggers under the sun, they'll see that as reasoned analysis.

ABA-cultists get EVERYTHING arse about face, don't they?

1. autistics.org seems to be back up and functional, including FTP access (finally).

2. Michelle -- would you like your letter re: the latest FEAT stuff reprinted on autistics.org, or do you prefer it remain on the message board only (or have another place for it)?

I've been following this topic with interest. Just to let you know, David - a great response!

FEAT et al must be wondering just what is going on. Our very modest and reasoned response to Linehan's sensationalist article was bumped from the ASPIRES website ( a FEAT affiliate) - someone threatened the list owner with a defamation suit - we're not dead yet. I have some very cool ideas about just how to pursue this.

And another article in the pipeline just guaranteed to set the cat among the pigeons. AUspin rules!

Edited by author 04-14-2004 03:35 PM
Hi Ralph,

Am printing that report off as I type this.

Mullick comes across as just as much a bastard as Schafer does, regarding how he attacks Michelle. He called her a malingerer! Personality disordered? Mullick, fuck off.

I am disgusted by most US professionals anyway but this is about as much as I can stand of their idiotic abusive attitudes towards us as people.

Apparently, according to Mullick, I can't possibly be a psychologist since I am autistic and by definition cannot contemplate a career involving communication.

Is that guy an idiot or fucking what? The Nazis would have loved him.

Yes, personal attack on Mullick.

Why?

Because he's an objectionable person, with nothing good to say about autistics. Unless of course they agree with his obviously God-validated opinion on what it actually is.

Bullshit.

David

Dave:

My own criticism of Weintraub's piece of invective can be seen here: http://dna1fi.tripod.com/intropage/id2.html

Cool! Am spreading it around...

Dave:

Where is Lenny Schafer's stuff dissing Michelle?

If your personal email is different to your home page account, check your home page inbox for summary re above.

I had to do this....

I have noticed a very strong bias in the minds of Finnish professionals regarding an autistic professional's ability to practice.

Now, that's the one hundredth message in this thread :D

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!


(This is the being silly that Michelle refers to in an earlier post, as applied in my shitty little existence :) )

>
>Nice catch, jypsy! Didn't realise that that QT code doesn't
>translate properly in email copies. Thanks!

Aha - I didn't realize either ... that what was there was boardspeak and actually produced something other than a 404. In truth, in email I still come out only half right - but I could get there. Guess we learned something. (else)
-jypsy

Edited by author 04-14-2004 09:11 AM
Nice catch, jypsy! Didn't realise that QT code doesn't translate 'properly' in email copies. Thanks! [Don't get me wrong; if it speaks its 'own language', I'm all for it!]

At 11:52 AM 4/14/2004 +0000, you wrote:
>--QT-------------------------------------------------------------
> Reply by email or visit
> http://www.quicktopic.com/25/H/4NqUrcUWgSE5R/m95
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Michelle's
>website

try
http://www.sentex.net/~nexus23/naa_02.html Michelle's Web Site :)

________________________________
Ooops....Wrong Planet! Syndrome
Autism Spectrum Resources
www.PlanetAutism.com
  jypsy@isn.net

Hi CJ

>Michelle wrote:

>"But, to the extent that DIR also involves being silly and having fun, I don't mind it. I would guess that it is very good in the hands of an open, empathic, intuitive teacher, but then I would put the "success" down to the teacher, not the "technique"."

*Indeed she did :)

But I have something that I can add here.

>You know I and some other moms have noticed that the most important factor, bar none, in whether or not a child learns and retains a love of learning is the teacher.

*There have been studies on this, and it is no surprise that they subtract nothing from this common-sense statement; what IS surprising is that - if they add anything, they add little.

>If that person is empathetic, respectful, and really loves the kid, amazing things happen.

*This is what a century and a half of systematic education has taught us, yes.

>If not, things get worse.

*see previous comment.

>I like that you refer to the person as teacher, not therapist.

*As an applied educational psychologist, it interests me when I hear about needs for therapy or treatment: most of the time, what is needed is education... education for the parents in how children function and what can send behaviour going the wrong way and so on, without actually blaming them. I have mentioned the NAS's Early Bird approach elsewhere on this thread. But "education" means "drawing out", not "forcing in"... it is about the very things advocated by Vygotsky in the early part of the last century: close support being moved away further and further as the person becomes more of an expert in whatever it is that they are becoming expert in... whether it be nuculear physics or handling a teaspoon functionally.

>I would so love to see people start thinking of helping kids who develop differently as education, not medical intervention.

*How does my previous comment fit in with your desire here? I like that desire.

>Imagine what would happen if everyone were taught in the way they learn best.

*Educational utopia :) My job would be ... wait a minute... I'd be out of a job :(( LoL Of course I wouldn't: my job would revolve around delineating the ways in which any given person might be able to learn best. Usually, of course, by skillful asking ;)

>Truth is there's no such thing as a typical kid.

*I calculated the probability of finding a "normal" person, psychometrically speaking, using the 41 dimensions available to me in the basic standardised test battery I use. One person per seven and a half million is actually psychometrically normal. Essentially, then, in Finland there seven tenths of a normal person (popl: 5 million). In the UK.... (popl: 55 million) there are just under seven and a half normal people.

*I think we can conclude that any psychometrically defined normality ("typicality") is likely to be of a negligible occurrence rate.

David

Michelle wrote:

"But, to the extent that DIR also involves being silly and having fun, I don't mind it. I would guess that it is very good in the hands of an open, empathic, intuitive teacher, but then I would put the "success" down to the teacher, not the "technique"."

You know I and some other moms have noticed that the most important factor, bar none, in whether or not a child learns and retains a love of learning is the teacher. If that person is empathetic, respectful, and really loves the kid, amazing things happen. If not, things get worse. I like that you refer to the person as teacher, not therapist. I would so love to see people start thinking of helping kids who develop differently as education, not medical intervention. Imagine what would happen if everyone were taught in the way they learn best. Truth is there's no such thing as a typical kid.

How do I find your website?

CJ

Edited by author 04-14-2004 07:01 AM
My own criticism of Weintraub's piece of invective can be seen here: http://dna1fi.tripod.com/intropage/id2.html


Where is Lenny Schafer's stuff dissing Michelle? I tried to find a link on his site but can't find one: none of the things that usually would be links seems to work. I have little better to do these days than take to pieces pieces of crap like these....

Since autistics.org is down, the "In Support of Michelle Dawson and Her Work" article is temporarily located here:

http://www.sentex.net/~nexus23/ao_daw.html

In light of the stuff posted to the Schafer Autism Report, we're working on new stuff as well. (Most of it, though, seemed like a rehash of the sort of stuff already covered in that article, only sometimes much more vicious, so it's a tossup as to whether anyone will *listen*...) To be posted at some point after autistics.org comes back up, which should hopefully be soon.

Hi Oddizm,

The world is lots less rotten seeing as you're in it. Please keep on inspiring all of us to laugh and hope and keep going.

Michelle

Hi CJ,

I always experience this great joy when people are crazy about their kids and call them magnificent.

I know a bit about Floortime, or DIR (going to run out of acronyms). I don't like the theory-of-mind-based emotional theory behind DIR. I don't like much of the theory behind DIR except for the idea of challenging the child to engage in difficult and interesting things through the use of materials. I do find his suggested materials limited. On the other hand, I might not be sophisticated enough to understand the whole theory. Dr Greenspan is a psychoanalyst.

