Jim, John,

In case it's not obvious, I'm not a behaviourist. I don't look at situations behaviourally. I care about cognition, which is not always, or in autism even often, apparent in behaviour.

So I disagree with both of you in many respects. On the other hand, I've always said that ABA, should it be done at all, should be done by an autistic. I've read Jim's stuff and retain my admiration for his work, but disagree with him significantly. By Jim's observational methods, I would be doomed, for instance. And I can't do eye contact. I don't see and hear at the same time. This is true of many autistics.

I'm aware of how differences in perception which are acceptable (I have non-standard vision and spent some time being legally blind) alter behaviour in acceptable ways. I never put myself in danger explaining that I couldn't see, but often put myself in danger when I identify myself as autistic. Then you have to think of how well deaf or blind people (just differences in perception, after all) would do were they prevented from identifying themselves as such. In fact, we bestow on blind people instantaneous identification in the form of white canes and dogs, since it is not courteous (and sometimed unsafe)not to accommodate the blind person's differences. That is, the blind person's behaviour is not entirely guided or treatable by the principles of behaviourism.

Studying cognition means understanding that the behaviour might not be related to the environment, but to perception, attention, memory, etc, as they function on and in the environment. And a lot of cognition is invisible. Were that not true, there would be no covert attention, for instance.

I disagree very strongly, therefore, with the motives and abilities Jim gives to some of his clients, while not minding too much, in some cases, how he solves the problems. I wouldn't use the same approach though, or even close. I'd be asking, of the "client", what does he know, what does he see, what's he really interested in, what's he communicating? This is not so hard for me, since I share the kind of neurology that by appearances produces "low-functioning", unacceptable, dangerous behaviours. I'm aware this neurology is not faulty or broken, and I'm aware that altering the apparent behaviour, however "successfully", without respecting the adaptive differences in autistic cognition, is destructive to that cognition. That cognition includes intelligence.

Just to say, John, that development should not be seen rigidly. You don't know what we're responding to when, eg, we respond to a toy. You can't see what we're really after,ie, what information does this give me? And you're limiting yourself to toys and developmental levels. Autistic kids need to be exposed to reliable, complicated materials. There should always be a piano somewhere, maps, calendars, textbooks. And there always need to be very simple information, letters, numbers, blocks. Autistics with good results (yes, no one's studied this, I'm unscientifically working from anecdote) work with materials from vastly different levels of development simultaneously. I'm old and I still do this, though I have to keep it quiet.

John would see this disrespect for order of progress as wrong, I think. I'm not sure about Jim. Might help to remember that autistics develop, often enough, language at ages over 10, and always have. We don't develop in the proper order, and given our differences in cognition, probably we shouldn't. And we won't develop at all, or will develop poorly, in the absence of materials which attract and challenge and teach us.

This leaves as the only "choice" the 40hr(or whatever)/wk attempt to change our behaviour without respecting what we know and how we know it.

Well, end of lecture. I have to go back to work.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

Hi Jim,

"However I hold to my point that the tendency of males [in all levels of educational services] to be directive in instructional style [as distinct from "supplicant"] is an ongoing issue in coaching people how to teach and run programs."

I do see that also and the more I think of it the more it makes sense.

Hi John,

You said: "I suspect this is because he enjoys so much rough-and-tumble play, and the male tutors (typically, but not always) do more of this."

That is a good point and I certainly find that. The male staff member becomes paired/associated with the unconditioned primary sensory reinforcement gained through therapeutic rough and tumble physical contact. However I hold to my point that the tendency of males [in all levels of educational services] to be directive in instructional style [as distinct from "supplicant"] is an ongoing issue in coaching people how to teach and run programs.

Edited by author 04-04-2004 08:57 PM
Hello Margaret,

I do not know if Michelle has clinical experience assessing and developing management/developmental programs for children such as your lad, but I have been doing so successfully for a very long time. Amongst other cases, I am currently three years into supervising [in conjunction with a speech therapist] the behaviour of a non-verbal 14 YO boy who presents all the features you describe - plus he has put his head through 27 window panes! By teaching him a concrete daily activity routine using extremely structured and directive communication that is referenced to the specific activities he is taught to perform, he has been, in turn, able to see a pattern in the behaviour of his teachers and family and then learn the rules of communicating to them in return with very basic gestures and actions.

