Michelle, your article was thought provoking. I am an undergraduate student of behavior analysis and consider myself a radical behaviorist. I think you raised issues that should be considered and hopefully addressed. I don’t have a PhD or 27 years of clinical experience but I do have a fair amount of discrete-trial and ABA work with children with autism. I think I would like to try to make a reply to some of the concepts you proposed. In that spirit I offer the following. And I apologize for the length.

I think back to some of the very young children I worked on some level with (over forty children), some of whom are now in first and second grade. They are still very much themselves. I would say that their nature has never changed. And how can I change their nature, I am a behaviorist not a geneticist or biologist. But I can affect behavior (including cognition). I do specialize in that portion of behavior that is influenced by the environment (this exists in all behavior). Lovaas showed the efficacy of this, as did 5 replications I can think of off the top of my head. As did many sub-research projects. Incidentally, the best results ever achieved and documented were 63% not 47%. Even if you disagree with the term “recovered” (and I do), this research is useful in that it shows change in behavior patterns. I think of the children I personally know who began by being rated “Severally Impaired”, to being in general 2nd grade. I have volunteered my time in enough non-behavioral autism classrooms to know that this also occurs with students who never spend a day in an ABA program. But I don’t see it as often and when I do, usually not to the same extent. Coincidence? Maybe. Puppetry? If so what maintains the “puppeted behaviors when the students get into a non-behavioral school setting? Has the nature of these children suffered a forced change? Or is behavior a dynamic process that is related to learning as well as physiology. I would say that it is an error of circular logic and a reification to infer that the behavior of any organism is infinitely bound to only genetics and cognition. I understand and appreciate that there is a genetic and physiological portion to Autism. However I am up enough on the research to know that you can not currently tell me what gene(s) or physiological process(es) are solely or conjointly responsible the variation we see in Autism. You and I can both cite examples of several genes and processes being researched, but not completion, nor sometimes even general agreement.

As far as eye contact goes, “if it isn’t needed, then it doesn’t matter”. If we NT’s don’t like that, I say “tough”. But when I’ve taught eye contact in the past I’ve noticed some things. For some of my students it came very quickly, are they less Autistic? One example comes to mind. I taught him eye contact when he was 3 years old. Now at 6, he uses it all the time. Maybe, he found it useful. Also, I couldn’t help but notice that as eye contact improves so do other concurrent skills. I think it possible that the eye contact enabled the children to attend to what their therapist was doing with them. So is eye contact necessary? No. Is some sort of attending? Yes.

On the same token you more or less said that children throw such a fuss in the early discrete-trial period because they are forced to give up their strengths. To be honest, I don’t see that so much. In fact some of our kids don’t cry at all and are happy and very interactive right from the start, yet they still have Autism. When one of our kids is tantruming it is generally because they have not received some toy, or when they leave the play room. This is especially bad for the brand new kids. Their tantruming serves as communication, specifically as a request. A good number of studies show that as communication ability goes up, tantrums and even self injury go down. Another truth is that our kids tantrum because of the new and probably frightening environment. Typically developing pre-school children do this all the time. There are things we can do to ease this and I think that we are getting better at it. As for the self-stim, I think we as behaviorist should consider “if it doesn’t matter, then it doesn’t matter”. This is especially true when the behavior may fulfill a function for the child (anxiety reducement) and also when you consider that NT’s stim all the time. Can you just hear a geometry student’s foot tap-tap-tapping in class? But self stim can also occur so often it does interfere with learning tasks. I have personally seen examples of lower scores one day for a child who is just stiming up a storm when compared to other days. And in general, scores increase as stiming goes down. And once again, empirical research shows that as social interaction goes up self stim goes down. So, if self stim is functional and it goes down when social activity level goes up, I think it likely that the child found a behavior that fulfilled the same function for him or her. And if they still stim at home, who cares? You go flap your hands and I’ll sing in my shower. Different? Yes, but also alike.

In perhaps the heart of your article you called into question the ethics of behaviorists reporting success, based on the Lovaas experiment. This was particularly due to the fact that we no longer use aversives. And also that aversives where the “active ingredient” in that study. This may be true if Lovaas was the only researcher. As I said earlier his study has been replicated several times both in large and small scale. Discrete-trial has not been a static procedure. Its techniques have changed over the years and research shows them to be better. I do not deny the importance of aversives in the Lovaas experiment, but our reinforcement and teaching practices are superior to what they were formerly. So, rather than a single homogenous package discrete-trial has varieties and subtypes. The Lovaas subtype is simply the most well know. Does this mean we can’t quote Lovaas anymore? I think we still can, we may not use aversives but more effective practices have led us to success, Lovaas is historically a part of that. I would also cite the hour’s used and better diagnostic procedures as important in the scores discrepancy. But those are just my personal feelings. Lovaas himself said that we may not always have to use aversives if more effective techniques become available. I would argue they have. So, far from unethical I think that our abandonment of physical aversives was the right choice and also the responsible one. Our own attitudes have changed. I, like most other undergrads grew up without being hit in school. We would not be the future behaviorists we are today if that practice was still in place. But while I may not like the practice, I refuse to insult the parents and therapists who used aversives under the older cultural perceptions. Maybe, I should more simply say “that was then, this is now.” Lovaas took a gamble when he first used aversives. They had been shown effective previously and Lovaas was after the most powerful techniques he could get. He was state of the art for his time. To get his results with his more antiquated techniques he probably required those aversives. As our techniques are better we don’t need them to produce similar results. But time will tell and I frankly don’t envision a singular study proving it or blowing it apart. As of yet, there is no formal study, empirically comparing the Lovaas results to the more contemporary replications. But all of the research provided examples of efficacy.

As far as ABA being unethical in general (A view advocated by some of the other participants in this board), I find that to be a rather amusing position. I like many other behaviorists do practice a form of ABA on myself, performance-management. Most of us have an area of our lives we would like to improve. In my case I have to run for thirty minutes every day or I lose a few dollars. As a college kid the loss of money is highly aversive because I don’t have much of it. Is this aversive control? You better believe it. Yet is my not running infinitely tied to my physiology? Get real, of course its not, but it is related. So what does this mean? Simply this, I am better equipped to deal with my not running because of my management system. In time I hope that I will experience enough of a “runner’s high”, when I do run, so that it will serve as my motivating reinforcer.

