Edited by author 07-06-2008 04:17 AM
While I was trying to figure out when to oar in, the argument unfurled in multiple directions and became gigantic. So I figure I should start somewhere. I'm referring to the epic (and not nearly done yet) back and forth between the Autism Hub bloggers Christschool and Interverbal re a whole lot of things. Many others have leapt into the argument.
It all starts [sigh] in 2006, with Interverbal and this post
http://interverbal.blogspot.com/2006/02/le...tradictions-in.html , which in 2008 received a response from Christschool
http://autisticnation.typepad.com/thinking...f-skinner-on-h.html (which I mentioned here on TMoB), a reply from Interverbal
http://interverbal.blogspot.com/2008/07/re...o-christschool.html , some, uh, rejoinders from Christschool
http://autisticnation.typepad.com/thinking...nterverbal-def.html http://autisticnation.typepad.com/thinking...kinner-confuse.html , a notice of intention to provide a, uh, retort from Interverbal
http://interverbal.blogspot.com/2008/07/peer-review-in-hub.html , and of course the zillion (or so) comments on all of the above.
I'm not sure I'm going to have time in the foreseeable to address a lot or even a bit of this, but I thought I'd start with Interverbal's 2006 blog post (this one
http://interverbal.blogspot.com/2006/02/le...tradictions-in.html )--the thing that set it off (eventually). I had intended, I think, to point out some problems with this post at the time, but didn't get round to it for reasons long lost in the impenetrable fog of descending deadlines. So here goes.
First, I don't know Skinner's work well enough to comment on much of it. Skinner's work falls into areas I don't read a lot of: animal work and rampant speculation about human behaviour. Skinner was also a public figure though, and if I get further into this epic debate, I might point in the general direction of some of his public comments.
After introducing Skinner, Interverbal instructs us in how to see punishment the way behaviour analysts do. This theme of requiring critics of behaviour analysis to use exactly the same terminology as behaviour analysts is one that's errupted into prominence in the ensuing epic.
I'm going to disagree with Interverbal that one can only criticize behaviour analysis by adhering to behaviour analytic terminology, rather than putting this terminology under scrutiny and criticizing it as necessary. E.g., behaviour analysts don't use terminology like "self-stimulatory" or "stereotypical" behaviour consistently or, even within their own definitions (which may in themselves be questionable), accurately. There's a bit about this in Dawson et al. (2008).
I've never used common behaviour analytic definitions of "autism," because I find these definitions to be biased and ideological rather than accurate and scientific. Behaviour analysts, including Nate Azrin (who is mentioned by Interverbal), have, e.g., defined "autisms" as a bunch "nonfunctional" behaviours (e.g., rocking, hand gazing--two behaviours I have) constituting a "pathological pattern of behavior" (Azrin et al., 1973).
And Ivar Lovaas has repeatedly denied the usefulness of autism as a diagnosis, considering autism to be a social construct and a failed hypothesis that stands in the way of effective treatment (Lovaas, 1981; 2003; plus numerous papers by Lovaas or Lovaas and colleagues throughout Lovaas' career).
In my view, a lot of behaviour analytic terminology as applied to autistics (and more generally as well) not only can but should be questioned. Precisely using behaviour analytic terminology might be impossible (because the terminology isn't precise), inaccurate, unscientific, and/or unethical.
More on this later if I get back to the epic. But here's one example I wonder about. "Positive punishment" in behaviour analytic speak is supposed to involve the presentation of stimuli, while "negative punishment" is supposed to involve the removal of stimuli. "Time out" is the classic behaviour analytic example of negative punishment. But this falsely assumes that time out does not involve the presentation of stimuli.
Right--back to 2006. Interverbal refers to Lovaas et al. (1965) as "the first to use punishment for autistic children." This is false, so far as I can tell (and Lovaas used aversive procedures on autistic children before he started using the kind of electric shock he reported in 1965). E.g., Wolf et al. (1964) clearly used punishment with a child described as autistic.
And I'm not quite sure what to call the short time outs used by Ferster and DeMyer (1961) or how to describe a setting aversive enough such that an autistic child "hammered" "with increasing intensity" on the door of the room he was locked into, alone. Never mind that these two autistic children, while locked alone in a room, received electric shocks because the experimental apparatus was badly made. Seeing as these electric shocks were successful in reducing behaviours, shouldn't they be called punishment?
