Hi- I think they reject it because it doesn't follow Lovaas or DTT principles- just the Koegals Pivotal Response Training- still has ethical challenges of course

Hi Mike, that's funny, because Sallows & Graupner (2005), the supposed Lovaas replication study, lists the work of the Koegels as a reference for what their ABA program included.

Edited by author 02-14-2006 05:28 AM
Hi Michelle,

The ASC has this link -http://www.autismsocietycanada.ca/pdf_word...y,%202006%20pg4.pdf - to an article by Andrew Kavchak in Access Now, January 2006 on the first anniversary of the Auton decision by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Kavchak refers to a study by Dr. Sallows of Wisconsin, which was published in the American Journal of Mental Retardation (November 2005) "that when children with autism get IBI/ABA treatment 48% of them develop so much they lose their diagnosis. The rest of the kids make great progress in their development."

He describes the Auton decision by the SCC as "horrible", and "a tremendous blow to our community which exposed the false promises of the equality provisions of the charter."

But it is contrary to the meaning and intention of those provisions that equality for autistics means the right to receive treatment to become non autistic.

Hi Philip,

"Access Now" is run by Charles Matthews, who is quoted and mentioned in "An Autistic Victory".

Either Mr Kavchak hasn't read Sallows & Graupner (2005), or he is deliberately misrepresenting it. But I agree with Mr Kavchak that the Auton SCC decision was a "tremendous blow" to his community--the community of people who believe that autism is a cancer-equivalent disease.

Edited by author 04-04-2006 10:31 AM
Information on the FEATBC chatboard about a case which started yesterday (3 April 2006) in the Supreme Court of British Columbia between an Abbotsford family and the School District of Abbotsford, and the BC Ministry of Education. See http://www.featbc.org/cgi-local/forum/discus.cgi - General Topics Discussion under Sunday April 2, 2006.

It is "about schools blocking children in ABA treatment programs equal access to education by barring their properly trained ABA therapists and Behavioural Consultants from the schools."

Yes, that's a case where ABA parents are asking for "medically necessary" ABA in schools. This is different from Wynberg, where ABA is asked for as education.

In the BC case (I have a news story somewhere, and have quoted it re dragging autistics back from the abyss of institutionalization, or words to that effect), the ABA parents are saying that autistics must have constant medical treatment (that would be ABA) in typical classrooms. A failure of schools to allow constant medical treatment of autistic children while those children are in class is considered a violation of the child's rights and is held responsible for making a child go out of control, become violent, etc.

The FEAT board posting is the first I've seen that they are demanding to have their consultants in schools, not just therapists. I assume also in this case that the ABA parents are paying for treatment privately. ABA is not in the healthcare system in BC. Or maybe I'm overlooking something...

So far as I can tell, with current popular ABA programs, it looks really dangerous for any autistic child who has undergone ABA to not constantly be surrounded by his/her ABA program (medical or not), with no upper age limit that I know of (according to Wynberg, any ABA service age limit would violate the Charter).

Wynberg included a demand that non-medical ABA (because this was the decision made by the Wynberg ABA parents--to pursue ABA as education) be provided--to children in the health care system. [boggles briefly] Actually, this means that if an autistic child becomes sick (in this case, meaning genuinely sick with something like cancer) or injured and requires hospitalization or any other interaction with the health care system, then this system has to keep that autistic child surrounded by his/her ABA program (otherwise the child will immediately get out of control, etc). The parents did not win this and I think (no time to check) cross-appealed this part of the decision.

It's hard to understand what exactly the ABA parents want, except for normal children.