Finally, and most definitely, I am certain that you are incorrect when you say all persons with Autism are similar when they are very young. I have worked with a fair number now and there are always more differences than similarities. Furthermore, I am sometimes able to predict how they will do based on what skills they have when they come in. As you elsewhere correctly implied “they are themselves”. I would add that they follow “their own”, developmental pattern, sometimes quite different from other children with Autism. In conclusion my friends (mostly undergrads) and I do not view Autism as a plague, epidemic, medical liability, or even in and of itself, a disability. We do assert that some behaviors may harm others and self. We also assert that some behaviors allow for additional learning and other behaviors do not. Discrete-trial like all ABA is useful in teaching basic skills. Discrete-trial is a beginning, not an end or completion. To end, I would say that you are correct. Persons with Autism should be a part of the review of all aspects of ABA and advocacy. Their input has already proved valuable and necessary. Sorry for writing a book here. And thank you for your analyses, they made me consider carefully. I will be happy to listen and respond to any comments the other participants or you might make.

Edited by author 03-24-2004 10:24 PM
Hello, John

I'm familiar with radical behaviourists/behaviourism and as you see I use Dr Malott as a source. I guess I can't talk about your beliefs, since you can't believe in beliefs. I imagine you have one of Dr Malott's T shirts. Thank you for reading my article.

My article covers scientific, popular, ethical and legal spheres. I have a broader view than you do, in that I've observed and lived the consequences of the way ABA has been promoted as an autism treatment.

You may have noted I acknowledge the presence of the principles of ABA in teaching. I have no problem with some principles of ABA existing in the teaching of autistics in some circumstances, to the extent these techniques are used on non-autistic children.

I'm glad you use ABA to make yourself behave, but you would not be pleased if I used it intensively to turn you into an autistic. The principles of ABA allow for this transformation. Just a matter of effort and time (perhaps a lifetime), then you would be--like me? Would you mind? I am not the only autistic to point this out. The exercise makes it clear that there are value judgments involved, into which, in the absence of ethical scrutiny, intolerance may creep.

You are clearly getting the results you're seeking. The children you teach can only learn from the methods you use, and if your teaching methods require of your students that they look at you and to your standards are attending, then those students who learn in different ways will fail by your standards. You have removed the possibility of them learning in ways of which you don't approve. You've made a nice circle of logic which guarantees your own success. Indeed, you are a radical behaviourist, and a successful one.

If there were a credible replication of Lovaas, it would show up and displace Lovaas. That has not happened. I've been patient and I'm still waiting. Which study do you want to use? And justify the methodology of? Why did Smith et al (2000) get such poor results, in spite of having large numbers of PDD-NOS study subjects? Why couldn't these scientists accurately report their own data? But my article was not about methodology except in that it reveals ethical lapses.

I did not attack all the ethical problems in Lovaas' study. For instance, one of the Control Group One children had Rett syndrome. Lovaas and Smith and many others surely knew about this (surely by the 1993 follow-up, at which point she was deteriorating in an institution); it was not disclosed until Boyd wrote about it. I wonder which other study subjects were recycled (maybe the other two Rett's girls?). Yet in all writing about this subject, the methodology is described as excellent. Perhaps, so long as excellent encompasses incompetent, or perhaps dishonest.

Lovaas himself writes eloquently (Maurice et al eds, 1996)about the fuss autistics make at the start of ABA. He recommends the therapist wear a bathing cap (protection against hair pulling) and padding on their arms (biting, punching, kicking). This is one of many, many accounts. I have no doubt a few autistics go, in comparison, quietly. Again, your observations are from the point of view of what you believe (there's that word, I apologize for mentalizing for you) is good and right and necessary to achieve goals--your goals. You seem to have found a great deal of positive reinforcement for your behaviour, but then so did the clinicians in the Rutgers study.

My observations about inability to determine outcome from very early diagnosis come from the work of a clinic which evaluates more than one hundred autistics year in year out. Again, you seem to be observing what you need to. Lovaas' gaffe (remember his kids were evaluated X number of times by very credentialed experts) in confusing autism with Rett's shows that in early or not-so-early diagnosis not only can the outcome not be predicted, even highly praised diagnosticians can make gross mistakes in diagnosis. There are 750 varieties of neurodevelopmental disorders; some of them look like autism.

I think the responses to the rest of your remarks are within the original article and its notes, sources, and references.

Thanks again for taking the time to read this article and respond to it.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

Hi Michelle,

Thank you for your response to my post. I understand that you are more experienced and knowledgeable in both your personal and professional life. Therefore I am grateful that you gave a response. I also agree that your paper has a “broader view”. I do not disagree with the majority of the issues you discussed or even perhaps the “spirit”, of your paper. I was concerned with specific issues and remain so. And yes after re-reading your original paper and response, I have a slightly different opinion on a few specific issues.

I am willing to concede in this discussion, the failures of the Lovaas study mentioned specifically in your response and clinical diagnostics being a poor predictor of future outcomes (Although this was not exactly what I was speaking of). I will not re-argue discrete-trial’s contemporary efficacy until I have time to pour through the articles.

I found the “Use ABA to give John an Autistic behavior pattern”, to be an interesting exercise. This is also interesting when you try to carry this exercise on to completion. I sat down and considered as many behaviors that would have to go up or down, as I could think of. The problem I encountered was in generalization and maintenance. Namely, what will maintain the behavior when therapy ends? Behaviors do not stay at the high level they were at under therapy conditions unless we enter into a “behavior trap”. The behavior must contact natural reinforcer or aversives once the therapy ends or the behavior will revert to previous levels. What natural consequences will maintain my behavior? When we flip this around we can likewise ask “Are there natural reinforcers that occur and maintain Attending?” I believe I addressed this in my original post. Does this always happen? I doubt it, but I think it has. I appreciate that the behavior trap is theoretical but it likewise gives a good exercise.

Of course all this begs the question “Why don’t the children with Autistic repertoires just learn those behaviors in the first place”. For this, I don’t have a good enough explanation. Maybe with more experience and learning I will gain a greater understanding of this. I would suspect inherent values and establishing operations come into it at some level. And almost certainly there will be aspects that behaviorism is not equipped to answer.

Now we come to a major sticking point. Neurotypicals and persons with Autism. Judging by your comment “but you would not be pleased if I used it intensively to turn you into an autistic”, I feel relatively safe stating that you believe differences in persons with Neurotypicallity and persons with Autism are not limited to behavior. Perhaps some genetic divide that establishes deep inherent differences. A simple extension of this may well be “The behavior is a product of inherent factors.” This is of course the difference of your statement “turn you into an autistic”, and being a person with Autistic behavior. I do not agree with such an explanation, too much is unaccounted for. Although I would also agree that only citing the environment would likewise be a simplistic error. Like you, I am waiting for the data.

