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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

Thanks Jypsy, I'll show it to everyone.

Hi Michelle,

By the way, is that Judy Singer from ASPAR, the same one who is a mainstay on the ISNT.

You said “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).”

Unfortunately that is accurate.

I was discussing general behaviorist opinion on the promotion thing, not certifiable reality.

You said “How much good critical writing about ABA have you seen in the public?”

Come to think of it, none. Its even more of the same in most professional critiques.

I have never met or heard Dr. Maurice speak, nor do I recall any advice on selling ABA, although I am sure that it exists.

You said “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.”

You are over generalizing more than I can agree with. Behaviorists must be open to somewhat open to criticism if we are to succeed.

You said “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.”

I take note.

You said “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.”

Yes, the irony is not lost on me. Nor is the irony of the irony, so to speak. I don’t know though…..you claim that Twain was too sophisticated for you, but I think you would have done him proud.

You said “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?”

Yes and that is the way it should be. Good for the cognitivists. And unfortunately your most active behaviorist partner/adversary/student/whatever on this site is barely old enough to legally drink, let alone incline you to DTT and ABA.

John,

You may be young but when it comes to recognizing and practicing truth, logic and respect here you seem wise beyond your years. Thanx for your input here, it has been such a wonderful change of pace to observe the intelligent, factual, respectful give and take that has gone on here.
-jypsy

John wrote, "At least one professor made a personal attack upon Maurice. You can read about it in the book she edited “Making a Difference”. "

Maurice writes in said book - and I think this must be the reference you mean - "One California authority, author of one of the ubiquitous "let's describe the symptoms of autism one more time" books, publicly derided my children, who she has never met, and mocked the notion of their recovery."

Evidently this anonymous authority did not do so in print or in a public statement. So it's impossible to tell what precisely this "derision" consisted of.

But if "mocking the notion of their recovery" means expressing scepticism about claims that any autistic child has become 100% Normal - then I for one am certainly guilty of that.

It is not, however, the same as a personal attack on Maurice or her children.

Maurice devotes a good page in the same introduction to attacking Shirley Cohen for the heinous crime of writing about Lovaas-style ABA as one possible treatment among many, and appears to accuse her of having an especially evil plan to covertly attack ABA by "damning it with faint praise".

So I have a suspicion that Maurice's "derision" threshold may be rather low (she can also clearly give as good as she gets, given how insulting she is in that introduction towards anyone she deems to be an enemy or critic).

Incidentally, if one may make an inference from http://www.mnip-net.org/ddlead.nsf/linkview/Recovery (her "autism = cancer" piece) the "California authority" in question is Bryna Siegel. Siegel is - in print, at least - a moderate ABA supporter.

In any case, so far as I know, no authority in the autism field has gone on record in print or on the net and accused Maurice of a "personality disorder", or of, say, having conned someone in the government into thinking her children were autistic so that she could "live off" the autism field.

If you know of a counter-example, I stand to be corrected.

Edited by author 05-03-2004 06:23 PM
John wrote, "Behaviorists must be open to somewhat open to criticism if we are to succeed. "

Indeed. And I wouldn't say that there's anything inherent in behavioural theory per se that requires behaviourists to be hostile to autistic people with opinions.

In fact, given the emphasis on scientific objectivity, you behaviorists should be particularly interested in being open to criticism and scientific discussion.

Which seems to be where you as an individual are coming from (and as jypsy says, it's a refreshing thing to see).

However, there does appears to be a dominant culture within the field of ABA which is very hostile, in a wholly unscientific way, to the idea of autistic people daring to disagree.

If that wasn't so, I doubt very much that Mulick et al would feel comfortable expressing themselves in the way they just have.

As Michelle described, the Feminine Boy Project was subject to widespread criticism on ethical grounds from within the behavioural field, led by Donald Baer.

There seems no scientific reason why the use of ABA to try to make autistic children "indistinguishable from their normal peers" shouldn't be subject to exactly the same sort of criticism by behaviourists, for exactly the same reasons.

But, for whatever reason, it doesn't appear to be happening at the moment.

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

Thanks jypsy. Incidentally, it was your site that first connected me to other folks like David’s homepage, Autistics.org., NAA, and many others. This has had a huge effect on my perspective.

Hi Larry,
 
Most research, even the best Multiple Baseline Design or the tightest Solomon four group design will have some flaws. Even a novice can spot them. Imagine what a Frank Gresham could do. I could no doubt find some flaws in L-Carnosine research if I looked. Also a blind, control-grouped study may be totally inappropriate to your specific independent variable. This design logic makes sense in medicinal research and is depending on how it is actually used, a very strong design.

You wrote “Show me an ABA study with even a control group...”

(Lovaas, 1987; Smith, Groen, & Wynn, 2000; Eikseth, Smith, & Jahr, 2002) to name a few. All being discrete-trial research having control groups and quasi-random or random assignment.

Since the majority of ABA autism research is published in behaviorist journals which typically encourage single subject designs as opposed to group design logic, we see much more research occurring in this sort of format. This method is no less accurate provided it is done with a design logic that shows experimental control. The various virtues of the two design types are discussed elsewhere so I will not go into it here.

This is a very, very short list of single subject ABA research including some PRT and Incidental teaching, since you said “ABA”.

(Grindle, & Remington, 2002; Sigafoos, & Saggers, 1995; Newman, Needelman, & Reinecke, 2002; Woods, 1987; Koegel, & Carter, 2003; Weiss, & Harris, 2001; Kok, Kong, & Tan, 2002)

Also, this is some research where DTT is directly compared to other ABA methods.
 
(Delprato, 2001; Miranda-Linne, & Melin 1992; Charlop-Christy, &Carpenter, 2000)

I restricted this to peer reviewed journals and only used DTT, PRT, and Incidental Teaching. And even then I didn’t even try to put in everything. Just to give you a rough idea on ABA’s research base, a student I know just completed a review of all research articles in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (perhaps ABA’s flagship journal). She found over 900 studies. Many of these include persons with developmental disabilities including autism. And this is only one journal…