Hi all,

I really do hope that I am not offending folks but I wanted to relate a quick story about my son. My son is 4 years old ( and quickly approaching five). He has been diagnosed as having an Autism Disorder. He also has Down Syndrome. We have recently begun a home based ABA program. It is wonderful and he loves it. He is happy again and so I am happy. At the age of two he spoke and signed and had a vocab of about 40 words. At about the age of 2.5 he basically stopped communicating and really escalated his stim behavior. He was not happy. He was stressed and cried a lot and seemed to be having serious anxiety panics. He really seemed MISERABLE. We tried the usual and made great efforts to change how we "did life" as parents and as a family but this seemed to have little effect even though we really tried to not "cram" him into our "box" of expectations (lots of critical self reflection involved in this process to say the least). We "ramped" up our efforts to communicate with him under the assumption that if he could tell us what was going on we could do something about it for and with him. Naddda. Didn't work out so well. He seemed even more miserable. So... we turned to ABA. Aside from being driven into the poor house due to the need to pay for this approach out of pocket ABA has been wonderful. Our son is happy. He is learning. He is communicating (spoken word, sign and PEC).... and I say again HE seems happy. He has discovered his brother again. He has discovered friends (NO not his therapists). He has discovered that he can interacte with us. He is having fun again. Don't get me wrong he still loves to spin and wiggle... but so do I and stopping the "stims" was never the goal for us. Anyway my point is that without this approach it seems to me that he would still be terribly upset, stressed, miserable, isolated and anxious. ABA has provided a means to improve his "happiness" factor. I think part of this is due to the fact that he has rediscovered that he can communicate with "aliens" (us parents). The fact that he seems happier makes me happy as I love him. I wish I could do more. Michelle asks (below) what FEAT/ABA parents want... I think that most of them want their children to be happy... and as my son began to be absorbed in his "stims" he was not happy. So... to conclude my "hat is off" to our "team" and to ABA as an intervention approach. It has allowed my son to rediscover happiness. We are not after "normalizing" our son (as the "trouble with normal is it only gets worse"). We just want to do what we can to allow him to be happy.

All the best.

Dave.

Edited by author 05-23-2006 03:03 AM
Hi Dave123,

Thanks for dropping by.

There's a lot of science accumulating, showing that training parents to respond to autistic children is really "effective" in helping those kids. All children do badly when no one responds to them (in this case, not responding maybe because they are pretty sure that autistic people can't/don't communicate or learn, unless we communicate and learn the "right" non-autistic way). They get miserable. They might get anxious and they might panic. They might after a while stop even trying to communicate or interact (due to constant failure). Their actions might seem more restricted because they aren't getting what they need--in order to learn, develop, etc.

There's good science showing that very young autistic children (ages 2-5) who are labelled "non-verbal" (less than 10 signs or "utterances") try persistently to communicate with their parents. And they are ignored. The autistic kids notice this, and then use different and adjusted strategies to "repair" the failed communication. And often they are still ignored--their parents don't notice they are communicating (Keen, 2005).

Here's an autistic describing this kind of problem http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/?p=105 (I like the last paragraph a lot).

If you were persistently ignored or reacted to in ways that had nothing to do with what you need and how you communicate, maybe because everyone around you decided you just didn't communicate and learn (because they ways you communicate and learn are considered "wrong" or non-existent), you would be miserable and anxious too. Your life would become more and more limited.

Kids who have parents who assume the kid is incapable of learning or communicating (again, in this case, maybe because they have been told that autistic kids can't do these things at all, or because they believe there is only one way to communicate or learn) are going to have problems, no matter what their diagnosis is.

One way to change this is to put the child in an ABA program. This way the child must change (ABA is powerful) in order to meet the needs of his/her parents. This can make a child happy (he is going to be awash in positive extrinsic reinforcement, which is a nice big change from long-faced unhappy parents), but it also involves removing the kinds of communication and learning an autistic child already had, and replacing this with the "right" versions.

The child learns that the way he learns, communicates, etc, are wrong, and make the people around him unhappy. Both what an autistic child would communicate, and how he would communicate this, are replaced. What an autistic child needs is assumed to be wrong, and these wrong autistic needs are replaced by the "right" non-autistic needs. Then everyone is happy...

Nobody has thought about the consequences of this, but the extinguishing of autistic traits and abilities (including autistic learning) is on the record in the science of ABA-for-autism.

And while the science has been indifferent to this, a large body of legal testimony (Wynberg, Bettencourt), backed by ABA experts, reports that autistic kids who have been in ABA for years, and whose programs diminish in any way, rapidly not only lose their "gains", but get distressed, out of control, etc. The legal case I referred to below is about this problem with ABA and autism.

The President of BC's autism society has stated recently that if his own son's ABA program diminished, this boy (who has been in ABA for a very long time) would lose everything he had "learned", and just naturally have to be in slapped into an institution, immediately. Poor kid.

I don't see how the actions of FEAT, etc, help autistic kids to be happy. The message is, so long as we are autistic, we are miserable and doomed and don't belong in society. The message is, so long as we are autistic, we can't communicate, learn, develop, progress, interact, participate, etc, and are just these gigantic and appalling burdens on society. The message is that ABA/IBI is the only way for autistics to learn anything at all or to develop or progress in any way. The message is that if a child doesn't "recover" (pass for normal, "lose" their diagnosis), s/he must stay in ABA/IBI forever (so far as I can tell), otherwise the child will "disintegrate" and simply have to be placed in an institution.