I agree with Interverbal that mainstream behaviour analysts (including major figures in behaviour analysis, and the current major ABA textbooks) have embraced and continue to promote the effectiveness of punishment and aversive procedures. In a way, Interverbal is also right when he says, "but we knew via research that aversives were quite effective." The "we" here refers to behaviour analysts, and it's accurate to say that by behaviour analytic standards, "aversives were quite effective."
However, by standards that are commonplace (they aren't universal, but they are overwhelmingly consensual) outside the behaviour analytic arena, the evidence supporting the use of aversive procedures (within the area of ABA) is of overwhelmingly poor quality, such that these studies (both individually and collectively) are only poorly informative about the studied procedures or interventions.
I suggest that Interverbal's statement that "aversives were causing problems in social validity for us" shows that behaviour analysts may have questionable priorities.
Re Harris et al. (1991; the "Does Punishment Hurt" paper I described in TMoB), Interverbal writes, "this article did not establish if such aversives truly were effective or justified in terms of helping the students." That's right, but the authors gave priority to the explanation that the use of strong aversives results in a "greater chance of client response."
Interverbal wrote that Rekers and Lovaas (1974) and Rekers et al. (1974--Interverbal cites this incorrectly in his text): "used spanking to modify the behavior of the effeminate boys to make them more masculine." Interverbal goes on to state that this "was challenged along ethical grounds by the behavior analysts" Nordyke et al. (1977). This makes it look like it was primarily, or possibly only, the spanking that Nordyke et al. objected to, when--as I pointed out in TMoB--objections to the use of aversive procedures were a minor part of Nordyke et al.'s criticism.
Interverbal then writes about Lovaas (1981), The ME Book, that it "advised aversives; namely, a single slap to the thi[gh] or buttocks" (I've corrected what seems to be a typo). This is inaccurate.
Just from memory, The ME Book mentions the use of many different kinds of aversive procedures, including electric shock in some circumstances. At the more everyday level, there is the recommendation of a very aversive (painful and humiliating) form of restraint, to be used as punishment. There is the recommendation that children should be pinched. Then there's the paddle (I remember reading along and stopping dead and saying out loud, "paddle?!"), which apparently you are supposed to use to hit a child (that's not a slap any more), and then carry around with you to remind the child that they can at any time be hit, by a "paddle."
And that's off the top of my head (did I mention, really loud shouting?--but that pales into the background within The ME Book), staying within the behaviour analytic definition of punishment.
Interverbal writes: "However, this still preceded the landmark study Lovaas (1987) in which following two years of treatment based on “The Me Book..."
Well, no. That's two years or more of treatment. And treatment could not be based on The ME Book, sorry. Treatment started in 1970, more than a decade before The ME Book was published. The references and "recommended reading" in The ME Book overwhelmingly are dated after 1970 (there are only a few exceptions), all the way up to 1980, making it unlikely that the manual was written by 1970.
Interverbal wrote, "Lovaas has repudiated his use of aversives." I disagree. And not only because of Dr Lovaas' enthusiasm for aversive procedures when I spoke with him in 2003 (he stated that it was much easier getting results when aversive were used). Dr Lovaas was involved in a 2007 ABAI annual meeting presentation where guidelines were provided under which aversive procedures should be used with autistics. I haven't seen this presentation, but if Dr Lovaas is repudiating the use of aversive procedures, this was totally left out of the guidelines he was involved in presenting.
Then there's the possible reason, which doesn't involve Dr Lovaas repudiating anything, that aversive procedures were abandoned at UCLA. See
http://autismcrisis.blogspot.com/2006/11/a...aversives-part.html And more obviously Dr Lovaas has no more repudiated the use or his use of aversive procedures than any other behaviour analyst (or other scientist) who continues to cite and promote Lovaas (1987) as evidence for the effectiveness of early intensive ABA programs.
There are things that Interverbal left out, that I'd think were important enough to at least mention, but that's enough from me for now.
I think some of the above, while it's targeted at Interverbal's 2006 blog post, addresses some of the more recent arguments thrown around in the ongoing, unfurling epic. I apologize for how informal the above is; I'm busy, have a lot to write, etc., and would be delighted to be corrected if I've made any errors in my general distractedness and stressed-outedness.