I also don't like the practice of fooling the autistic in order to engage her. That one really bothers me.

But, to the extent that DIR also involves being silly and having fun, I don't mind it. I would guess that it is very good in the hands of an open, empathic, intuitive teacher, but then I would put the "success" down to the teacher, not the "technique".

I hope some more informed and helpful people will add to my very limited knowledge.

I would love to hear how it "turns out", from all points of view. Thank you for dropping by.

Michelle

Way to go Michelle.

Way to show them how to discuss a topic intelligently and with dignity.

I'm proud of you.

Dr. Mullick and the others ought to be ashamed of themselves.

I realize that people have their personalities on the line, they have invested themselves and lots and lots of money into ABA, and of course, someone is on the other end taking in lots and lots of money for doing ABA. Big money is a big motivator. I realize that you wouldn't like to discuss their real motives, but I would like to lay them on the table. $$$$$$ for discussion.
Being able to say that "My child can do thus and such" gives parents bragging rights. That's great, but should the child be damaged in the process of seeking those bragging rights? I have seen a physical therapist (in North Idaho, near Coeur d'Alene, in case you are out there reading this) address my daughter's hand-flapping with CONTEMPT, and I am not exaggerating, it was contempt. This is not about the ego and comfort zone of the parents and the teachers and the "experts". This is about who the child is and what he needs to do to cope with this rotten world.

oddizm

Hello Aasa,

Sorry I got Dr Edelson's name wrong. No excuse. Thanks for straightening me out.

I know about RDI and Dr Gutstein (he is really getting his message out), but I haven't studied it at all. Feel free to enlighten us all. Being silly and having fun sounds good to me. Not sure it needs an acronym (sorry, just being silly).

Michelle

Edited by author 04-14-2004 12:54 AM
In response to the Schafer Autism Report, Monday, April 12, 2004 Vol. 8 No. 62:
---------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:41:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: naa canada <naacanada@yahoo.ca>
Subject: From Michelle Dawson: Is one allowed to respond?
To: Lenny Schafer [xxxxxx]

Mr Schafer:
 
Though I'm easily available through email on my webpage, no one seems to have consulted me before defaming me.
 
I was also defamed on the ASAT website. I responded to that briefly and politely, but ASAT has not seen fit to correct the false and defamatory information they have published about me.
 
The information you have published about me personally is utterly false. You are also calling the Supreme Court of Canada incompetent. You are calling the people who have diagnosed me incompetent.
 
Sir, I have learned to treat people with respect. I am always surprised when others have not learned this simple lesson.
 
I have a large appetite for criticism, but your report has not offered any. Instead, you have indulged in baseless and, by my standards, cowardly character assassination.
 
I have little but good things to say about Dr Mulick, who I was very impressed by. He decided I was a journalist, and insisted on this, even when I corrected him. He said I was a "good journalist" when I uncovered, at the start of my research, an interesting ethical problem I so far have chosen not to write about. Somewhere in my inbox is an email from him telling me to "keep truckin'".
 
Dr Green and I spoke for five hours, and I have great respect for her also. I agree with neither Dr Mulick nor Dr Green. I have criticized their work, while showing respect for their positions by accurately reporting them and verifying them through their own published work, and while thanking them for their time.
 
I quoted Dr Mulick properly in context. My questions were directly based on Dr Mulick's spontaneous description of autism as a "psychiatric construct". This idea was familiar to me from Dr Lovaas' description of social construction. I don't imply that Dr Mulick believes autism is a hilarious accident. I sourced Dr Mulick and his work correctly throughout.
 
I did not present myself to Dr Mulick as an expert in anything; in the time we spoke, I had yet to be taken seriously in my own work. I did not present myself as anything but an autistic researching to write about behaviour therapies in autism. I was made aware of Dr Mulick through my interest in ABA legal cases in Canada, which have had an impact on all autistics because of the forums used for these battles. I accurately stated my wish to intervene in Auton, as no representation from an autistic exists in the proceedings.
 
Dr Mulick is not careful in what he says (as in what he writes) and I had to be very cautious and conservative in quoting him. Many things he said were incendiary. I enjoyed this and learned from him and would never show contempt for him.
 
Dr Green does not deal with the content of my article. I am very critical of the criticisms of ABA in my article, and give examples in my sources of criticism that were neither accurate nor useful. I say nowhere that ABA must be banned. I suggest applying the kind of ethical concern that, for instance, the late Dr Baer showed in his response to Dr Lovaas' work with feminine boys (who were described by Dr Lovaas as desperate and doomed to isolation and self-mutilation). I point out that ethical standards which have improved the circumstances of all other persons would equally benefit autistics, and would also improve the state of the science.
 
As I indicate in my sources, I did get support for the idea of ethical review.
 
In my ABA work, I was repeatedly struck by the generosity of the behaviour analysts in speaking with me, and in, I thought at the time, taking me seriously.
 
I know, sir, I am not allowed to speak in your world. Either the autistic speaks, and therefore is not autistic, or the autistic doesn't speak, and is autistic, but has no voice.
 
However, in my work I'm required to respect the existing diagnostic criteria.
 
Here is my letter to ASAT. It is not equal to the assault you have launched against me, but it may be instructive.
____________________________________
 

To those responsible at ASAT:

I have been made aware of a response ASAT has posted on its website, http://asatonline.org/resources/library/moms_perspective.html , re the article "The Misbehaviour of Behaviourists". In this article, I accurately describe some of ASAT's positions, as well as ASAT's stated dedication to science-based research and treatments in autism.
 
My article includes no personal attacks, except perhaps the reported and sourced attacks against autistics that I use as illustrations.
 
I am very open to criticism. I am not, however, open to personal attacks that falsely represent me and constitute defamation of my character.
 
If ASAT has problems with this article, ASAT should respect its own values and attack the weaknesses and errors in the article on the basis of the science. This is possible and would be welcome. For instance, I didn't know until after I wrote the article that one of the Rett syndrome girls was in Lovaas' Control Group One. This was sloppy research on my part, as was my failing to notice that the Rett syndrome study was not conducted in the early nineties, as evidenced by the previous sentence.
 
If you find my article misleading and harmful, you have the perfect right (even the obligation, if you are taking me seriously) to contest the article on the facts. That is, read the studies, read the court records, read the media reports. I did use personal communications as sources, but as little as possible. Personal communications are used by people on the ASAT Advisory Board in peer reviewed science (eg, James Mulick).
 
If you are claiming that this article is full of animosity, you should justify this. If you are claiming that I am accusing parents of not loving their children, you must justify this. If you are claiming that I am accusing parents of abusing their children then you must justify this serious claim. If you believe that my diagnosis, whatever it is, automatically invalidates my work, you must justify this position.
 
Instead, you have published a personal attack on me and my work that is unrelated entirely to the work in question, and therefore is demonstrably gratuitous and in violation of your own stated principles.
 
My article is not a personal memoir or anecdote. In some articles I've written, and some work I've done, my diagnosis is an important element. In the ABA article, it is not mentioned until later in the article and has little bearing on the contents. You assume I'm dishonest and irresponsible because, among other things, you don't believe my diagnosis. Now you can tell me when exactly it became good science to diagnose a person via the Internet.
 