I admit there is a danger in my subjective experiences of only seeing what I want to see or as you say “your observations are from the point of view of what you believe” But in the context of an ethical, subjective article that is a rather two edged sword, isn’t it. You mentioned this both in reference to my paragraphs on attending and the behavior of children with Autism in the early weeks. I am aware of Maurice’s writings. Yet you also don’t agree with everything you’ve read. I have been bitten or scratched under ten times in the totality of my work or volunteering. Perhaps seven of these occurred when I put myself between one student about to attack another student (usually over a toy). Notice I don’t say restrain, but get in the way. I say this because no part of my body grabbed or wrapped around any part of theirs and they had freedom to move in any direction but towards the other child. The other times did not include a new child. Of course from a strained standpoint this could also be dealt with as “finding what I need to find.”

Your comment “You are clearly getting the results you're seeking”, was interesting for me. I have had the experience of working in both ABA and non ABA locations for very young children. Attending was of less concern in the non ABA rooms for children with HFA and Aspergers. They focused quite well on specific academic tasks without it. For some of the other children it was a challenge. Repeated efforts had to be made by myself or others to get them to look at certain activities. This made group lessons an interesting experience. We could hope (and did hope) that those children might take in the information by having it in the general environment. Or we sometimes presented the info in the context of the students’ interest (count the dinosaurs instead of numbers on a sheet) but this begins to resemble respondent conditioning now that I look back.

I was not aware that radical behaviorists cannot believe in believing. Are you perhaps referring to Empirical Behaviorists/Behaviorism? Skinner (Radical Behaviorist) provides a framework much along these lines in his book “Science and Human Behavior”. To close I would to say that a little private wish of mine is to meet my students when they are grown up and have them still consider me with the same warm feelings I have for them and that they seem to have for me. I see no reason this won’t be the case. And if I am to be, as you say “a radical behaviorist, and a successful one’, it will have to be shown through this aspect as well.

Thank you for the chance to post and also for the concepts you’ve proposed.

Hello John,

My reference to your beliefs have to do with the rejection by behariourists (I actually was shouted at--the behaviourist "NO!") that behaviour may arise from beliefs and desires. For clarity, this view (re beliefs and desires) is not necessarily one I share.

The person who shouted at me, a very noted behaviourist, described me as a human emitting autistic behaviours.

You share this view of what autism is and I don't.

So your conjecture about how autistic behaviours may be maintained in someone, yourself, who is not autistic, is not relevant to me. If you want to make the exercise more absurd, imagine developing an intensive ABA program to turn a behaviourist (Dr Malott? Dr Lovaas? Dr Green?) into a savant. Do you think this would succeed? Why not? You only need to reinforce the proper behaviours, don't you? Are behaviourists allowed to say "savant"? I'm curious about this. Have savant abilities ever emerged from an autistic who spent his childhood in an ABA program?

While Dr Sallows did not succeed in totally eliminating the special interests of one of his "successes", this boy was trained never to bother his peers with his interests. He was taught, in effect, that his strengths are not valued and must be hidden should they regrettably continue to exist.

I don't anywhere use the word "neurotypicals". That is your construction.

I don't share the view, which has been proposed by radical behaviourists, that if autistic behaviours were not reinforced, they would disappear, or not develop at all.

Were this view defensible, the Rett's girls would have shown the same pattern of outcomes as autistics when their "autistic" (according to the behaviourists) behaviours were treated. Also, one could treat "autistic" behaviours, as I described them emitted by a blind person, behaviourally. Even radical behaviourists would notice this is unethical. Or would they? Did you think the treatment of the Rett's girls was ethical? Or the treatment of the feminine boys?

While I did reference Dr Maurice's work in the article, I referred in my comment to what Dr Lovaas himself wrote in the book edited by Maurice, Luce and Green (1996).

Re attention, if you are genuinely interested in the differences between autistic and non-autistic attention and perception, I can refer you to studies.

We're still waiting for accounts from adults who were treated with ABA as children. It's odd that we have many written, published (as books) accounts by autistics who were not treated with ABA, including accounts written by very young autistics (adolescents and young adults) but we have no such accounts from autistics who've "successfully" been through ABA programs.

I find your wish that your students would as adults greet you with gratitude frankly disturbing. I suggest you read the highly disturbing follow-up interview with one of the boys in Lovaas' FBP. Unlike the autistics in the YAP, this boy, and to a lesser degree the other Lovaas FBP case study (who at age six said, "I'm not queer any more") were allowed to have their own words recorded and reported.

Thanks for your further comments. You didn't say whether you have one of Dr Malott's T-shirts.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

Edited by author 03-27-2004 11:00 PM
Hi Michelle,

Thank you for your response. I again, had to think carefully and critically.

There are different sorts of behaviorists. Even radical behaviorists will not always agree. I would also have difficulty with the statement “behaviour may arise from beliefs and desires.” But I “believe”, I understand the general idea of what you mean. My concern lies in the specific process. Again, see Skinner’s “Science and Human Behavior”

I was sorry to hear that my analysis of the exercise you proposed was not relevant to you. I would have thought as a person more experienced clinically and in life in general than myself (I mean that sincerely) you would have more appreciation of the absurd. So, let’s go out on a limb and do the savant version as well. Why should we analyze this differently than any other behavior? Because, it develops so quickly? Or maybe, because we don’t clearly perceive what reinforcers it? Or because it occurs at such a rare and profound level? I think to infer the cause only to intelligence without further explanation is to cease causal inquiry. Hs it ever happened that a person gained exceptional talent quickly through extensive practice. It would be less impressive for me to teach Dr. Green 512 facts about astronomy then it would if I sat an 8 year old down and did the same thing. Not because either is incapable but because it is less common for 8 year olds to have extensive knowledge. Or maybe Pokemon is a better example. I sat with my jaw open as a teacher went around a room and had her 7 year olds each name a different Pokemon (they got near a 100). But these were not children with autism, they had ADHD. This did seem a little like a splinter-skill. But as they each child had this skill what do you suppose was reinforcing the behavior?

I have heard behaviorists address splinter skills in the past. Usually as a descriptive feature and in one case and rather ironically as “A development pattern”. You are correct, it is not usually touched on. It seems to me (Subjectivity again) that most of the kids if they develop a splinter skill, do so after leaving discrete-trial (two cases I know), although in one case it happened previous to DT and in one case during DT. Incidentally, I was not happy to hear about Dr. Sallows research. I am not surprised either though; I remember sitting through a non ABA training session and hearing the educational specialist describe how sometimes, students if all they do is discuss their interests with their peers end up alienating them. Once again her words, her opinion, not mine.