He was initially very dangerous in his learned and panic driven behaviour, but after about 18 months or so we were through the worst of the problem behaviour and he has not bitten, kicked or hit anyone for well over a year now. The scars on his mother's arms from his scratching and biting are healed and the scars on his arms from his self-biting are also gone. He has now graduated to a communication board using symbols in a manner similar to PECS, but our own variation. In our programs we focus entirely on the process of behaviour, not teaching product.

If you want to hear about this boy in his mother's own words, you can do so over the internet; she was interviewed for a national radio program in Australia and the program was played last week on 29 March. The internet site is: ABC Radio National - Life Matters Home Page, then "More Stories and Audio", Monday 29 March, "Tom's Story".

I have developed and managed scores of successful intervention programs for autistics, old and young, low functioning and high functioning and the core issue is to provide stable and predictable structure. The hardest part is to get all NTs involved to present to the confused autistic child/adult in a standard manner that allows the autistic to see a common style and pattern of communication behaviour and that includes the total body language presentation of the NTs. In the absence of sytematic responding from all NTs in the life of an autistic person, he is forced to learn the individual patterns and characterisitics of each NT he meets, but that takes great "brain power" and is hard for even those of us who are highly intelligent. For a lad with very low intellectual capacity, such analysis and assessment is almost impossible, so he becomes confused and anxious and his behaviour reflects directly the confusion he perceives in the differing patterns of behaviour of each of the NTs around him. The NTs perceive themselves to be stable and organised, but forget that they do not ever present behaviour without an emotional layer, plus the subtle variations of body language that they do not see because, as Wendy Lawson explains, NTs view the world in a general way as though in the light of a flashlight set on broad beam. They "summarise" what the see. We autistics see the world as in the beam of a narrow spotlight or even a microscope in incredible fine detail. Until NTs accept the fact that their very complex, multi-layered behaviour is confusing, they will never be able to help their autistic children function in a manner that is safe.

Margaret,

The first step is to stop making implicit ad hominem attacks against people who make a contribution to society by fighting for human rights.

One possible second step could be to read what hundreds of adult autistics have written about the debilitating and agonizing effects of sensory overload, and about learning how to cope with it.

But then, if you regard what we have to say as irrelevant, then...no, I don't think anyone's experience can possibly be of any use to you.

Ms Collins:

Yes, I have "some experience" in this area. You're just describing autism (your take) to an autistic. Now tell me if and how I can be helpful. Thank you.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

Dear Michelle,
Thankyou for your reply. May I ask, do you have some experience of caring for a strong, active, non-verbal autistic person with severe learning difficulties and very little awareness of danger, who head bangs, bites himself, runs out in the road in front of traffic and tries to climb out of upstairs windows?

Hi Michelle,

Sorry for the delayed response, I wanted to give you a little time to sort through all the recent posts.

I have the Mottron article done but I am still considering it.

You said “I honestly don't know if subitizing is considered a savant ability. Maybe you can help me with this one.” I have never heard of a formal criteria for savant skills. I did a basic search and couldn’t find one in the literature. The criteria seems somewhat subjective. The DSM-IV-TR speaks of it as “special skills” and only mentions two versions (Hyperlexia and Calendar Calculation). Though I have to believe that there is some formal diagnostic somewhere (maybe for speech paths) for Hyperlexia which is practically treated as a separate diagnostic category on some web sites I’ve been to.

You said “Did these strengths come from you, or from him”

Depends on your analysis. If we take a developmental model view than he probably would have developed (notice I don’t say learn) those behaviors in any generally educational environment. If we take an implicit learning view than my involvement was more facilitative and the results came from him. If we take a radical behavioral view, then initially the learning stemmed from cause and effect sequences (and my explicit teaching), and perhaps later from facilitative sequences.

You said “Could you tell me if behaviourists these days acknowledge progress through the natural course of autism?”