I don't think I've ever read a promotional account of any kind of autism treatment (from ABA to chelation to Son-Rise to RDI to miracle diets to HBOT to whatever they're selling this year) which did not claim that the autistic child was totally miserable (unable to communicate/learn/etc...) before, and was very happy after.

What I've always wondered about the ABA parents (FEAT/ASC/etc), apart from what they want (and I've been told by one of the ABA lawyers that the parents, in this case many of them, simply said--"we want our kids cured", as in, they want normal kids) is why they have so little interest in autism--in what autism is, in what autistic differences are, in autistic abilities, in why autistics are different from non-autistics, in how autistics develop, perceive, learn, etc. The assumption is that autistic cognition and neurology--how we learn, what we can do, etc--are sort of garbage to be thrown out (and who looks at the garbage?). The assumption in ABA (this is in the science, and everywhere else) is that there's nothing to lose--that autistic traits and abilities are "nothing".

I'll leave you with an article that outlines the opposite approach to autism. See http://www.ls.wisc.edu/L&STODAYv9no2/L&STODAYv9n2p4.pdf And thanks for dropping by and telling us about your really cool kid. And here's an article about another really cool kid, who is a young man now http://www.isn.net/~jypsy/AuSpin/senate05.htm

Hi Michelle,


You make many good points in your post. Thank you. Some of your observations are the very issues we have struggled with and continue to struggle with today.

Without a doubt Aron tried to communicate before ABA and we tried to be sensitive to his efforts. It (our efforts to learn the "autistic way"), in and of itself, was not working. "Ignoring" his efforts did not happen. We just did not "grok" (understand) what he was trying to tell us. Keen '05 was one of my first stops along the way for background and that part of the "shelf" is about 12" deep now. Our "team" is pretty cool and in this spirit I am pretty sure our therapists have a set of hidden programs that they are using on us (mom and dad) in order to get us to be more "autisitic" and sensitive and, although we have an ABA program up and running, we also "allow" him to be who he is.

ABA is "teaching" (a structured educational program). All children are taught to communicate within the context of a strucutred and formal language. Regardless both the informal and formal (ABA) language programs support the development of language. Some folks need direct instruction (ABA in the context of our conversation) and others just suck it up through observation and hanging out with parents. Teaching Aron to "talk" is important. Without developing the ability to speak and relate in a non-autisitic manner he will be dependent on those who can speak "autisitically" and these folks are in limited supply. ABA seems to be enhancing Aron's ability to communicate with duffers like me. He is awesome and trys so hard. He is so happy when I do finally get what he is saying.

To lend some background to our "conversation" I wanted to let you know that I have worked with kids for years (since '89) in a wide range of roles. One of these "roles" involved working with children in schools who were deemed "behavioral". They did not fit into the school or community. Their brains may have worked differently or not but that is not the point. We (our system) could have changed to allow them to be "non-behavioral" but we have not changed (the system or our thinking ... I use the term "our" as a very wide general term... there are a few who have changed... a bit). As a result I was hired on to work with these kids. Part of my "job" was to "trim off" the pointy parts of personality that would not fit in the "good student box". I quit. I could not do this. To do so would have been wrong. "Stuffing" our son into the "normal" box was and never will be the goal.

The assumption was not that he could not learn or communicate. The effort has never been to extinguish autistic traits and abilities. Our goal has always been to do whatever we can to allow our son to be happy. However, teaching our son to "speak" in an non-autistic way may be akin (in a very loose metaphor) to teaching me to speak C++ or French (both of which I am not very good at). I am an "english thinker". Learning to speak "French" is very difficult for me as they "do language" all backwards with wonderfully odd "rules". It is difficult for me to speak and listen in an "autistic" modality and I am sure it is difficult for Aron to learn to speak my "language". If it is ever going to work for him, though, I think he will need to be able to speak "non-autisitically". One day I hope he will be able to post on a forum like this and will be able to tell moms and dads what life is like for kids like him.