I have no problem dispensing with the term Neurotypical. I also realize that you don’t follow the reinforcement theory of autism behaviors. I am not sure how I should respond to that, except that we both agree that it is a theory. Perhaps on that issue we might have to agree to disagree.

On attention and perception I would be pleased and happy to read anything you might recommend. I am of course, an undergraduate and only a wannabe behaviorist. And I recognize the irony when I say “I will keep and open mind”.

I also have ethical concerns with the FBP. I am likewise concerned about the Rett’s example you cited. And if I were to only read your take on it then, I would agree with you. I will wait until I have a chance to review other commentary.

(I intend this next comment in a lighthearted, non-mean spirited fashion). Compared to the other behaviorist you have discussed, if my hope that my students will still be able to be friendly with me as adults is what you label as “disturbing”, about me, then I am in great shape.

I don’t believe I said the word “gratitude anywhere”, except in appreciation for our dialog. Perhaps I worded my private hope poorly. Allow me to reword it from a very pessimistic point of view. I hope that my students if and when we should meet as adults will not feel as if they were mistreated, slighted, incorrectly taught, or angry towards me. I see absolutely no reason that would be the case. There were three students I served a primary therapist for, out of the forty-something I have worked with. When I visit them in their new classrooms they still remember my name and come bounding over. They come over and ask to sit with me during music or free-time. Is this cheap social reinforcement? Yep, but I am glad I get it. Without that I would not consider myself as having been as much use to them. And yes, getting a smile and a hug is a subjective experience.

Yes, as you have guessed, I own the non-obscene version of the t-shirt. I am afraid I can’t claim noble reasons for its purchase. This was solely to annoy my non-behavioral professors and my Philosophy major roommate. Since you seem interested, the t-shirt which is comfortable (although not flattering on anyone) can be purchased at a reasonable price at the behavioral conferences which Dr. Malott attends.

Thanks again

Hello again John,

I'm aware that behaviourists don't all agree. This is true within autism, where the Lovaas/ABA gang are not necessarily delighted with the AVB gang using Lovaas' stats to sell their program. This is a small ethics problem I didn't get around to.

So *this* is the behaviourist version of savant abilities. You have taught me something. I had no idea previously how behaviourists coped with the existence of savants. You simply diminish and demean them, which means you misrepresent them. Problem solved.

Re perception and attention, start with Mottron, Burack, Belleville, Plaisted, Foxton (for the global interference study), Belmonte, Ristic, Enns. Various degrees of critical thinking are required.

Could you tell me re the kids you teach, do you do intake and outcome measures? Do you teach proper "affective display" in your program?

I don't consider Skinner to be gospel, by the way. I'm a big fan of freedom and dignity.

What disturbed me, and still does, is your obliviousness to consequences, which is why I suggested you read the words of a young man who emerged from a "successful" ABA-based Lovaas-supervised intensive intervention.

"The issue is not whether we can change behaviour, but at what cost." By cost, this writer doesn't mean $50K/yr. Of course this same writer, Steven Pinker, denies autistics are fully human and lumps us in with robots and chimpanzees. I don't mind the chimpanzees, but this demonstrates that nativists are as prone to intolerance and obliviousness towards autistics as behaviourists.

Given you're wearing his shirt, do you agree with Dr Malott that autistics (oh, sorry, autistic behaviours) are horrifying, etc, as he has recently written? Doesn't sound like a comfortable shirt to me.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

Hi,

Good old AVB. That’s true sadly. I am actually helping out on a review of empirical AVB literature right now that we hope will get published. We have 34 peer reviewed empirical studies in the totality of the field (With all populations). This is still a developing field. Although I can’t resist mentioning that some behaviorists who deviated from Skinner’s analysis of verbal behavior are finding through research that Skinner got it right in a few regards (I won’t go into detail here).

*That* is only one behaviorist version of savant abilities. I have no doubt other behaviorists would disagree with that. To make a misrepresentation, is a danger all analysis/analysts must make regardless of paradigm. And I am confused with how my analysis may diminish and demean savants. You will have to guide me through that thought process a bit.

No, we do not ourselves do intake or outtake measures. But this is part of a larger program so other folks not directly involved in our sub program do diagnostics. We do keep cumulative records of progress for all procedures. My own position at the moment is to record and keep overall data across students. We have to hear indirectly through the parents or the diagnosticians what changes are seen on the standardized measures.

To my understanding no, we do not teach proper affective display. The possible exception to this is attending. However I suspect that “proper affective display”, does get taught through happenstance to some limited degree. For a real life example: I was sitting with a 4 year old who had a very limited verbal repertoire at the time. He was tossing some blocks in the air and catching them. One accidentally smashed me on my nose. “Oww..” I said. He looked up at me with an embarrassed expression on his face. “Sorry”, he said. I nearly fell over; this was very appropriate by nearly everyone’s standards and also his first independent word to my knowledge. I recovered myself and said “That’s okay, and I like how you said sorry.” I saw him bump a little girl by accident a few weeks later. He again said “sorry.” I made sure I mentioned to him what a great job he was doing.

No, I do not agree that autistic behaviors are horrifying. I have seen (Beware, subjectivity ahead) that most of my friends who work in our practicum do not taker this view also. I have personally trained over a dozen technicians. They are sometimes very shy when they start. When I ask them why, it is not the different behaviors we see that bugs them so much as the fact that our kids are very young. They walk on egg shells with them. Technicians who were only children or never babysat have an especially interesting time the first couple of days. Incidentally, if you really want to see some “naughty”, behaviors. Don’t give someone a brand new kid. Give an energetic, older, high functioning kid to a brand new tech who is especially quiet and young. And some techs are quite young (18-19). I was 17 when I started helping out. My answer then and now if you were to ask “do I find autistic behaviors horrifying” is no. If I were to propose that idea to a tech tomorrow when I am at the center (that autistic behaviors are horrifying) I would get dirty looks for sure.

Thanks for the articles. I will start to look over them.

John,

I have read your learned discussion with Michelle with interest. [Takes me back to my graduate study of B. Mod. in Chicago in the late seventies!] While I acknowledge your understanding of the current technology of behaviour practice, I have yet to read any statement by you attempting to explain/define a functional hypothesis detailing "being autistic" in relation to "being NT". As I have said elsewhere on this site, I have no difficulty facilitating the adaptive behaviour of autistics in the world of people because I teach NTs to communicate in terms that autistics understand and explain the presenting behaviour as adaptive from the autistics' perspective. I insist that NTs leave out the "baggage" of their emotions and multi-layered meanings which, of course, BF Skinner labelled mental constructs. Precise behaviour communication is very easy for us to "read". [Our pedantic language and focus on fine detail should be considered just one indicator of how we would prefer you engage with us.] We only become disordered in relation to that which we are not "wired" to read/understand, save at a cognitive level. Far from autistics being disordered, we are very ordered. It is the unpredictable behaviour of NTs that is disordered to us and much, if not most of our apparently responding is symptomatic of our logical confusion in relation/reference to perceived disordered NT behaviour.