Well, recent commentary relating to this site may indicate no. But I suspect that it depends on the behaviorist. It also depends on what studies you want to discuss and extrapolate from. AGRE? Or paired studies of various early interventions e.g. (Murdock, UC San Francisco, and some TEACCH studies) Different conclusions can be made based on these data.

(This is John’s analysis) Behavior must change. The contingencies a 4 year old and a 10 year old experience do not seem point by point comparable to me. Repertoires must necessarily change as do the establishing operations and biology that affect them. No matter the level or method, development must occur.

Biology and learning are not static. In terms of a natural or “inclusive environment”, development will still occur. I have in some ways been fortunate in that I have had a (relative to my age) rich experience in the Autism field. I know several persons with Asperger’s and HFA who are quite verbal. This includes a teenager I mentor. So, I am aware of different possible outcomes and development sequences. The real questions seem to me “What level, are our students going to achieve, what is actually necessary (and ethical), and how do we best facilitate that.

Let me provide an example. I am assisting in a play study right now. We are looking for what kind of toys best facilitate children with autism playing with their siblings. Of course this means more mutual play rather “isolated play”. Now my logic is slightly different than the study’s first author on why this study is important. I think that we know that children with autism may do a fair amount of isolated play. Depending on who you talk to this play is “analytic”, or “self-stimulatory”. Let’s call it “analytic”, for the moment. In a circumstance where a child engages in “analytic play”, and has already evidenced other examples of effective interaction patterns and learning with siblings/others, and can effectively receive reinforcement through these (and can also request through some means precisely what they want/need) I don’t see the point of teaching this skill. The child is already on their way to success, albeit through a non typical route.

But when a child has not evidenced those patterns and can not request what they need, I think it is time to consider methods of facilitating that. This is more functional for the individual. And will probably contact natural reinforcers that maintain those behaviors, (I suspect this may also address on some level, your question over my student’s strengths)
This doesn’t necessarily mean we should decrease or replace existing play as much as we should teach simultaneous options. I would disagree with any statement that concluded “we are teaching the student that their method of play is worthless and unimportant”. This is because our efforts are not on decreasing isolated play but on increasing mutual play. They are not exclusive to one another. So, rather we are teaching the value of additional kinds of play. And even typically developing children will instance isolated play (although the sub-style may be different).

Of course a worthwhile response to all this is “how do we know who will develop these skills through non typical paths”. For this I don’t have a good enough answer. My best guiding question is “is the child able to effectively and specifically communicate what she/he wants or needs?” And yes, I know of examples where the child is low functioning then seems to develop more advanced communicative abilities in time, in a more natural environment.

We can both insert AGRE data here. Those data are relatively solid. That’s not what engages my curiosity about the AGRE. My question is “what teaching programs have those children gone through and how does that compare with past studies.” My other concern lies in the operational definition of “spontaneous functional speech”.

Thanks,

Hi Michelle,

And big thanks for everything you are doing! I must say, your response to Weintrab's hissy-fit was extraordinarily polite. Appropriately so, of course, but I know I could not have been so tactful, were I in your shoes. Weintraub's "perspective" was a nauseatingly formulaic Machiavellian diatribe, consisting of little more than straw man arguments and a running ad hominem character assassination. Ironically, by endorsing it, ASAT has only undermined their own credibility.

I had a few minor editorial beefs with "Misbehaviour", but it was still more than enough to make me stand up and cheer! It's a brilliant piece, with built-in longevity in the form of something that Weintraub could never hope to contend with -- namely, accountability!

Kudos,

Dave March
Springfield, MO, USA

For the record, message sent to the Association for Science in Autism Treatment on 2 April 2004:

To those responsible at ASAT:
 
I have been made aware of a response ASAT has posted on its website http://asatonline.org/resources/library/moms_perspective.html , re the article "The Misbehaviour of Behaviourists". In this article, I accurately describe some of ASAT's positions, as well as ASAT's stated dedication to science-based research and treatments in autism.
 
The article includes no personal attacks, except perhaps the reported and sourced attacks against autistics that I use as illustrations.
 
I am very open to criticism. I am not, however, open to personal attacks that falsely represent me and constitute defamation of my character.
 