While it is none of ASAT's business, I have been diagnosed as autistic by some impressive diagnosticians, including one on ASAT's Advisory Board.
 
My work has been accepted in many places, including IMFAR, and must survive the scrutiny of a research group known for its precision. It has been accepted, so far, by the Supreme Court of Canada, which would be unlikely to allow the individual intervention (they are not often granted) of a person hurling strident and malicious accusations.
 
ASAT's decision to attack me personally is a disgrace to ASAT and its values. I expected a serious argument on the facts. You have disappointed me and you have done your own members a great disservice.
 
I fail to understand the motivation for ASAT's decision to attack my character and not my science. Perhaps my article really is dangerous to those who have nothing but invective with which to address a scientific and legal argument based on the ethical consideration of autistics.
 
Now I will find out if ASAT is rigorous and scrupulous enough, and honest enough about your own stated ideals, to add this letter to your own website.
 
Sincerely,
 
Michelle Dawson
Clinique spécialisée de l'autisme, Hôpital Rivière des Prairies, Université
de Montréal
_____________________________________________


I will add only that I've received a great deal of support for my work from parents who have autistic children. My ABA article has been posted since January. There is a comment board attached, in which real discussions have broken out in a spirit of learning and discovery. My webpage is a democracy.
 
Finally, were my work worthless, and myself a pathetic basket case, you would not have wasted two millimetres of your very important Report on me. Seeing as you have gone all out, I should be permitted to respond.
 
Sir, your standards and values, unlike those clearly stated by ASAT, mystify me. So I don't know if it's possible for you to disgrace yourself. I had not seen "festering" before. I don't think it's autism that's festering here.
 
Best regards,
 
Michelle Dawson
naacanada

Michelle, just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts about RDI or relationship development intervention (either ala S. Gutstein or the home-grown version with parents and siblings just being silly and having fun with their "ASD-diagnosed" kids? By the way, "Edleson" should be spelled "Edelson". Aasa

Michelle Dawson's article is eloquent and fascinating. I'm the mom of two magnificent boys with developmental differences. I have always sought to help them be who they are and also able to navigate the rest of the world. (Even tougher than it sounds.) So far so good -- I'll let you know how it turns out or maybe they will. Anyway, I'm interested in hearing what Ms. Dawson and others think about Stanley Greenspan and floortime.

Edited by author 04-13-2004 09:48 PM
As a kind of response to Weintraub, about her article, just to give her an idea of how senseless her "article" was, I translated some of it into Japanese and back into English. Twice. It makes more sense now, I think we can all agree. LoL

"Recently, Michelle Dawson that the net by the document learned the material which is posted from ASAT. For us as for unpleasantness, that that erroneous oven is dangerous, ASAT' So it is; The thing thing which finds explanation/learning discussion in all opinions of the net on the one hand; The usual policy of s which pursues the applied behavior analysis service for level of the central child of hatred this material and because it is very high, in regard to the range of the inaccurate report regarding ABA between the parent and the specialist, our opinions and " Front: " Someone following to the family, it is, ASAT that it chooses in order to publish response, confusion and harmfulness of the sky it is; The mother who fights for her child. Kit Weintraub and Emily, 10, and Nicholas, the autism whose 7 is fast (the achievement) the mother of dealing is for the family and the Wisconsin public official."

"Michelle Dawson and her supporter, I doubt that mean that perhaps I abuse my child. That is handled, the medical medical therapy of ABA due to fact in regard to me that, it is, or, violation, allots to my value system and high the right to be who in those. That especially my child my with like her, needs the protection from the team of therapists, and believes. Because it could not accept this logic due to 1 in regard to me, with dealing, when my oven unforgivable is bought is the medicine for the sickness of period of various infancy age ethically, managing, violation of the baby and private right interest and the storing which accompanies those of the doctor of those first years of life in order to inspect the crime of the can imagines, speech, when and being, am I. It is small, the year when number can be marked, before Emily with her aversive, the fact which you eat between week in regard to food taste and quality appearance which is the times when ardently it becomes the mouth. Her two times with this in order to eat directly, it is small afterwards, losing with 20 pounds which cover the time of the week when number can be marked, we her, approach of the action which is not used were hospitalized in order to obtain. It is hard and 6a. which that it goes is. it works. You can eat the food whose Emily is various, when going from the hospital where problem is eaten she who presently is compared is lowest. We crime of abuse Ohio state are high. Were our actions non ethical? Do we the dies permit her in something where that is not proper? Affirmative inclusion that' Without her; You take the lead or, either one; S. Dawson what which is done as for that being? At that of the shoes of the parent and the specialist whom viewpoint you criticize time exactly a little. What it did that in order to help our children? Is you the some actual proof being completed of order a fact which is dug under legitimate feature of one dealing which in order to increase why is shown in life? My child some kind of solution with that it dies and does she who is hungry propose her herself -?"

Vast improvement, no? ;)

Hi Michelle,

Heck of a thread, it will break 100 posts in 2 days or so.

Okay, I admit that an argument can be made for the powder example to be overcorrection, but I would still say “it’s not,” But on the excrement one, sorry, this just is not overcorrection, there is no effortful response made by the victim in this case. Although of course this is still abuse no matter what you call it. It is yet another good reason while the hopefully non-behaviorists responsible for this should not have been messing with any kind of overcorrection in the first place (assumably, they called *this* overcorrection because they needed quick social justification, but have no idea what it is).

You said “One thing behaviourists have "scientifically proven" is that autistics are lousy at explicit learning.”

I think you underrate the ability of some autistic children to learn very quickly through explicit learning. Several examples come to mind. A verb training procedure with errorless learning techniques I created and used for one high functioning boy, he whipped through it in a couple of days. Because I added generalization procedures to it he has begun to use an (ing) ending with other verbs he describes (while he is currently doing them). This young guy seemed to nail the concept almost right away. My university class is currently learning to say the same (ing) endings in Spanish. It takes (us) a while to get it too.

You said “Behaviourists get around this as Ms Weintraub and Dr Green do, which is to deny the possibility of the existence of intelligent or even functional autistics who did not undergo ABA.”

What then about behaviorists like me, who accept (know, mentor, are friends with) autistics of all different skill levels and who are not not turned off by discussion of implicit learning (although I still suspect reinforcers to be hidden in there), but still advocate DT as the best current method for teaching pre-academics and initial social skills? If that is your stance then I suspect that we are likely to be your albatross rather than vice versa.

You said “You would certainly want to get rid of most of my behaviours. You would probably be appalled, as many have been.”

Maybe, maybe not. I suspect not though. Neither of us could know over the internet.

I am no fan of self-injurious behavior. You compared it to my running behavior. But let me make another comparison. As a high school wrestler I remember friends who would lose a match and hit themselves repeatedly. I remember a kid at the state championship who practically disassembled the boys’ locker room with his head after being disqualified. Dissimilar outcomes, yes, but same behavior. I thought it was dangerous then too.

In the end my running although painful, gives me health not injury. I have also previously explained that I practice performance management on myself (ABA) in order to run at an appreciable level, so this is not an adaptive behavior for me, in that it produces not enough reinforcement to maintain my behavior without the added artificial contingencies. At the moment I classify adaptive behavior as being both (a) able to produce enough reinforcement to maintain it’s own occurrence (b) and as a direct means of gaining more ability/knowledge (c) it can be specified in a way that is appropriate to novel circumstances. My running is not adaptive because it fails the first point.

