Hi Clare,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 4) Sensory Integration Therapy done by a compassionate
    therapist.

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

In response to Lenny Schafer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Michelle Dawson is alot older than your son.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi John,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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