If ASAT has problems with this article, ASAT should respect its own values and attack the weaknesses and errors in the article on the basis of the science. This is possible and would be welcome. For instance, I didn't know until after I wrote the article that one of the Rett syndrome girls was in Lovaas' Control Group One. This was sloppy research on my part, as was my failing to notice that the Rett syndrome study was not conducted in the early nineties, as evidenced by the previous sentence.
 
If you find my article misleading and harmful, you have the perfect right (even the obligation, if you are taking me seriously) to contest the article on the facts. That is, read the studies, read the court records, read the media reports. I did use personal communications as sources, but as little as possible. Personal communications are used by people on the ASAT Advisory Board in peer reviewed science (eg, James Mulick).
 
If you are claiming that this article is full of animosity, you should justify this. If you are claiming that I am accusing parents of not loving their children, you must justify this. If you are claiming that I am accusing parents of abusing their children then you must justify this serious claim. If you believe that my diagnosis, whatever it is, automatically invalidates my work, you must justify this position.
 
Instead, you have published a personal attack on me and my work that is unrelated entirely to the work in question, and therefore is demonstrably gratuitous and in violation of your own stated principles.
 
My article is not a personal memoir or anecdote. In some articles I've written, and some work I've done, my diagnosis is an important element. In the ABA article, it is not mentioned until later in the article and has little bearing on the contents. You assume I'm dishonest and irresponsible because, among other things, you don't believe my diagnosis. Now you can tell me when exactly it became good science to diagnose a person via the Internet.
 
While it is none of ASAT's business, I have been diagnosed as autistic by some impressive diagnosticians, including one on ASAT's Advisory Board.
 
My work has been accepted in many places, including IMFAR, and must survive the scrutiny of a research group known for its precision. It has been accepted, so far, by the Supreme Court of Canada, which would be unlikely to allow the individual intervention (they are not often granted) of a person hurling strident and malicious accusations.
 
ASAT's decision to attack me personally is a disgrace to ASAT and its values. I expected a serious argument on the facts. You have disappointed me and you have done your own members a great disservice.
 
I fail to understand the motivation for ASAT's decision to attack my character and not my science. Perhaps my article really is dangerous to those who have nothing but invective with which to address a scientific and legal argument based on the ethical consideration of autistics.
 
Now I will find out if ASAT is rigorous and scrupulous enough, and honest enough about your own stated ideals, to add this letter to your own website.
 
Sincerely,
 
Michelle Dawson
Clinique spécialisée de l'autisme, Hôpital Rivière des Prairies, Université de Montréal

Hi John,

I won't be doing you justice, again, but a difference in "fundamental" learning may or may not be necessary. You may consider (uh oh, I'm mentalizing again) that implicit learning is a fundamental difference and, as compared to explicit learning, I guess it is. Implicit learning is how your very cool 4yr old ended up saying "sorry". He had the information available without being aware of this until there was the equivalent of a forced recognition task (which tasks are used rather unimaginatively to discern implicit learning in non-autistics).

Of course I'm totally guessing since no one has officially studied implicit learning and autism. I can cheat in that I can check my own learning, and my own rather spectacular objections to being taught in explicit ways.

I believe Jim easily about his ability to analyze behaviours instantly. This may or may not be savant-level; you can't judge that over the internet. But I'm impressed and this seems credible and consistent with how autistics go about accumulating and processing information.

Back to savants. I have to break all your rules by saying that autistics accomplish things in ways that are different from non-autistics. So sometimes there are peaks of ability in non-autistics. However, they are not the result of the same processes that produce autistic peaks and they have different consequences. In the article, I also touch on the differences between expertise and savant abilities (there is science here). If savant-like abilities happen in non-autistics (if you provide me with evidence, in a journal not a book, I promise I'll take it seriously) then these abilities have been achieved by means different from those exploited by autistics.

The idea that anyone can be a savant was popularized through a physicist called Snyder. It turned out he was wrong.

Being able to know the number of anything without counting is called subitizing. I know an autistic kid who's subitized since he was very young. I honestly don't know if subitizing is considered a savant ability. Maybe you can help me with this one.