You made the following observation: "I don't think I've ever read a promotional account of any kind of autism treatment (from ABA to chelation to Son-Rise to RDI to miracle diets to HBOT to whatever they're selling this year) which did not claim that the autistic child was totally miserable (unable to communicate/learn/etc...)". I wanted to be clear that I am not selling or promoting ABA. In my orignal post I was simply relating our experiences. I do not own shares in "ABA Inc.". I suspect that ABA is just one stop along the road... next year we may not be using an ABA approach as Aron's needs may dictate a different style of teaching is needed to support his development.

I cannot speak for FEAT membership as a whole. I suspect that most of the moms and dads of FEAT do simply want their kids to be happy. Maybe the assumption that is being made is that in order for the kids to be happy they need to be able to fit into society and to do so will require skills that allow this to happen. Another assumption may be that without formal teaching this will not happen. Being "normal" or "loss of diagnosis" may be one way of thinking about this... I suspect that even though some kids lose their diagnosis the brain still functions in a non typical manner. This is akin (maybe) to folks like my wife who are proficient at speaking French but still think like "anglo" speakers. She can pull it off in Paris or Montreal but she still Anglo as that is how her brain is wired after 40 years. The point is that she can communicate and that when she orders eggs and bacon for breakfast she gets what she wants (but I seem to get something else when I try.... ).

Internal vs. External motivation... the endless deabte continues. Aron works for both I would say just like me and everyone else I have every met.

Your observation about FEATers not wanting to know more about Autism is interesting. It is what drives me daily to read, talk and post... I want to understand. "How autisitics develop" and learn and grow and thrive is an obsession I seem to have fallen into. The intent is not to change Aron but to give him functional skills so he can interact with others in society so as to have his needs met.

Anyway.... heh... do you live in BC? If so maybe we can meet in person for coffee? You can continue to work on my assumptions face to face. ;)


All the best.



Dave.

Hi again,

Just caught another point you made in your post below... you wrote:

"One way to change this is to put the child in an ABA program. This way the child must change (ABA is powerful) in order to meet the needs of his/her parents. This can make a child happy (he is going to be awash in positive extrinsic reinforcement, which is a nice big change from long-faced unhappy parents), but it also involves removing the kinds of communication and learning an autistic child already had, and replacing this with the "right" versions."

A couple of thoughts... ABA is not about meeting my needs as a parent. Changing Aron's "core" personhood is not the point or goal. Encouraging and enhancing his ability to communicate his needs, wants and desires in a manner that is understandable to others is the goal. Even if I was super sensitive to his exisiting "autisitic" communication style what occurs outside of our relationship in the community is potentially problematic? He can comm with me but others really wont get it. Every child is taught how to express his or her needs/wants/desires in a manner that is understandable to others. The process of enculturation is what occurs for all children (you and I). My first born used to cry when he was hungry. Then we taught him, inadvertantly, to SCREAM for food (such fun). Then he learned to use a few signs. Then he learned to use spoken word. Now he just goes to the firdge and helps himself (he is 9 and eats ALL DAY LONG). My point, such as it is, is that some kids need more structure (ABA?) to aquire these skills. Replacing "autistic communication" with the "right" style of communication is also not the goal... supporting the development of functional communication is the goal IMO.

I guess I am trying to say that ABA is not "evil" in and of itself (maybe some of the applications some people deploy are). The goal is not alterning the core personality of my son in my opinion nor alterning "brain" patterns. The goal is to support Aron's efforts to have his needs met. Just as not every Parisian speaks English not every person Aron encounters will speak "autisitic". He will need to be able to do this for himself until the universal translator is fixed/built. It is simply not realisitc for me to expect all French speakers to speak English and it is not realisitic to expect all folks at large to be able to speak "autistically". PECs, ASL, or spoken word... he will need some way of telling the world and me to fluff off and there is no point in doing so if the folks at the other end don't get the "language" being used.

TTFN


Dave.

Edited by author 05-24-2006 03:08 AM
Hi Dave123,

There are a lot of behaviour analysts and some others (in BC--I'm in Montreal--you'll have Gina Green coming your way shortly) who state that the goal of early behaviour interventions in general is to take advantage of the "plasticity" in the developing brain (see Howard et al, 2005, for maximum arrogance in this area). They want to permanently derail and change the "wrong" way autistic brains develop, function, and are allocated. But I see no indication that they have any inkling (or care to have any inkling) of how or why an autistic brain works as it does. And they arrogantly believe that brains can be behaviourally re-modelled in a perfectly controlled way, without any notion that there might be associated losses or risks or harm.

