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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michelle Dawson
naacanada