 I have seen a 2 year old crack his head against a brick wall (extremely aversive for me) and obviously painful for him (he cried intensely after he did that). That is one behavior I do use extinction for. All students who I have helped with in DT, now no longer do this behavior (only three did it to start with). But, I have been wrong before and will be so again, so if you find time, tell me why this should be otherwise.

You said “But, it's not much of a life, striving to be like the right kind of person, seeing as you're the wrong kind.”

Granted, I would be the wrong person in this regard. But all persons are in a continuous state of learning and behavioral adjustment, radical behaviorists know that as well as radical cognitivists. Although we may guess that in this regard it is easier for me or Dr. Lovaas to adjust day to day, adjust we must. Supports are needed and they take many environmental and cognitive forms. I have been happy to serve as a role model for some students, including non typical examples. I, in turn have people I tried to be more like, some of whom are indeed non typical.

We should talk in terms of what behaviors we are modeling/trying to emulate. For a recent example, I think Jim is a heck of a model for me in terms of the way he describes how he deals with hitting, scratching, biting. I have never done otherwise anyway, but, it is reinforcement for me to hear that, and will undoubtedly affect my own behavior even more in the future.

For lack of more eloquence I thought your rainbow paragraph was interesting.

You said “I would consider it equally effective in your thirst EO to show that you understand the autistic is thirsty”

Good point. At least for the immediate family. But what happens when he/she is at school, with other relatives, or with other persons?” Person specific communication is functional, as it passes my criterion (a), but it would fail my third criterion and maybe my second as well. Truly adaptive verbal behavior could be used in a context outside “mom and me”, interactions. Training in this may not be necessary; we both know examples where that is true. The party trick you spoke of is well appreciated by me, although language is still picked up somewhere. Maybe TV, which a friend of mine calls “the other mommy.”

I assume the ability of all children to learn functional (if not adaptive behavior). I am less convinced on communication based behaviors. Not that I assume incompetence, but this line of thinking has led to methods like F.C. A worthy idea maybe, but one that has no research validation. At the same time I recognize that it likely has helped some people, and that some autistics choose to communicate primarily through typing.

I recognized the reference your title is based on. I got a kick out of it. I will take a peek at the article which I have heard of but have not read. Thanks again.

Hi Ralph,

>I'm also very fond of his reference to "the intersection of art and mathematics", something I understand only in the visual sense (took me two years to pass each of the high school maths)

*Funny you should mention this. One of the things I used to insist on with my A-level students was that the algebra had correlates in picture-world and that - whenever they were dealing with functions in particular but anything involving equations generally - they should always think about what the picture looked like! Yes, there is more to teaching good maths than the application of DTL in drill stuff ;) Anyway, one of my colleagues, and my head of department, was taking some of this particular group for statistics (A-level Maths, Pure and Applied, where their Applied bit was statistics) and she could not understand why, when a student from the group had asked about a particular statistical problem and she answered that she couldn't think of an answer straight off (she was MSc in QuantMech) and she had to have a picture, everybody in the class burst into laughter.... :D

*I'd had that group the evening before, and was going on at them to always think about the picture that the equation/function described... and only when I told her about this group and the idea of trying to get them to be active learners.... using Omnigraph and stuff, and trying to get them to think in pictures.... :D LoL

David
(who, despite his serious career shift, still is very much in love with mathematical physics: of which psychology done properly is the most interesting application!)

Edited by author 04-12-2004 09:41 PM
Dave:

Nice biog, Ralph... Did you see my site?

Yes, I was very glad to discover your site a while ago (can't recall where). As a graphics person 'by nature' [pauses expectantly] I'm always glad to put a face to a name (others must admit that they're just damn curious).

You've beat me to the punch re Fergus Murray, who is apparently the first person to use "bunch of arse" in scholarly context. I'm also very fond of his reference to "the intersection of art and mathematics", something I understand only in the visual sense (took me two years to pass each of the high school maths). More on that when I can put it in terms that are relevant to this discussion...might be a while.

Edited by author 04-12-2004 08:39 PM
Hi Michelle,

>Sorry, David, I was unclear. Just that Dr Rimland and Dr Edleson aren't known for ABA at all, in contrast with Dr Lovaas.

*Ah? I was under the impression from their writings that they were really proponents of it... I'm listening to too much James Taylor :P

>There are DAN supporters who like ABA and there are those who think it's barbaric and believe autistics just need chelation.

*I've heard about this chelation....

>Dr Edleson has written about practically everything, so it's unsurprising ABA is in there among the sensory/auditory integration and biological approaches, etc.

*True... I just saw something on his site suggesting that it was, as the saying goes in Britain, the dog's bollocks....

>Though imagining Drs Edleson and Rimland (who did support ABA wholeheartedly when he was a much younger guy) as behaviour analysts is pretty amusing.

*It is, somewhat.. :)

Some words of wisdom from an interesting philosopher... somewhat appropriate to the autism issues we discuss here and elsewhere in this forum...

"If the remainder of someone's life looks like it's is going to be miserable, should a utilitarian kill that person? And what about if thousands of people would be ecstatic at the discovery of a certain person's death, and hardly anyone would be pissed off? Does that make it right to kill that person? Maybe it does.

This said, is utilitarianism preferable to selfishness? I would have to say yes, except for in my case, where selfishness is plainly the better option.

In conclusion: utilitarianism, while better than a poke in the eye with a live tuna, is nonetheless essentially arse."
Fergus Crawshay Murray BSc (Hons) MSc
http://fergusmurray.members.beeb.net/utilit.htm

Sorry, David, I was unclear. Just that Dr Rimland and Dr Edleson aren't known for ABA at all, in contrast with Dr Lovaas. There are DAN supporters who like ABA and there are those who think it's barbaric and believe autistics just need chelation. Dr Edleson has written about practically everything, so it's unsurprising ABA is in there among the sensory/auditory integration and biological approaches, etc. Though imagining Drs Edleson and Rimland (who did support ABA wholeheartedly when he was a much younger guy) as behaviour analysts is pretty amusing.

Nice biog, Ralph...

Did you see my site?

http://dna1fi.tripod.com/intropage/

Hi Michelle...

>"For clarity, the information about treatments on the ASAT site is just a reprint of the MADSEC report, though this is not acknowledged as a source on their site. They did acknowledge it when I spoke with them."

*That's odd. They don't even acknowledge their sources?! How scientific! Not.

>"Drs Rimland and Edleson neither object to ABA nor promote it."

*Odd. The stuff on their sites actually gives the opposite view... very praising of it all....

>Dr Rimland clearly was miffed when ABA started being seen as scientifially proven (as opposed to his DAN stuff), and I use some of his writing as a source for opposition to ABA from those with vested interests or those promoting alternate treatments"

*Ahaaa... interesting....