I've written that the reason ABA/IBI is so difficult and arduous (if it isn't, why is it so expensive that you're broke?) is the problem of getting rid of autistic strengths. And it is our (measurable, replicated, etc) strengths that get in the way of the one way to learn which is permitted in ABA/IBI.

ABA isn't about "learning" in general, and behaviour analysts aren't experts in learning. They are expert in one kind of learning. They deny the existence of other kinds of learning. Autistics are good at a kind of learning that is denied by behaviour analysts (because it is not behavioural).

Reading Lovaas and colleagues (e.g., Epstein et al, 1985; Lovaas et al, 1987) struggle with the problem of these autistic kids who just keep on learning things left and right without either teaching or reinforcement is really something. But Dr Lovaas and other behaviour analysts don't want this other kind of learning; they have to extinguish it so autistics can perform properly in an ABA program.

I haven't written anywhere that ABA/IBI is "evil". I've written that it requires much greater scientific and ethical scrutiny. Outside of my work, ABA/IBI has had no ethical scrutiny whatsoever (both by those who support and who oppose it). And the scientific scrutiny has largely been totally incompetent. I have no idea why parents would look at this and applaud.

You wrote:

"Encouraging and enhancing his ability to communicate his needs, wants and desires in a manner that is understandable to others is the goal."

But for this communication to be "understandable", he can only ask what is acceptable to ask, according to the needs/expectations of other people. Autistics with pretty standard-issue speech are still ignored, because what we communicate is still considered wrong. In order to be "understandable" in the sense you mean, we have to become similar enough to you in our needs that you will not discard what we communicate.

As I've written several times, the needs of autistics (adults and children) will seem outlandish to many non-autistics. Well, the feeling is mutual (I'm amazed at how much non-autistics constantly need).

But, e.g., I've tried to ask for very simple, cost-free things in a workplace, at a Tribunal hearing, etc, in order to be able to function. One of these things is that my questions be responded to in a way related to their content, even if the response is "there is no answer to that question" or "I don't know the answer" or "you are not allowed to ask that question".

But this is totally rejected, because it's considered an outlandish demand, even though it would be very simple to do (I have transcripts which show how ridiculous this gets, with non-autistics simply refusing to consider that I need a response to questions that is related to the content of those questions). The result is massive confusion on my part when my questions are not responded to at all, and a ton of wasted time, and the assumption on the part of all the non-autistics involved that I'm totally unreasonable and probably stupid too. Etc.

What would a behaviour analyst do? I would have to be trained to have the right kind of needs. But then I would flunk as a researcher, because my strength as a (non-credentialed, uneducated) researcher is that I need and use vastly different kinds of information in vastly different ways from the non-autistic geniuses I work for. It would be very arduous to destroy that strength, and replace it with a mediocre (at best) and unsustainable imitation of what the normal people do.

Anyway, I was going to recommend you read the ABA discussion on Kev Leitch's science board http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?id=15&p=3 , but I see you've been there already, so some of the above might be repetitive to you (sorry about that, I'm a bit busy and distracted). I suggest you check out some of the sources referred and linked to there.

Dr Reber's definition of implicit learning is okay (though not his best), by the way, and learning to ride a bike is done via procedural, not implicit learning, so you know at least one of your sources is not reliable. And, as I wrote, my own view (speculative, but based on evidence, some of it from ABA studies) is that implicit learning is different in autistics from what it is in non-autistics. I'm going to answer your questions on Kev's board when I get the time...

You might be interested in this dicussion too http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?id=52

Have to run...

Heh MD,

What a fantastic day we have had out here on the coast. Sorry to hear that you are stuck out east. Is it still winter (LOL) there?

Regarding your comments about the arduous nature of ABA and the financial burden... actually I am "broke" due to the costs of ABA and to the fact that I am a SAHD (Stay at home dad) and my ability to generate income is not what it once was. I quit three years ago once it began to look like A-man would need "extra" dad time. We started to go broke long before ABA and ASD entered the picture. I decided to spend more time with A-man before we had an ASD diagnosis and we thought the deal was just an extra chrom-o-zone. So I now hang with A-Man all day (for the past three years). We do cool things most of the time and some "not doing" time happens to. It is a double whammy being in charge of a payroll with little income to work with. Regardless we are working at about 30 hours per week with weekly consults via webcam. A-man thinks the "big talking head" on the computer screen is funny. We also do monthly "fly ins" for face to face consults. He appears to think that this is even funnier as the big talking head has legs and torso. Equity in the home? What equity? Soon the question will be "what home"? Such is life. It is worth it though as Aron is back. He is still autisitic and allways will be... goofy kid. I think I have to go look in on him him while he is asleep.