I'm glad to hear a bit about strengths. Did these strengths come from you, or from him? Could you tell me if behaviourists these days acknowledge progress through the natural course of autism?

Thanks. Sorry for the rather thin response. Pressed for time. How's your reading?

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

Edited by author 04-02-2004 07:08 PM
For Ms Collins:

I don't know how old your son is.

Non verbal does not mean that he has no means of communicating. All (can't think of an exception right now) non-verbal people communicate. Language isn't the same as speech.

One way to ensure a person can't communicate is to assume he is not communicating. I've never encountered an autistic in my life and my reading who did not communicate, and I can't think off-hand of one who did not communicate accurately. A person could help your son by noticing that he is communicating and establishing the nature of this communication. Also, he could be helped by being observed accurately as to the way he learns, and the materials he learns from.

Of course I can't help your son, Ms Collins, since I'm unlikely to have the privilege of meeting him. But he should not be written off at any level because his communication and learning are not typical. He is not going to be like you. He needs to be observed as an autistic. What does he know? I've never encountered an autistic (even those many people would write off, ie, profoundly retarded children) who did not clearly display interest, learning, and knowledge in decipherable ways, which constitute communication.

You have to place yourself in his position. Imagine you communicate with great effort over and over and very precisely and honestly. But the people around you decide you aren't communicating. So, all your effort and honesty and precision are for nothing. After a while, you would get frustrated. And if you are communicating absolute necessity you will call attention to this by screaming and banging your head. (This is typically the way-too-late point at which a behaviour analyst is recruited and a functional analysis of behaviour is sought.)

I just don't understand people who see no possibility for their child when that child is autistic. Maybe I never will.

And no autistic, child or adult, belongs in an institution. Many of us have occupied them. And most of us started non-verbal, and some of us still are; and many of us did, or still do, bang our heads and otherwise behave in ways that seem to entitle non-autistics to incarcerate us. Self-care is not an issue on a planet where quadriplegics live independently, that is, outside of institutions.

All children need help no matter their diagnosis. Assuming any kind of child is not communicating is not helpful, whatever the intention.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

My son is autistic, non-verbal, without any means of communication. He gets frustrated, head bangs and screams. How would Michelle Dawson propose to help him? Without a lot of help, and perhaps even with it, he faces a future in institutional care. And please don't bother posting to say how do I know? - believe me, I know and love him.

Hi Jim,

Thank you and thank you for the articles. I almost have them done. The theory offered is engaging and sometimes provocative in a positive way.

 I was not aware of the retaliatory eye contact concept. Interesting….

I don’t think we can reduce student’s preference to work with males quite that easily. I have known many students who prefer to work with females. This doesn’t seem to matter if the student themself is male or female. I know one brand new little boy who cries in the presence of any male except his father. But no male has ever worked with him. He works fine with girls. Another little boy also prefers to work with females even though he is more of a rough and tumble kid. Still another little boy only this year has begun to enjoy working with male tutors. I suspect this is because he enjoys so much rough-and-tumble play, and the male tutors (typically, but not always) do more of this.

In your response to Michelle you said “I can "see" what is happening and define the behavioural intervention model within a few minutes” I am willing to admit this as probable. But allow me to switch shoes. Today I was working with a non-autistic, behaviorally disordered student about 10 years old. His intelligence and general development is typical. He repeatedly made insulting remarks to other students and in one case almost escalated into a fight. I had to physically get between him and the other student.

I am willing to admit that some persons, sometimes act “malicious with intent”, more often then not the behavior fulfills some function for them beyond just reinforcement. This is true with this behaviorally disordered but otherwise typical student as it is for other more diverse groups. We can mentalize why he aggressed “low self esteem, envy, etc.) And that may be true. But it does not tell us much about the behavior. Frankly I have no idea what maintains it. All I know what precedes it… another kid being insulting or doing something he doesn’t tolerate. I could guess………. and I might be wrong. Better to take the data, do the functional assessment find out what are the factors involved in the behavior so I can make a plan that fulfills a similar function.

Thanks again,

Hi,

Michelle, I have begun to review your articles. My comment so far……interesting.