Edited by author 04-12-2004 07:59 PM
After years of listening to all the wrong people, I now have a biographical page that might actually be useful: http://www.sentex.net/~nexus23/bio.html

Edited by author 04-12-2004 06:58 PM
Hi John,

Where was I? Somewhere in the pile there's something I'm supposed to reply to. Re overcorrection, being forced to eat something which is spilled (thereby cleaning it up) seems to count by my standards. Being forced (in this case by circumstance) to repeat the "wrong" behaviour, as happened to the man forced to stay in his own excrement, is not overcorrection according to some, and is according to others.

I once heard a parent refer to Dr Foxx's book about toilet training as "a great work of fiction".

John, I'm not going to abandon the implicit/explicit thing to split hairs about the possibility that functional analyses and all the DR's might even work when the wind is in the right direction.

One thing behaviourists have "scientifically proven" is that autistics are lousy at explicit learning. Even when explicit learning is expanded to occupy most of the autistic's life, most autistics will fail in these programs.

One thing behaviourists could learn, by looking at the epidemiology (and even the diagnostic criteria), is that autistics are clearly learning anyway. Behaviourists get around this as Ms Weintraub and Dr Green do, which is to deny the possibility of the existence of intelligent or even functional autistics who did not undergo ABA.

I can learn explicitly and have often set out to, and have found consistently (100% of the time) that it is very difficult and takes tons of time, and I often fail. Sounds familiar.

So, next problem. You have no way of knowing which behaviours are adaptive or maladaptive to the autistic.

You would certainly want to get rid of most of my behaviours. You would probably be appalled, as many have been. But they're the behaviours that allow me to learn and be productive. They would not be good behaviours for you or any other non-autistic, just like blind behaviour might not be good for sighted people, and vice versa.

For instance, you're allowed to put yourselve in pain by running. No one's going to stop you and lock you up. If I very adaptively (for me) punch myself in the face, I will be locked up, even though in many situations, punching myself in the face works better than anything else.

Language isn't the problem for autistics. Autistics who develop standard-issue speech are still ignored, even when supposedly (as I've been accused) articulate. We are as ignored as autistics who don't speak. If I tell someone they're hurting me by what they're doing, I know I'll be seen as acting inappropriately and will be ignored or shunned. Why? Because my needs, ergo my differences, are wrong.

No, I wouldn't hurt myself in an "environment" where it is okay to be autistic. These environments do not exist yet.

Re the nothing to lose thing, all you can define, measure, and work on are "adaptive" or "maladaptive" behaviours by your standards. By your standards, I would have to change practically all my behaviours, and dedicate my life to this effort. I used to think this is what I should do with my life. But, it's not much of a life, striving to be like the right kind of person, seeing as you're the wrong kind.

Re parameters of implicit learning, you don't seem to know what's involved. You do have to notice what the kid is noticing, and few non-autistics can do this. Kid lines things up. Fine. You notice something about colour is going on. You then supply many, many identical or similar objects which have different colour; and you provide many different kinds of these identical or similar things. Kid makes rainbows, everywhere. All kinds of rainbows lining up similar or identical objects by colour. If you have enough examples of each, the kid can make all kinds of lines (curvy, snaky) and shapes, all in rainbows. Kid learns that he *can* communicate, because he has communicated his knowledge (colours are related to each other) to you and you have responded. This experience (of having a non-autistic notice our way of communicating) is essential to autistics. Back to the rainbows, kid learns about all kinds of different objects while he's doing other things. Kid learns motor skills. So on. Simplest example I can think of.

I would consider it equally effective in your thirst EO to show that you understand the autistic is thirsty. He's probably expressed this. Communication is supposed to go both ways; but when the kid communicates, he doesn't get a response. He gets ignored or he gets a functional analysis and consequent procedures which teach him his communication (which was perfectly accurate all along) is wrong. He's stuck with your version of events.

By narrowing down I mean that by age 2 or 3, you learned to filter out most of the stimuli in any environmnent. You learned categories, eg, which not only eliminate information but distort it. Autistics don't learn to ignore or distort. This can be a terrible problem, and it can be marvellous. Forcing us repeatedly to perceive only the object of the lesson (no matter how "incidental" the lesson) is narrowing us down.

Most (untreated) autistics, even when rather young, have the party trick of producing information and skills that no one can believe they possess, because they've had no apparent access to the assumed-to-be necessary materials or teaching.

Facing rather aversive deadline. This is good distraction though. Thanks John. You're a Skinner guy, re adaptive/maladaptive behaviour, have you read The Misbehavior of Organisms (which inspired the title of my article)?

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

For clarity, the information about treatments on the ASAT site is just a reprint of the MADSEC report, though this is not acknowledged as a source on their site. They did acknowledge it when I spoke with them.

Drs Rimland and Edleson neither object to ABA nor promote it. Dr Rimland clearly was miffed when ABA started being seen as scientifially proven (as opposed to his DAN stuff), and I use some of his writing as a source for opposition to ABA from those with vested interests or those promoting alternate treatments.

First, take a look at this....
http://www.asw4autism.org/dream.htm

Then take a look at this....
http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer?pagename=asa_ppa

ASW is (mathematically speaking) a proper subset on ASA.

Note in the Panel of Professional Advisors:

Lovaas- ABA developer
Rimland- ABA promoter
LaVigna- ABA salesperson
Gerhardt- ABA programme specialist
Edelson- sees Lovaas as "an excellent resource"
Blackwell- the Centre she is involved with is "ABA-rooted"

I could go on, but I can't be arsed at this late hour....

In light of Ralph's questions.... this is significant.

Hi again Ralph...

"I asked myself: "Why are autistic people getting the [short] end of the stick? The dregs; the 'second rate' science?" Is it because we're traditionally unable to defend ourselves? Is this opportunism? Do they think that because we're autistic we either won't notice or won't mind at all?"

I wonder. I often wonder. Like I said in a message elsewhere or in this thread, I have used behavioural techniques in the teaching of mathematics so that people could get their GCSE examination in the subject. Teaching people how to manipulate equations in x properly... it can only be done well by using discrete trial learning: one bit at a time, with praise for having thought about the process correctly and having done the right thing with the equation concerned... and then moving on to the next step in the process... cycle repeats, and student (under only my _guidance_) does the actually mathematical manipulations, and this on the basis of why one does them ... marvellous.

But if the idea is to make an autistic person outwardly "indistinguishable from his peers", I then have to come in and say... "Whoa! That's not right!"

There is a massive difference between the cosmetic and the functional.

Edited by author 04-12-2004 05:05 PM
Hi Ralph,

When I was studying as an undergraduate at Leeds, we covered behaviourism... I kind of figured then that it sucked. There is a reference I was given in which Skinner actually recants! I wonder if Lovaas or the high-pressure-ABA-salespeople lot have seen that! I'll try to dig it out....

LoL

*Hi John....

>I can’t resist jumping in.

*Who can on this board?! :)

>By definition overcorrection is “to more than correct the physical products caused by incorrect behavior”. It was created by the early researchers Foxx and Azrin.

*Ah....

>It is one of the most easily abused of all behavioral techniques.

*No shit!!!!

>It can be considered the opposite of “Premack reinforcers”, which states that “activities can be reinforcing.” So Overcorrection could be explained as “certain behaviors are aversive.”

*Eh???

>Restitution overcorrection is the only acceptable overcorrection in my mind (even then, I am wary of it) although neither of your examples were overcorrection.

*Interesting....

>Dave, your mother being forced to eat the mustard powder is indeed unethical, but as she was forced to eat it, this seems more like “plain activity punishment”, than overcorrection.