I use the term "evil" very loosely... sort of "toungue in cheek" as a metaphor. From my perspective this approach (ABA) has made a significant difference for Aron. He digs it. He learns via this modality AND continues to learn in other ways to. Yep... he learns impicitly and makes leaps from A to C all the time.... and he learns via explicit instruction to.

I know Gina Green's work. She has some interesting points. Larry is bringing her to town if I recall correctly.

The perspctive you present re shared realities (lack of) reminds me of "Stranger in a Straange Land". Not that the novel captures the whole reality that you are alluding to but I liked the story. Aron and I do have enough overlap in our worlds for us to communicate on many levels. He was ALLWAYS trying to communicate (as the earlier article you note suggests). Now, however, we have some more effective communication tools. Since we began our new program PEC seems to work. He asks me for specific things and I ask him for specific things. Rather like a "trade" language. Functional but lacking in refinement. He uses words (once in awhile) and signs (also once in awhile) to enhance our "story telling". He also yells and stomps around This seems to be his signal for me to initiate communication via PEC. Food, music, toys, activity and the dreaded "self care" ... no higher order constructs like "evil" have entered our conversations yet from what I can tell. I am not sure that they ever will. We are not thinking in terms of manding and tacting but may one day down the road... or not.

DS and ASD make for a very odd combo. He is aytipcal to the standards many folks present.

You wrote: "....my own view (speculative, but based on evidence, some of it from ABA studies) is that implicit learning is different in autistics from what it is in non-autistics".
I say hook me up to the articles (evidence you allude to). One of my alumni cards will work to get me into the university's on line catalogue. So many schools and so much more to learn. Is there an "autism" specific definition or operationalization of "implicit" learning that differentiates the differences? Links? references? Or are we just "wondering" about these as possibilities?

You also wrote: "I've written that the reason ABA/IBI is so difficult and arduous... is the problem of getting rid of autistic strengths. And it is our (measurable, replicated, etc) strengths that get in the way of the one way to learn which is permitted in ABA/IBI."
Interesting.... What strengths are you talking about. I think I get what you are implying but could you be more specific?

You wrote: "Reading Lovaas and colleagues (e.g., Epstein et al, 1985; Lovaas et al, 1987) struggle with the problem of these autistic kids who just keep on learning things left and right without either teaching or reinforcement is really something. But Dr Lovaas and other behaviour analysts don't want this other kind of learning; they have to extinguish it so autistics can perform properly in an ABA program."
Really? When A-man pulls a stunt like that (learning on his own without instruction) our SOP is to go with it and support it. Failure to do so is just bad practice.

Question: Does the concept of "incidental" learning allow for some incorporation of implicit learning? It seems like it might.

Oh... heh... my questions, obseervations are open for the other 5 members of this "forum" to respond to.... Michelle can't carry all of the weight responding. Fire away ya'll.


Dave.

Ps. I once worked with children who had mental health issues. I "grew up" reading the "anti-psychiatry" Phoenix Rising material so I was very anti-psychiatry and anti-meds even though I worked in the feild. Then one day one of my "kids" (client) overheard my anti-meds "rant". He told me I was wrong and that meds had made his life OK. I was astonished (I was very green as this was back in '89). Since then I know (I think) that correcctness of an approach or intervention needs to be evaluated from the perpsective of the "client". From what I can tell Aron likes his program. I like his program.

Edited by author 05-24-2006 07:05 AM
Hi Dave 123,

Most of your questions have answers somewhere on Kev's science board, in the thread where you've posted, and where I've now responded.

That should include the references you're looking for, though I suppose I should add Hermelin (2003) re implicit learning. You can find some of them here too http://www.sentex.net/~nexus23/naa_vic.html (I link to this on Kev's board also). Some of my articles (the ones on No Autistics Allowed) have references and whatnot attached. That's so people can look things up.

A limited (and very out of date) list of autistic strengths is here http://www.sentex.net/~nexus23/naa_sen.html I can't remember if I linked to it on Kev's board. There are references at the end.