In concentrating on your elegant and complex method you fail to address our essential difference as autistic people. You end up focusing on the parts of our presentation as the problem [for you] leading to an effective return to the old medical/sickness model in which symptoms become the perceived reality of the so-called patient.

I define the behavioural process as a subtle process that occurs between people, not what one person does to another person, i.e. not as a treatment. You need to consider that my function as an HFA adult in the world of emotional people such as you is a very conscious behavioural process. That is, as I engage with NT people I make very practised, but still conscious, decisions to respond or not respond that meet the critera of good behaviour management. For instance, while I prefer to look at the mouth of an NT person as I speak to him, I will consciously make brief direct eye contact because I know that NTs need the social reinforcement of the eye gaze of others during communication. [I do not make eye contact with NT people with whom I feel safe. They know and accept me as an autistic and are not offended or perturbed.] I was first taught the basic patterns of social interaction by my parents and teachers, but later, as a young teacher made a conscious effort to study NT communication patterns and analysed them. Over several years I consciously copied the patterns of social communication and control of good teachers I observed and then practised postural and gestural responses in front of a mirror. I also recorded my own speech giving instructions in private and then reviewed it via replay. Later I recorded myself while teaching and at home reviewed my spoken communication in relation to the responses of my students to that instruction. All this is a behavioural process and goes back to my early teenage years, when, being violently bullied at school, I would withdraw to my pigeon loft to be alone. Sitting in the loft I observed and manipulated the birds using food reinforcers. [Remember pattern recognition is a strength in us - especially when one's performance IQ is above the 99th Percentile!] Within a couple of years I had worked out all the rules of classical and operant conditioning [though I would not learn the formal theoretical models until I entered university.]

Everything I do in relation to NTs is according to a set of learned rules, but I do not try to cure or modify the normal patterns of social intercourse of NTs. [You may be an effective NT behavioural technologist, but you cannot and will never be able to match my behavioural skill, because it is the process by and through which I live and work in relation to all other people. For me and other functional HFA/AS people our behavioural ability is at the level of an art - we are beyond simple technological method or practice.]

I do not understand [or cope with] NT emotionalism, but I wish NTs would seek to adapt to me as I have respectfully adapted behaviourally to them.

Hello John,

Are you saying you're an AVB guy? So who's any good, by your standards? Is AVB what you're actually doing? Do you use sign, Partington-style? Why do a bunch of Lovaas/ABA people really dislike this approach (beyond resenting the misappropriation of their studies)?

Only 34 studies? If you read the ABA literature, and the court cases, you'll find figures approaching gazillions of "peer-reviewed empirical studies" proving that ABA is wonderful. I'm kidding about the gazillions, and I can't actually remember the highest number I've seen or where, but it would be circa a thousand. You have some catching up to do.

I'll just assume you're being wilfully myopic re savants. Or are you? Maybe you need to read some legal cases. To make the case for ABA, one of the essentials is to deny there's anything worth anything in the autistic as an autistic (see the article please). As soon as you acknowledge there is worth, then you're into messy ethical problems, or you should be.

Your analysis of savant abilities has lots of defects, including being wrong. And I wonder what motivates people to deny autistic abilities without, obviously, even studying them. Did you know that Dr Green warns against being fooled by the great abilities of autistics? Much, much more important that we dedicate our lives to learning to behave like non-autistics.

How old are the oldest kids you work with? Are they all pre-school? What's a smart, old, energetic HFA doing in there? Have you ever met an autistic adult? How do you think your 4yr old learned to say "sorry"?

Re autistics being horrifying, I'm just telling you the state of the art in your field, and that no one, yourself included, is objecting to it. That is, you claim to disagree with it, but you feel no obligation to denounce views that totally discredit and shame your chosen ideology.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

Thanks Jim,

I agree or have come to agree with much of what you discussed. You gave both a very helpful and a very challenging post. I will have to consider long hard before I attempt a real answer to what you said. I wonder though, in your concern about the medical model whether you haven’t fallen into it yourself. Is behavior always a part of an underlying psychological condition (or perception, or wiring)? Or if an exception occurs, how do we really know?

You said “I have yet to read any statement by you attempting to explain/define a functional hypothesis detailing "being autistic" in relation to "being NT”, I would not be comfortable offering such a hypothesis. This is due to my level of training and that I believe that there are aspects I am ill equipped or trained to address. I am already pushing the envelope in some regards with my discussion with Michelle. This is yet another reason I appreciate my discussion with Michelle. I’ve learned some things I didn’t know.

Thanks for the help Jim,

Edited by author 03-30-2004 05:27 PM
Hi Michelle,

Most of my experience has been discrete-trial (Lovaas). I have been recently interested in AVB. So I also have some limited experience in that. I like Sundberg particularly at the moment. I think his intraverbals and “Reception by Function, Feature, and Class”, programs fill in a lot of the verbal behavior training that was less touched on by Lovaas and others. I think the concern of the “Lovaas”, folks is primarily due to the AVB folks using Lovaas data as you said. I also suspect that the “Lovaas”, folks are less than pleased about the relatively limited amount of formal study in the AVB world. As you observed, we gave some catching up to do. Notice though, that AVB is a subpart, not the totality of ABA. That base is rather vast. Also in comparisons to some general methods in other paradigms, 34 empirical studies is a whopping amount.

You said “I'll just assume you're being wilfully myopic re savants”. Come on Michelle, you used to apologize before offering mentalizations. I thought we were agreed on that. On a serious note though, I did have a chance to read the follow up interview of the FBP. I can not say I liked it for many reasons.

You said “As soon as you acknowledge there is worth, then you're into messy ethical problems, or you should be”. I think we’ve hit a fundamental difference in our analyses. Far from sweeping skills or areas of strength under the rug, I think understanding of strengths is crucial. I know of no method (yes DT included) that dispenses with strengths that way. In fact I would go on to say the best planners and technicians make careful use of strengths in their work. And as we know strengths may change (from what I can tell) the tech has to be able to keep up. Even in a high structure program like DT, a creative tech will find ways of integrating this so that the student likewise has a chance to be creative with their own skills. (And the most creative tech supervisors will have to find a way to motivate the techs too) If this is all so, our effort should be placed on best integrating the above aspects into it. I would say that, is the great challenge of our field.