*Hmmm... figures....

>She would have mopped the floor had it been restitutional overcorrection.

*Hmmm... okay. That I can see as being restitutional in its purpose.

>Michelle, your example of the man kept in his own excrement is one of the most abusive forms of “natural consequation”, I have ever heard of.

*Glad to see that there are behaviourists who feel that this sort of thing is nasty.

>But it is not overcorrection, of any form as the man engaged in no corrective behavior.

*Yep.... that would be true.

>An example I heard, that was mislabeled overcorrection is a student who spits, was spit back at. This is not even psychologically based, it is eye for an eye logic.

*Yep....

>I was not happy to hear of Dave’s student being isolated.

Nor was I. This kid (not my student in the sense of me teaching him or anything... more like one whose case I am involved peripherally in.... ) is 12 yrs old and in one-to-one situations is usually good. If he is bullied he gives as good as he gets. But the way it looks is that the other kids' parents don't want a "freak" in "their" school, and so they are tring to "smoke the kid out of school": the parents of the other kids who bully this lad are more responsible, as far as I am concerned, since they haven't really taken on board the effect of their kids' behaviour in this case... and they don't want to, it seems. Child abuse by proxy, methinks.

>The student gains nothing that way.

*Even HE knows that, and he's not a psychologist.....

>Research tells us that even Time-Out is less effective/ineffective for any age, if used for more than 5 minutes at a time (and is recommended at 2 minutes only). I was glad to hear that Dave (and others) won’t tolerate that.

*I am a consultant practitioner who has experienced this stuff "from the inside"; I think it makes me a more ethical practitioner than most who learn from books... not that all book-learned practitioners are unethical.

>I can only hope that these persons who implemented your examples of overcorrection were not real behaviorists, only other psychologist/workers who thought they knew what overcorrection was and how it works.

*This is the slightly embarrasing bit: in Finland, class teachers usually have as their major subject educational psychology (although I must point out that it is educational psychology as it is known in the US, not in the UK), so chances are that this person knows about educational psychology (at least as theories). I don't know for sure, but this is what I gather. I am an applied educational psychologist, which is applying educational psychological principles to real world problems, like how to promote development of autistic kids or how to help an adult student who can't do exams to get a fair chance to show what s/he can do. That sort of thing. I do testing and educational diagnoses, as well as suggesting ways of doing things that mght prove more effective (even if they are not immediately "efficient"... humans aren't built for efficiency, we're built to be effective... we're third order lever systems.... that's not efficient, but it does get the job done, and remarkable well). My feeling is that the teacher concern was merely capitulating to the parents of the other kids in the class, and had no concern over what is happening to the lad whose case I am consulting on. Wilful negligence, I believe that it would be called.

>I have used it one time so far. For some typically developing teenagers at a summer camp who vandalized some signs. I had them rebuild the signs they broke.

*Restitutive justice. Quite proper. I can see though that it has a fairly heavy cognitive component to it for it to work properly. But yes, that's ethical.

>Your examples show why I am leery about this technique, best it’s generally avoided, especially by people who don’t understand how it works.

*Unfortunately, this seems to be many practitioners. Odd thing: on this board I have met two behaviourist-oriented practitioners whose ways of working are (from what I have managed to discover) not the norm for behaviourists....

David

Michelle:

Thanks for suggesting (elsewhere) that I adopt this discussion in your (temporary) absence. A hilarious offer because, as you know, I understand almost nothing about behaviourism. I've since understood that it might be useful to see what happens when 'Jane/Joe autistic' encounters behaviourism for the first time. What does it mean to those of us who are not 'scientists'? While preparing the role, I discovered this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/behaviorism/

Before moving to another page, I'll at least mention the low and high points. The low point appeared through cumulative effect, but I didn't say anything (to myself) until this:

Behaviorism is unpopular. It is dismissed by cognitive scientists developing intricate internal information processing models. It is neglected by cognitive ethologists and ecological psychologists convinced that its methods are irrelevant to studying how animals and persons behave in their natural and social environment. It is rejected by neuroscientists sure that direct study of the brain is the only way to understand the causes of behavior.

I asked myself: "Why are autistic people getting the [short] end of the stick? The dregs; the 'second rate' science?" Is it because we're traditionally unable to defend ourselves? Is this opportunism? Do they think that because we're autistic we either won't notice or won't mind at all?

The high point, where I burst out laughing, was this:

Stich, for example, complains against Skinner that "we now have an enormous collection of experimental data which, it would seem, simply cannot be made sense of unless we postulate something like" information processing mechanisms in the heads of organisms (1998, p. 649).

Dave and Michelle,

I can’t resist jumping in.

By definition overcorrection is “to more than correct the physical products caused by incorrect behavior”. It was created by the early researchers Foxx and Azrin.

It is one of the most easily abused of all behavioral techniques. It can be considered the opposite of “Premack reinforcers”, which states that “activities can be reinforcing.” So Overcorrection could be explained as “certain behaviors are aversive.” Restitution overcorrection is the only acceptable overcorrection in my mind (even then, I am wary of it) although neither of your examples were overcorrection.

Dave, your mother being forced to eat the mustard powder is indeed unethical, but as she was forced to eat it, this seems more like “plain activity punishment”, than overcorrection. She would have mopped the floor had it been restitutional overcorrection.

Michelle, your example of the man kept in his own excrement is one of the most abusive forms of “natural consequation”, I have ever heard of. But it is not overcorrection, of any form as the man engaged in no corrective behavior.

An example I heard, that was mislabeled overcorrection is a student who spits, was spit back at. This is not even psychologically based, it is eye for an eye logic.

I was not happy to hear of Dave’s student being isolated. The student gains nothing that way. Research tells us that even Time-Out is less effective/ineffective for any age, if used for more than 5 minutes at a time (and is recommended at 2 minutes only). I was glad to hear that Dave (and others) won’t tolerate that.

I can only hope that these persons who implemented your examples of overcorrection were not real behaviorists, only other psychologist/workers who thought they knew what overcorrection was and how it works. I have used it one time so far. For some typically developing teenagers at a summer camp who vandalized some signs. I had them rebuild the signs they broke. Your examples show why I am leery about this technique, best it’s generally avoided, especially by people who don’t understand how it works.

Edited by author 04-12-2004 03:53 PM
And here's a point:

"Hundreds of families across the state, many in southeastern Wisconsin, are scrambling to maintain treatment for their autistic children after a provider suddenly dropped out of the Medicaid-funded program in December."

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jan04/199722.asp

Why did this provider suddenly drop out of the programme?

From http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/sare...0040119/000166.html :

[TREATMENT

Proper Therapy Can Do So Much For Children With Autism

      [By Kit Weintraub from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.]
http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/jan04/200608.asp)

> There are more than 1,000 children in Wisconsin with autism. The rate
of autism was thought to be about 1 in 10,000 to 10 in 10,000. More recent
studies place the rate at somewhere between 1 in 250 and 1 in 150, <snip> It is a severely disabling condition that
renders even the more highly functioning children impaired for life.

*Given that just about everybody is "impaired for life", this statement makes no sense to me. Everybody has some sort of special needs, although most develop coping strategies without any interventions; as you get further away from "clinical normality", you get into the region of ability where more help is needed to develop coping strategies.

