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.