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.

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.

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!

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

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!

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

I am *not* a journalist.

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?……

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 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.

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.

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".

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.

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

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 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 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.