> One unique thing about children with autism is that with early
intensive intervention, they can make astonishing strides to the point where
they are far less affected by the disorder. This is not typical for most
developmental disorders, and it saves taxpayers tens of millions of dollars
per child over the child's life span. These types of gains are never seen in
autistic children who do not receive early intensive behavioral
intervention.

*As if only behavioural intervention works? I don't think so. One interesting study in the UK found that educating the parents about their expectations of, desires regarding and communication with their autistic children had a far better outcome than just that of surface "clinical normality". (NAS Early Bird Scheme) This intervention focusses on parents, as opposed to the children. So far the anecdotal evidence has been encouraging (empirical evidence is only anecdotal evidence collected in a structured manner).

> Autism is a neurological disorder, and it should be treated with
scientifically accepted research based methods, just like any illness or
condition.

*Actually, this is not proven to be so, although the research is intent to seeing it as such. Even if one finds some correlates with behaviour in neurological terms, that does not automatically mean that the behaviour makes the neurological correlate "an abnormality": there is such a thing as a normal distribution assumed in just about all biological attributes.

> All too often, school and government officials try to treat the
disorder as if it is merely an educational issue, which is like trying to
treat a stroke victim as if his or her only needs are educational.

*This I most strongly object to, especially coming from someone trained as a nurse. A stroke and being autistic are two entirely different things. As I have reason to know, since I am autistic and my mother recently had a stroke... or three. Again, I should be able to expect a better informed comparision from a nurse.

> The treatment that is most effective according to accepted scientific
standards is applied behavioral analysis.

*According to SOME accepted scientific standards: Lovaas' original study was flawed. The results have not been so well confirmed as one would require for them to be fully scientific.

> It is the only treatment
recommended by the state of New York and the National Institutes of Health.

*So?

> It is the treatment that Wisconsin has funded for more than nine years,
because the state knows that it works and saves taxpayers money in the long
run.

*That would depend on how it is done... the personal qualities of the therapist.

> <snip> It has been cut because the growth was too great and was
"red-flagged" by the state Department of Health and Family Services to be
eliminated because of the cost. This despite the fact that 47% of the
children able to get this therapy for 40 hours a week for several years
become indistinguishable from their peers.

*Applying Lovaas' 47% statistic as a guaranteed outcome? How silly! It is not fact: it was a result seemingly supported by evidence until the methodology for obtaining the evidence was found faulty.

> Those children who do not reach
the best outcome group improve significantly and as a result can be
maintained in their home instead of being institutionalized.

*Improvements in functioning have been found to occur in many cases quite sponteaneously (I did): Rutter's studies and those by some others súggest that the ABA lot are capitalising on a fear the parents have about their children's welbeing. In my training as a psychologist, that is unethical.

> My daughter Emily is not a "best outcome" child, but at age 8 she
learned to talk with this therapy.

*She may have got there on her own with other methods of helping, or even - although later - on her own; I did.

> She now can read, identify hundreds of
words and follow multiple directions. She interacts well with other children
and is mainstreamed for a good portion of her day at school.

*I was mainstreamed all my school life.

> All because of
this therapy.

*Not necessarily. Weintraub, you have lost your science.

> Prior to the therapy, her IQ was 35, she was self-injurious and had
tantrums all day long.

*The tantrums and self-injurious behaviour MAY well have been comminication attempts that were not being treated as such. Had they been, they may have been susceptible to decline by giving her other means of communicating (even non-verbal ones). The IQ thing: an IQ score means nothing. If Emily had reasonable scores in the non-verbal tasks of the test conducted on her, their may have been lower scores on the verbal tasks which - inevitably - bring the score down somewhat. It would have been more useful to Weintraub to know about the VIQ and how it related to the PIQ (if the test was a Wechsler). Moreover, there is (and has been for some time) a method of testing known autistic children such that potential IQ is obtained... this of course comes from the Vygotskian paradigm, and behaviouristically oriented psychologists will not use it. The neuropsychologist at the local paediatric neurological clinic in the central hospital here in Finland (a country KNOWN to be far behind in developments relating to autism) uses this Vygotskian paradigm when assessing special needs kids. Such kids were not included in the norming samples for the tests so, without appropriate modification, the tests are inappropriate for such kids, as per the instructions given in the manuals. This would certainly account for a low IQ which could be "improved" by ABA... by focussing on verbal skills and giving and reinforcing answers to the types of things asked on the VIQ parts of the Wechslers.

> She did not understand a word people said.

*How does Weintraub know this? That would be merely an assumption.

> She is
continuing to make huge gains with ABA, but the state has arbitrarily
decided to cut her treatment to six hours a week, which is clinically
useless, based on a supposed lack of funds.

*Not according to Edward Ritvo (an outspoken critic of Lovaas'), another California psychologist who has a better opinion of where ABA techniques would fit into an assistance package.

> <snip> Attempts by
parents to discuss this with the Department of Health and Family Services
and the governor are met with either no response or a form letter thanking
us for our concern.

*This is nasty behaviour by the people involved at DHFS.

> I know of one family who will be placing a child in an institution,
which will cost the taxpayers 10 times the amount of this therapy due to his
deterioration since the therapy was abruptly cut short.

*They don't actually have to do that. Again, see the NAS site (http://www.nas.org.uk/) about the Early Bird Scheme. But that statement by Weintraub smacks more of people capitalising on fear than on good common sense approaches. Personally, I think that Weintraub has been "had".

> We have money for 4-year-old kindergarten and money to give to
teachers for added insurance benefits and seniors for prescription drug
coverage. I am not saying these programs are bad or wrong, but it always
seems that the disabled are the ones who get the shaft.

*Major fact of life, that is.

> The tragedy of all of this is that this ridiculous new program crafted
by the state will not save the taxpayers a penny and may wind up costing a
lot more.

*Not necessarily. ABA is NOT the only way to help autistic people to make progress, and it is certainly not the best.

> Autism is on the rise, it is an expensive disorder and it is highly
treatable.

Weintraub, cut the scare-tactics you learned.

> Let's deal with it instead of hiding our heads in the sand,
because our kids are not going away. I hope the governor reconsiders his
decision to allow the Department of Health and Family Services to destroy
this program that was working so well.

*Have they offered anything other than this programme, one wonders.

> <snip> I hope you will begin to understand the frustration and heartbreak that
parents experience when told that there is a treatment for their child's
condition but that their children are just not important enough to pay for
this treatment. May it never happen to you.

*Oh My God!!!!!! This tragedy model again. No wonder the ABA lot get away with this crap.

[ Kit Weintraub, mother of Emily, 9, and Nicholas, 7, lives in Monroe.
She is secretary of Families for Effective Autism Treatment.]

Sorry so long: I'm on a roll after being ill all day.

Hi Ralph,

Maybe.

But it seems odd that either one organisation or the other (and it may well have been both!) doesn't have a problem with a slanderous article against Michelle Dawson.

ASAT, incidentally, has some very skewed ideas about the other sorts of interventions used to help autistic people develop (e.g., Floortime, or TEACCH)...