I don't know of any ABA lobby group (FEAT, Autism Society Canada, the provincial autism societies) which claims ABA-for-autism is easy and cheap. I have never seen an ABA legal case in which the parents argued that ABA-for-autism is a piece of cake and is inexpensive to boot.

I wrote about Gina Green in The Misbehaviour of Behaviourists. By the way, the TMoB board is where most people hang out here, if you're interested.

Re communication, I would refer you back to Kev's board, where there's a lot of discussion of this, and links to resources (including a published case study) that you might (or might not?) find informative. I'm sure there's something about PECS (which is a sort of behaviour intervention) there somewhere. There's a link in the direction of a really cool presentation, brimming with references (including from the ABA literature), about what reciprocity really means and how this has become distorted in autism.

I don't think anyone knows very much about secondary autism ("autistic" behaviours secondary to another condition); we still have to isolate autism from other conditions in order to figure it out. We're mostly not smart enough to study conditions together (I can't participate in most autism studies because I have another condition). That's for cognitive type stuff. In the behaviour literature, behaviour is behaviour, doesn't matter who the behaver is... though other conditions are sometimes among the exclusion criteria for ABA group designs.

Incidental learning is ABA/IBI. It is unrelated to implicit learning.

Re autistic learning being extinguished, you can look up the references I've provided below and on Kev's board. One of the links I provided has Gina Green weighing in on the problem of autistic abilities.

Why do we know autistics learn differently? Apart from the problems Dr Lovaas and his descendents have had with those autistic kids learning the "wrong" way... and apart from evidence like Iarocci et al (2006), showing that autistics figure out task demands that are not made explicit, while non-autistics don't... because autistics are disproportionately prone to having savant abilities (1 in 10 for autistics; 1 in 2000 for non-autistics; Treffert, 2000). And because we've shown via various visual and auditory paradigms (and with memory, also) that the same kinds of differences which characterize the cognition of autistic savants also characterizes non-savant autistics.

If everyone learned the same way (the same relationship between implicit and explicit learning), either the world would be full of non-autistic savants, or the world would lack autistic savants altogether. Either way, it would be a very different kind of world.

By the way, autistic strengths are often described as "maladaptive", "inappropriate" and "inadequate" in the ABA/IBI literature, as are autistic learning behaviours (which can be pretty distinctive).

Also by the way, the DAN etc parents and their ilk are also certain that chelation (etc) has made a big difference for their autistic kids. Or miracle diets, or vancomycin or secretin (still some hangers on) or whatever (Lupron, for heaven's sake... poor kids...).

The sun is supposed to come out today. I don't believe it myself.

Hello to Dave from grey, wet, Prince Edward Island.

I don't have anything to add, my head is somewhere else right now. I would say that Michelle's boards have many readers and many contributors, some of us subscribe so we can read it as email rather than on the web. I consider myself a "subscriber", not a "member" of this board. This isn't a yahoo group.

Others may feel like "members", I don't know. Rather than "open for the other 5 members of this "forum" to respond to" it's probably way more accurate to say "open for the other "readers" of this "forum" to respond to", unless, for some strange reason, you only want to hear from email subscribers, not web readers.

That's right, re /m270 . I'm not even a "member" here by Dave123 standards; I don't subsribe to my own boards (I do visit them when I remember though...).

OK.... "subscriber" or "member" or "random"... I was beginnning to worry that Michelle was going to be the one source of all of this info. hence the "dive in" invitation to other nonmembers, members, subscribing nonsubscribers and others who drift thru this QT thread.

I'll do some more journal reading over the next while... I do appreciate your perspective while also feeling compelled to continue the one program that has proven effective at assisting Aron to develop the skills he will need to live when I am dead. When I read how Michelle selfdescribed how she learns it did not sound unfamiliar to my learning style. I sort of wallow in information and then leap from not being able to do or understand a concept or skill to being proficient. One of my more interesting high school teachers once commented that he was not sure how I worked. He described my learning style along the line sof "Dave goes from A to C without checking in at B". To me it feels like I reach a critical mass and then it all falls into place without conscious effort. I recall learning to read this way. From nonreader to reading a book a day over night. Interesting.

Interesting point about everyone not learning in the same manner. Aron clearly learns implicilty, explicitly, kinesthetically, visiually, auditorially etc.... In fact "teaching" to all modalities is called for with him.

A question for Michelle.... did you ever experience an ABA program first hand as a "student"?


Gotta run... the kids need to go to school.


D.