I will be the first (well, maybe the second) to say that my analysis may be wrong. However I have read no other analysis that I have thought was particularly correct. Most of the commentary on splinter-skills has consisted of description rather than causation.
I would be pleased to hear an alternative explanation.

The majority of my experience has been with persons aged six and under. I that group I have worked with kids with Autism, Aspergers, PDD-NOS, and other related disorders. One student was a person with Hyperlexia. I have no experience with Rett’s Syndrome or Childhood Disintegrative Disorder. In the older child category 7-11, I have worked in a non-behavioral way with students with the same three categories. This included several students who had splinter-skills. In the teen and young adult category 13-21, I have worked in a non-behavioral setting with students with Aspergers. I have worked with or been around adults over 25 with Autism and Aspergers, in non-behavioral settings. I currently mentor a teenager with very high functioning Aspergers.

When we get a referral, generally speaking, it means the referred student has some real deficits. I have never seen one come in potty trained, with language beyond one word requests, simple labeling ability, and “yes”, and “no”. More often, not even that. Initially higher functioning kids go into other programs or leave us after a few months.

Many our high functioning kids do not necessarily start that way. When a kid has really made some progress, we make plans to transition him or her out. I saw an argument a while ago between two of our more recent graduates. One of these only used the word “no”, and “Thomas the Train”, a year ago. He also insisted on calling me daddy until he learned my name. The other had no language when he first came in. One was humming and the other said “Be quite please”, the first student said “No you be quiet”. This went back and forth for a few minutes. The head of the program saw this and said “Time for them to move on John, when our kids start having conversations you know it means they are ready for something harder. I visit them both. They seem happy and have even more language.

I think my student learned to say sorry because of increased attending to his environment in general and also because we had worked very hard on some imitation procedures. It is a bit of a stretch to say this imitation generalized but I don’t have a more plausible explanation. His words in general had been very limited at that point. We began to see a more general difference after that.

You said “That is, you claim to disagree with it, but you feel no obligation to denounce views that totally discredit and shame your chosen ideology.” I suppose that’s a fair criticism. A fair response might be, so far most of my effort had been channeled into teaching rather than advocacy. I also do not agree with many of the opinions expressed on this site on the origin and maintenance of behaviors. If and when I do advocate it will very likely be different from how other participants on this site would do so. That is a cop-out on my part and it bugs me. Maybe I’ll have a better answer in time. If it’s possible, can you send me the full citation of those articles? I did a search and found the primary authors but not the specific articles.

Thanks again,

Edited by author 03-30-2004 10:37 PM
Hello John,

You wrote: "I wonder though, in your concern about the medical model whether you haven’t fallen into it yourself. Is behavior always a part of an underlying psychological condition (or perception, or wiring)?"

The failure to take into consideration the complete presentation of any client is potentially unethical, even dangerous. The old medical model functioned on the basis that being different was tantamount to being sick, ill or diseased. That is why the staffing in residential institutions world-wide was derived from the nursing profession. From 1982 to 1986 I was a senior staff member in a 750 bed institution in Melbourne [Victoria, Australia] and involved in the introduction of a developmental and enabling model. There was a deliberate and absolute change in paradigm from medical to behavioural, but so extreme was the paradigm shift [revolution] that necessary and proper medical considerations about real medical conditions were rejected as a return to the old ways. [Literally the baby was thrown out with the bathwater!] This led to frequent incredibly bad and improper treatment of the resident clients.

For instance: a behaviourist tried to train a person with severe intellectual disability and quadraplaegic cerebral palsy-spasticity to use a spoon to self feed. [Food was the reinforcer.] As the individual displayed an extant Asymmetrical Tonic Neck Reflex [ATNR or "Archer's" Reflex] due to permanent damage to the upper motor neurons, it was impossible for her, with all the reinforcement and shaping in the world, to overcome the fact that every time she turned her head to look at the spoon in her hand an extensor response was elicited according to the S - R model. She could not volitionally overcome this response any more than could you if you had the same neuro-motor condition, but intact intellect. The result was that her hand [with the spoon] moved away from her mouth/face. In spite of advice fromr the physical therapist and a senior physician the behavioural intervention was implemented and failed, but I consider the treatment, as trialled, an aversive and unethical treatment.

I witnessed many other examples of behaviourists ignoring the basic presenting condition of the client in the belief that they could change virtually all behaviour. This included clients with presenting cardiac defects or structual deformities, e.g. skeletal, being put on behaviour programs to exercise more or learn certain skills that actually required a sound skeletal structure and ligamentous integrity. In some cases the clients could learn the skills, but the practise of certain skills was actually endangering to the client, e.g. teaching people with Downs Syndrome and malformed cervical vertebrae gymnastic events which placed stress on their very weak necks with potentially lethal results. One young ID man with quaraplaegia, barely able to manage bi-pedal locomotion, was labelled as disobedient/non-compliant because he would not go far on the walks in the grounds with staff. I strapped a radio pulse meter to his chest and took him for a walk. His pulse after about 400 yards on gently rolling terrain was 192 beats per minute. The reason he dropped was that he was in oxygen debt and suffering discomfort - the actions of so-called care staff in trying to bully him into walking further were aversive. The "behavioural" solution was for me to change the behaviour of the staff and insist they took him on several short walks each day. Such practice with, or treatment of members of the "normal" population would have earned professional opprobrium, even charges of negligence and legal action, if instigated by occupational or physical therapists or myself as an adaptive physical educator.

Taking into account the presenting medical, physical and psychological state of one's client before embarking blithely on a behavioural intervention is a necessary part of meeting one's duty-of-care. It does not mean one is hearking back to the "helpless", "hopeless" sickness model that pertained for most of last century and resulted in people being institutionalised from childhood.

I was asked recently to develop a program to train a 38 YO moderately intellectually impaired autistic man who is totally echolalic to tolerate the presence of balloons. On investigation it was found that he does tolerate balloons - as long as they are mounted up on the wall of the program room. He does not tolerate them when other people are handling them. He runs in a panic straight out of the room at the sight of a person holding a balloon. He is highly auditorily defensive and has learned to associate the sight of a person holding a balloon with the sound of a balloon being popped. I refused to develop a behavioural program to train him to cope with the sight/sound of balloons, because such a program would have exposed him over a prolonged period to an aversive stimulus: the explosive sound of the balloon bursting. As his hyper-sensitivity is neurologically determined [and I have not found a non-aversive therapeutic intervention to reduce such auditory hyper-sensitivity], I refused to develop a behavioural intervention. It would be unethical. The program staff need to adapt to this man's presenting condition.