"There have been no peer-reviewed, published studies of Greenspan's DIR/Floor Time's effectiveness for children with autism. Researchers should consider investigation using research protocols. Professionals considering Greenspan's Floor Time should portray the method as without peer-reviewed scientific evaluation, and should disclose this status to key decision makers influencing the child's intervention." *Apart from Greenspan's own published review of more than 200 autistic children, which - despite being a conclusive "proof" - certainly represents a larger outcome study group that anything that the ABA lot have been able to muster, and which may actually have more evidence of efficacy in it (and may be much more scientific) than anything the ABA lot can get together.

My beef with them is that they (certainly ASAT, and possibly the FEAT organisations) seem to exist to promote Lovaas-style ABA as the "one True Way" in autistm "treatment", despite the fact that at least TWO lengthy literature reviews of which I am aware (one being my supervisor's PhD, which was the basis for her book "Educational Provisions for Children with Autism and Asperger syndrome: meeting their needs") come back with clear verdicts that no one method of working with autistic children is better or worse than the other, and that even the ABA lot need to watch their methodologies (since the early Lovaas studies, for example, were very flawed).

I feel still feel that there is something sinister about ASAT publishing a slanderous/libelous attack on Michelle Dawson (and something petty when they suggest that a text article in reply to that would be slanderous: slander is verbal, libel is printed or text-based). Maybe McIntire knows this and is aware that he could not call it libel. SO he uses the word "slander" to - essentially - try to make his e-mail more like a threat.

Whatever, I am uncomfortable with their conduct (ASAT and the FEAT organisations): any organisation claiming to be scientific can publish something it touts as "a response from the front line" but is in fact a personal attack on someone doing far more research than the writer of the "response" is. It also looks very awkward since, if the Kit Weintraub who wrote that nasty attack on Michelle is the nurse Kit Weintraub that I see mentioned in another article, then I can't say I can accept the validity of nurse training at the school she went to, and nor can I accept the idea that ASAT is committed to a scientific approach to helping autistic people (as opposed to, say, enforcing a superficial normality that - if the kid could adopt without the ABA - s/he would do without the ABA).

David:

Re remarks by McIntire:

David, I submit that you have mistaken this organization for someone else. FEAT does not have a Kit Weintraub on it's board.

Maybe ASAT (see first paragraph of article) is responsible for:

In the future, please take greater care to refrain from slandering an organization in this manner.

>Hi David,

*Hi Michelle,

>What was done to your mother is called "overcorrection".

*I figured there'd be a name for it; this sort of thing has names, and - true to form - it's made to sound as nonabusive as possible.

>I think overcorrection comes in more than one flavour.

*Again, why am I not surprised?

>If I remember properly, this one is called "restitutional".

*Eh? That makes no sense at all! Doesn't sound like a restitutional thing to me, but I know that the "scientists" tend to use inappropriate terminology for these ideas....

>I don't know much about overcorrection though, except there was a terrible case in Quebec about a year ago which came to light. A man was left in his excrement for six days to try to teach him hygiene. Some people were suspended and one or two were fired.

*That is absolutely unacceptable practice. I'm acting as consultant in a case with a child just now: because of his reactions to being bullied (he's autistic... Aspie), he is being held in social segregation - to teach him how to behave more appropriately. His therapist, his parents, the Finnish Aspie Message Board contributors and I (and my supervisor) think that this is abuse. As a means of teaeching, it has no value whatsoever. Even a behaviourist psychologist (i.e., Skinner and anyone adhering to his ideas) should know that.

>If you force an autistic always to go through an adult (instructor/parent) to get the information she needs, she is going to take the important stuff underground, because to learn properly, she can't have the distraction of the noisy, demanding non-autistic. She may get up in the middle of the night to explore materials or experiment, for example.

*I can see how that might happen. Our daughter has a great freedom in our house to explore things - as long as it's not dangerous. We supervise by looking in on her, and she gets to do things most five year olds don't: like make pancakes, or make daddy a cup of tea (which she does really well, if only ever rarely...). But she gets to do things, in a sort of guided discovery way... very Vygotskian framework, and she does better than an ABA kid does. She can built up so-called ToM this way.

Edited by author 04-12-2004 12:23 AM
Hi David,

What was done to your mother is called "overcorrection". I think overcorrection comes in more than one flavour. If I remember properly, this one is called "restitutional". I don't know much about overcorrection though, except there was a terrible case in Quebec about a year ago which came to light. A man was left in his excrement for six days to try to teach him hygiene. Some people were suspended and one or two were fired.

If you force an autistic always to go through an adult (instructor/parent) to get the information she needs, she is going to take the important stuff underground, because to learn properly, she can't have the distraction of the noisy, demanding non-autistic. She may get up in the middle of the night to explore materials or experiment, for example.

Hi Michelle,

I detest when behaviorism is used inconsiderately. It drags down a science I much appreciate.

I have no love for certain establishing operations. Including some used by Lovaas.

As for Skinner. He would deprive rats of water or food for 24 hours increments to produce higher response levels on experimenting days. This is still the norm. Is this unethical? Perhaps not, considering that rats like most animals are only supposed to be fed once per day according to veterinarians. The rats are not in continuous deprivation. After they finish with the experiment that day, they have access to water and food. Experimenting is not done, to my knowledge on a day to day basis. Usually, once or twice a week.

I maintain what I said about EO’s being important in seemingly natural learning. Let me put a different spin on your thirst example. Let’s say a young boy is at the movies with his mother. He ordered sour gummy candy. He gets thirsty. He tugs at his mother’s shirt and points at her soda. She says “say, I want soda”. The boy does indeed say “I want soda”. Then she gives it to him. This is an ethical example of the thirst EO used in a natural learning situation.

You say that you have no love for differential reinforcement and functional analyses.

I am a little perplexed why you don’t like DR. As soon as we assign a behavior or set of behaviors to be reinforced we are already into DR. So DR is bread and butter in all of behavior analysis (and other paradigms as well). If you thank someone, if you buy a loaf of bread, if you type a message, you have already given or received DR. Most modern behaviorists gear towards positive interactions, so do I. Come to think of it, most people I know do. Why the dislike of DR beyond the implicit/explicit debate?

Good functional analysis will also consider the additional causation called “other”, where we are unable to determine the reinforcers of certain behaviors. Incidentally, not only can I not know what someone is really after, or what they are thinking, but I can not even know if a functional analysis is able to reveal the operant that maintains the behavior (or if there even is one) 100 % of the time. This is by no means a perfected technique. But rather than discard it, I would work on improving it. I have seen them be used in a useful way and also in a not so useful way. But I’ve seen that that they can be useful for autistic children, in terms of designing a feasible plan. I think the point is that functional analyses provide a better (and scientific) indication of why a person may act a certain way than inferences (even probable ones) furthermore they are measurable and are therefore more useful in comparisons than subjective ratings of behavior, in terms of an analysis tool.

I recall my own functional assessment of a student’s hitting behavior (which I previously mentioned). We made some simple environmental changes, and the “hitting”, went down to zero the next day and stayed there. There is an impressive amount of literature on the utility of this technique in designing behavior plans. In fact, the sub-behavior paradigm of Positive Behavioral Supports is based on this. And the folks who are into this have their own journal just for this topic. I would agree that more work needs to be done and that there are plenty of examples where it is used incorrectly, but I will not reject it on a scientific basis in favor of subjective ratings, at this time. Rather I am interested in improving its usefulness and accuracy for autistic children, while keeping its scienti