Thank you for your help in this regard. Incidentally, I will always listen, review and seriously consider whatever info you care to share with me. Although, as you have no doubt already figured out, I may not agree. And thank you for the extra “prompts”, to help me find the papers. I was using “Psychinfo 1887”, which has been so reliable for me in the past in finding articles.


So, I’ll do the easy stuff first. Michelle, I think we have more or less exhausted the possible reasons “Lovaas”, folks may dislike AVB folks.

You said “Non-autistics do not have this potential” in regard to development of savant skills. Interesting. For this to be so, there must indeed be a fundamental difference in not just what is called perception, intelligence and learning style. There must be a difference in fundamental learning as well. Or we must begin to discount, displace, or modify our knowledge of principles of learning.

Has it ever happened that a person not with autism has demonstrated a savant like skill.
In the interesting, cognitve book “Super Learning”, a man learns to instantaneously count hundreds of circles drawn on a blackboard. Definitely savant like and he was not described as autistic in any way. What does this mean if a non autistic person develops savant like skills? Does this example truly displace the general theory you are backing? Or does it just modify it and your understanding of it. I have not truly proposed a theory of explaining savant skills. I have so far, mostly proposed questions. Of course there is an easy and somewhat slippery way out of all this. Perhaps you have already seen it. You can always state that the “circle counting man”, was really …………. Do that and your explination as stated remains intact.

You said “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.”

I don’t think I’ve made a good effort to present my student’s “strengths”, at all. I have focused mostly on descriptions, learning tasks, or deficits. In fact you were more correct than Jim in this regard. Jim more or less said I was working from a medical model perspective (not so). You were closer to the truth when you said I was deficit driven (Not that I am truly but you could not ascertain that from the examples I gave).

For that reason I have decided to list all the strengths I could think of for one high functioning 5 year old, who did not start that way. I understand and appreciate that your list would likely be different, although I would expect this to be true whenever two people analyze something as subjective as strengths (or deficits for that matter).

This student is visually gifted (he recognizes and duplicates patterns very well), he is very good at counting (same story), he is interested in the world around him (sometimes he is engrossed in reading a picture book, or having it read to him. This also included the things he draws, or the fastidious way he does his work and many, many other examples), he is concerned for others (I had a blood shot eye one day and he asked me if I was okay and gave me a hug) He seems to take some happiness or joy in what goes on around him (he loves certain activities, yes even social ones). Those are only a few of his strengths.

Thanks again

Edited by author 04-01-2004 08:18 PM
Hi Michelle,

You wrote: "Since our strengths represent a kind of autonomy unavailable to non-autistics ..., maybe this willful blindness ... is envy?"

This is my experience working within the bureacracy of a state government disability service and also working with case management professionals from non-government service agencies. Many professionals are frightened and confronted by the directness of my behaviour and my ability to make instantaneous and independent judgements about behavioural issues in programs with my clients.

I am also amused by the need of NTs, especially psychologists, to collect extreme amounts of statistical data about behaviour, because I can "see" what is happening and define the behavioural intervention model within a few minutes. [I do not know whether this meets the criteria for a savant ability and really do not care. I suspect this ability is a bit like Temple Grandin picturing the behaviour of cattle in relation to cattle yards she designs - on my farm I build all sort of structures from my mind without any plan on paper just as I develop behaviour programs for my clients instantly.]

This ability to function at a high level and independently seems to be incredibly confronting, in part because NTs need to work within a colleagial model and be affirmed or reassured by each other before they act. [Again Jane Meyerding's notion of "Hollow core people" comes to mind.] One of my long-term NT supervisors, a woman of considerable intellect and independent style, has told me that for many years she ran a daily active defence of me, though I was totally unaware of it, because so-called fellow professionals continually complained that I did not do my clinical work the "right" way. Never mind that I was always successful with the very complex clients with whom the NT professionals had tried and failed. Another senior manager told me she was happy with the work I did, though she did not understand what "magic" I used. She seemed not to want to know how I operated.

It seems to get down to this: NTs abhor difference amongst people. They crave conformity over ability. I doubt it is envy - I do not think NTs really want to have any kind of superior ability, let alone savant ability, they would be too scared of being different.