One starts with the presenting reality of the individual and then developes an eclectic behavioural "treatment" model or intervention that is respectful and enabling. [The model must consider abilities and disabilities.] Clearly the shape or topography of behaviour can be changed significantly through use of the technology of behavioural treatments, but if you only have the method, but no explanatory model, then you are being unprofessional and can do great harm to clients. With regard to being autistic, there are underlying traits common to all autistics the expression of which can be shaped to become adaptive or, in the absence of appropriate intervention or, worse, the use of aversive treatments as were frequently used in the old institutions, to become totally maladaptive and very dangerous.

Do understand this: I was exposed from early childhood to normative social experiences and settings, e.g. dances and parties. I was made to attend, and trained to behave in a correct manner in such settings in the presence of my parents. However such settings are aversive in the extreme to me and I cannot and will not enter them of my own volition. I quickly disintegrate and have to flee. However I can stand in front of an audience and lecture on autism/behaviour management, I have taught countless hours of demonstration lessons in a university campus school in Virginia, performed music in public recitals, chaired regular meetings of the senior staff committee of the old institution or can teach a high-school class of difficult and hostile teenage boys without any problem. No amount of training/conditioning has had any effect on my inability to attend any gathering of people which has a primary social purpose not directly related to my obsessional interests [work, music and sport] or some necessary daily task, e.g. eating lunch. I can tell you [from an intellectual perspective] that my behaviour is not logical, yet I cannot over-ride the complete breakdown in social settings of my ability to process sensory input so that everything blurs together and I panic. I can attend a work lunch to farewell a fellow professional, but the moment the activity of eating lunch is over and the focus becomes social, I must leave. It is a virtually instantaneous change. This is a matter of fundamental innate autistic difference. [I think Temple Grandin and Wendy Lawson say the same thing.]

My question to you remains: can and do you define the nature and meaning of being autistic [plus any other factors] as the necessary ethical starting point for any behavioural intervention?

Hi Jim

“One starts with the presenting reality of the individual and then developes an eclectic behavioural "treatment" model or intervention that is respectful and enabling. [The model must consider abilities and disabilities.]”

Amen

I am not sure about the nature of being autistic but I would answer “yes”, to your last question. Although I would not use that terminology. When I see a brand new kid the first thing I want to know is the diagnosis? The second thing (and the more important perhaps to me) is what can he/she do? What are the student’s strengths and weaknesses? How do they react if their schedule is altered? We picked up a 4 year old a number of years ago who seemed very high functioning. He had better than average eye contact and said “Hi”, to people. When people asked him to go play with them he said “Okay.” One of the supervisors said “He won’t be here very long at all.” One of the techs said “That little boy isn’t Autistic.” A couple of nearby techs agreed. Another undergrad level supervisor said “He probably just cried during the evaluation so they assumed he was AI and put him with us.” I myself had him pegged for an aspie. Turns out we all wrong. He did have good eye contact but he did have some self-stim as well. His play with action figures that at first appeared so age typical seemed repetitive on second glance. He would make sounds we initially assumed to be action figure noises, but the sounds never changed. He would squint his eyes the whole time and even the motions he made the figures were repetitive. The dead give away for me was when he would spin this wheel on one action figure over and over. He gave a hellacious tantrum on his first day when his tech brought him past a ball pit on the way to another activity and he was told he could not go in the pit. Even his “okay”, that seemed so adaptive was not. He would answer it to almost any question. Even when “okay”, was not a possible answer e.g. “What color do you see.” I learned later he was diagnosed PDD-NOS. That info was helpful in that it told me he was higher functioning initially than many of our other students. It also told me a general list of behaviors I would or would not see. It also told me that he likely had good visual skills.

But his diagnosis did not tell me the precise level of functioning. It did not tell me specifically what strengths I could build on and use. Or what kind of tech he wanted to work with. We assumed female because he seemed small and shy. Truth was, he would actually run to a male tech and work with them if given the choice (Lots of our kids have preferences in this regard). But I wouldn’t know that just by diagnosis. These are things I had to learn by watching and measuring behavior. They were unique to him. Only then could I make suggestions to his tech. Most of his problems occurred when he had difficulty requesting something. My suggestion to his tech was to teach him mands (requests) every free chance they got and to let him sit with males if he wanted to during music and less structured activity. His tantrums decreased in the next few weeks.

Another case in point. I got asked to help with a kid who was smacking his tutor. Some other students made a functional assessment of the behavior. But even after they implemented a behavior plan the kid smacked his tutor. The previous folks concluded he got aggressive during the unstructured time between one procedure and another. I noticed that seemed to be true. But when I asked the tech to do various things between trials to see what was going on I saw a spike when the tech moved or rearranged the stimuli pattern. Jim, you may have been able to see that coming or recognize it right away, but we did not………………. Lessons learned along the way.

My suggestion to the tech was simple. Give him a toy between trials and make sure he is engaged with it before you move the stimuli. The next day the behavior went down to zero and base-lined a zero for the next two weeks. A short term antecedent procedure eased the problem while the tutor and tech worked on long term goals including non-aggression. This may have been implied by traits we see in persons with autism but was not in and of itself a guarantee of causation. Only manipulation of variables could show that.

So why I answered “yes”, to your question, I am wary of the term “nature”. I also believe as shown above that diagnoses and the inferences we make based on general patterns of a group are a important starting point (and something we should reference back to) but not an end or completion in developing treatment.

Thanks again Jim,

Edited by author 03-31-2004 01:17 AM
Hi John,

With regard to eye contact: are you aware that there is a learned form of eye contact that is essentially a-social and controlling, even defensive? Donna Williams calls that "retaliatory" eye contact I think. I disagree with the use of "retaliatory", because it has the connotation of pay-back or revenge. Frankly I know of no autistics who are vengeful or malicious per se. We do not care to hurt others with malicious intent simply because we cannot care. Being malicious with intent is purely an NT trait. I do demand full restitution if I am attacked, but nothing more. That is not to say that I have not been hurt very often by my out-of-control autistic clients who have been incidentally taught inappropriate or socially unsafe escape/avoidance behaviour. Your use of the term "aggressive" in describing the lad "smacking" the instructor is unfortunate and puts the causation and a moral-social meaning in the ASD child, but I suspect and hope you understand that.

Your observation that many autistic people work well with males is easily explained. To understand this you must understand that the need for direct eye contact is an NT trait, though I have very low functioning autistic children who have learned to watch and track the eye pointing of careless NT instructors so as to give the correct answer to a problem - but this is not social eye contact.

In western societies males tend to be more direct in their verbal and physical engagement with others: there is less ambiguity in the instructional style of men than many women. Women tend to ask or negotiate from a forward leaning or "supplicant" posture. Males tend to stand upright and direct. [I saw this a lot when I was supervising student teachers: the males would give orders to children, the females took a long time to learn to be directive; they would use the question form or turn an order into a qwuestion by adding "...OK?" and even ordinary children would be confused or simply take advantage of the ambiguity. I see this all the time in the special classes I visit.] It is not a primary gender discrimination per se by the autistic clients I see - in fact many are unable to define their own gender let alone truly know or comprehend the notion of an opposite gender. It is a consequence of the different communication presentation typical of each gender, hence in all my programs I require all staff to adopt a gender neutral presentation from an upright posture, common across all staff so the autistic person can begin to see a common pattern of responding [operating] by the NTs. Only then can they begin to learn the operational/communication rules of those NT staff. Otherwise they actually have to "learn" each different person. When all staff use a standard pattern we often find the autistic clients naming all the staff after the strongest [meaning most consistent and clearest] communicator. We also find that some autistic clients actually do not know the name "labels" of their parents and cannot act on the verbal cue of a name without a supporting visual cue indicating "Come here!" [Remember we are primarily visiles, not audiles.]

With regard to communication the focus by NTs on eye contact distracts from how autistics view NT and other people. [I think somewhere you note that it does not matter how they attend, but that they do attend.] Even so it is necessary to know how autistic people "read" others. You may be aware that Simon Baron-Cohen has a screening test in which an emotional label hs to be fitted with one of four facial expressions. I scored 28 on that test which is in the normal range. How I arrived at my responses is this: I would look at the emotional label, e.g. frustrated. In the majority of cases I could not identify the facial expression that was correct out of the four faces given. I would close my eyes and imagine the total, i.e. whole body presentation, of a person "being frustrated". In my mind I would scan from feet to face and then open my eyes to find a match with the face I had imaged with the display in Baron-Cohen's test. My ability to judge facial expressions is through learned association with the supporting posture of the person's body.

When I train staff to work with my autistic clients I first train them to control their body language and ensure it is congruent with the gestural-verbal cue given [or at worst] not conflicting with that cue. Always I insist that formal instruction is given from a still-standing posture - I have video of autistic people becoming very upset due to staff moving their feet during instruction simply because the introduction of peripheral movement changes the meaning of the instruction from the autistic person's perspective. [Remember we are pedantic in speech and behaviour because we need exact structure and you NTs are part of the structure, hence the form of your communication IS very inportant.] In encountering any person I observe them from feet to mouth in that order. In safe day-to-day interaction at work I generally watch the mouths of NT people as the movement of the lips gives physical "form" to verbal communication. [Many years ago a speech therapist, after watching me during a work meeting, told me that I lip read. Without the visual cues underlying verbal communication I miss a large amount of auditory information.]

John, my E-mail address is: Jim.Crawford@dhs.vic.gov.au - send me an E-mail and I will send you a paper that may help you understand being autistic.

Edited by author 04-01-2004 03:15 PM
Hello, John

I've become a bit too busy properly to answer to your most recent communication, which does merit lots of concentration. And thanks to Jim for helping me with my workload, so to speak (yes, I'm smiling when I write that).

I'm pleased to point you in certain directions, John, and I'm happy and impressed you're willing to expand your repertoire. Re specific cites, though, can you spell "Medline"? From there, it's a matter of recognizing which studies are relevant. I can't believe I'm writing these instructions for a university student (I've never been one myself--and but recently taught myself to use computers). Do you need shaping, modelling, a prompt? Seriously, I realize autistics have a totally unfair advantage in our ability to locate and assess information. I just figured that your training would have helped you overcome this non-autistic deficit.

I'm not sure how to be more specific. Most of the studies by most of the researchers listed are important; in the case where there was one specific autism-relevant study (Foxton), I gave you a clue. Actually, I should have done that with Enns and Ristic, but you can just use proper search terms. There's lots of overlap in what these researchers write about, though Belmonte, Enns, and Ristic are pretty much in attention. Some work equally in perception and attention (Burack) and some have concentrated on perception (Mottron, Plaisted), while still working in other areas.

Also, had you carefully looked, you would have found in Mottron's and Belleville's work some excellent empirical examinations of perception in autistic savants (work which is ongoing). What's fascinating is that these studies led to excellent empirical examinations of perception in non-savant autistics. This should make any behaviourist pause (time out) for thought.

I propose "causal" factors in savant and splinter abilities in the ABA article. This also should make you pause, since there is a lot of evidence for what I write. It can, so far (there is no contradiction), be proposed that all autistics have the potential to become savants. Non-autistics do not have this potential. But for abilities to develop, there are requirements. One is to have available the right kind and quantities of materials. The other is overtraining on a peak of ablity. Peaks of ability are evident in testing even to behaviourists who are reasonably good diagnosticians. Dr Mulick noticed peaks in his kids, and noticed the peaks are different in Asperger's. Not bad for a behaviourist, but of course this information is considered by him to be irrelevant.

So let's put this together with your claim that you recognize and exploit autistic strengths in your program. I've been disturbed from the outset at your descriptions of your "clients". They're acting just like autistics do in environments that are, by our standards, impoverished. Also, there's your description of what constitutes strengths. In order to have strengths, your clients have to show behaviours that you consider to be strengths. Their own strengths are reported by you as weaknesses, or as wrong. I have many of the supposed defects you report in your clients. They are in fact strengths, when you are autistic. They represent the way a person whose perception is measurably different (and there's not much more basic than perception) learns.

So now you can tell me why the way autistics play is wrong. I can't easily judge the behaviour of your clients because I identify them immediately as not having what they need in order to learn how autistics most easily learn. You are then entitled to teach them your way and take credit for this, but you're discarding the strengths directly under your nose, because they don't look like strengths to you.

If, without the necessary materials being available, and without overtraining in peak areas of ability, autistic savant abilities do not develop--one can propose that the development of abilities in non-savant autistics are dependent on these factors.

I've never quite understood why it's so hard for non-autistics to locate autistic strengths, but if you read Dr Maurice's book, one problem is that there is a kind of horror of us. You can see this in her horrified response to her daughter having discovered, and enjoying, right angles.

Since our strengths represent a kind of autonomy unavailable to non-autistics (yes, there's science), maybe this willful blindness (sorry, did it again) is envy?

This may not be too useful. I'll try to be more useful later. And while I think of it, another reason the ABA people resent the AVB people is, possibly, AVB's army of travelling salesmen.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada