Edited by author 06-18-2004 02:16 PM
While we are recovering and reformatting data from our previous discussion board, please post your comments on The Misbehaviour of Behaviourists here.

The previous discussion board (entries 1 to 256 of 725) can be found here: http://www.quicktopic.com/25/H/4NqUrcUWgSE5R

oh, i would like to be able to access some of my earlier posts.... helps with my practicum stuff.

Edited by author 06-25-2004 01:58 PM
Although the website http://www.helpuslearn.com is an ABA propoganda site, it does have a substantial amount of information on ABA,and links to pro ABA sites such as those of Lovaas and Skinner.
 The website http://www.kathyandcalvin.com has extensive pro ABA information, including the Sumlin Notes on the ABA articles page.

Help Us Learn is a Canadian site marketing ABA program materials and info. I'm not sure who "us" means in the name. Come to think of it, I'm not sure what "help" and "learn" mean in this context either.

I noticed they have jypsy's site in their links, under "personal stories" (as opposed to under "general information"). As if this here is an ABA success story. Ooops, for sure.

Edited by author 06-27-2004 04:18 PM
Someone has set up a comment board about this article. You would think that the availability of an existing board would have been noticed, but this person did not seem to have got to the end of the article. Here is his/her comment and my reply:

From "CeleRate", who does not supply his/her name:

Edited by author 06-27-2004 02:35 PM
Questions and Comments on Michelle Dawson’s THE MISBEHAVIOUR OF BEHAVIOURISTS

1. Michelle writes,”When systematically hurting autistic children in ABA programs raised ethical concerns, to the point where laws were passed, ABA became non-aversive.”

*Please share the evidence that you used when making this statement so that others may evaluate your claim.

2. Rhetoric in autism treatment

*It seems trite to point out that there is no perfect analogy.
3. “…popular promotion of the autism-ABA industry. Here are some more: Autism equals tragedy, suffering, and doom. Either autistic children are successfully treated through early intensive behaviour interventions or they are condemned to a life of isolation and institutionalization. Autism is incompatible with achievement, intelligence, physical and psychological integrity, dignity, autonomy, and learning: either you are autistic or you have access to these possibilities. Either the autistic gets ABA, and comes to resemble a non-autistic, or the autistic is doomed. Autism equals a nuclear bomb, a stroke, diabetes, a terminal illness, being "riddled with pain from a terrible accident", and again, always, cancer.”
*Please show us the position statements by the association of behavior analysis that informed your accusations.
*There appears to be unwillingness, on the part of Michelle and her supporters, to accept that for many families who have a loved one diagnosed with autism, the issues are very real and very problematic, to the extent that drawing an analogy to some horrible affliction seems like a reasonable way to illustrate the idea for people who might not have direct experience, or for people who will be making important decisions that will directly impact families. There is no denying that there are many people who are diagnosed, on the autism spectrum, that are brilliant and who will do well with the variety of supports that our societies have to offer. However, that statement is not inconsistent with the fact that there are thousands of individuals for whom this will not be true.

4. “In a situation where disregard for ethics is blatant and ongoing”

*Statements such as this are made so frequently throughout the article, that it appears to be an ARGUMENTUM AD NAUSEUM. It should be pointed out that there are extensive systems on ethical treatment that have been adopted within the field, and are public record. It seems that these have been ignored in this article in favor of interpretations of specific events and individuals’ behaviors (e.g., comments related to Dr Frank Gresham). The claim that the field has ignored ethics in the treatment of individuals with autism goes against the public record. Ex: Bannerman, D. J., Sheldon, J. B., Sherman, J. A., & Harchik, A. E. (1990). Balancing the right to habilitation with the right to personal liberties: The rights of people with developmental disabilities to eat too many doughnuts and take a nap. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 79-89.

*The assault on ethical conduct continues: Specific projects of decades past, and specific researchers, were cited as examples of ethical failures, however, they were put in the context of applying to the field as a whole; an entirely unfair portrayal. This would be analogous to opponents of stem-cell research saying that, due to some researchers pursuing these studies, medical practice, in general, is unethical (*A preemptive reminder that there are no perfect analogies).

5. “I also naively suggested to Dr Green--who is a mainstay of ASAT and the Behaviour Analyst Certification Board--that parents should accurately be told their autistic child is not more difficult than, but simply different from, a non-autistic child.”

*Again, this exemplifies the unwillingness of the writer to accept the reality of what many families are dealing with. Extreme self-injury, aggression, failure to talk, etc., are not fictitious issues dreamt up by families; they are an unfortunate reality that is neither normative nor simply “different.”

6. “In the early 90's, a trio of children with autistic behaviours got the full ABA treatment from the very best, including Dr Lovaas. He, Tristram Smith, and Morten Klevstrand reported on the results in 1995. The treatment was an utter failure; the one girl who showed any progress in any area concurrently regressed so drastically in others that the authors seemed actually distressed. The children, who started with low intelligence scores, finished untestable after thousands of hours of intensive behaviour intervention. They did not recover or become indistinguishable from peers designated as typical.”

*Michelle condemns the entire field for the alleged failings she reports. I say “alleged” not that I doubt that there are children who make little to no gain after treatment, but that she failed to reference (Michelle wrote, “I've seen reported…”) any documentation regarding the lack of progress. Even Lovaas, himself, reported in the 1987 paper, which Michelle mentioned elsewhere in her article, that there were persons in the treatment group that made no gains after treatment. This alone would seem inconsistent with the anti-ABA allegations that claims of cure are being promised. Behavior analysts have been open and honest that the treatments they provide are not cures to anything—and their public statements to this fact can be found in writing (http://www.behavior.org/autism/index.cfm?p.../autism_ABA_FAQ.cfm).

*It is clear that Michelle Dawson is anti-ABA, and if she wouldn’t consider herself so, she has certainly written so viciously against ABA as to obscure any possible interpretation of acknowledging that it has done anything good at all. Somehow, Michelle has developed the notion that people who have been exposed to the unique hardships of autism do not value individuals with the diagnosis. If this is not what she truly believes, then she should be made aware that her writings communicate this message. However, this is a true disservice to the many people who care for and love someone with autism. Michelle should continue to fight for the ethical treatment of people with autism, as should behavior analysts and other practitioners continue this fight; however, as the evidence continues to be presented, she should be willing to acknowledge the good and ethical treatment developed in ABA. If Michelle believes that there are better practices or treatment approaches, I invite her to present the evidence that would suggest so.


This is my response:

1. There is a comment board on that article. There were more than 700 posts, many of them from a behaviour analyst-in-training, and most of them civilized, productive, and enlightening. The later posts crashed, and are being reformatted. Here is where you can post your concerns:http://www.quicktopic.com/27/H/vJvhV4fDnBgw7

2. I supplied a large section of notes/sources, as well as full references. They are right after the article, at the same URL. They would answer most of your concerns.

3. As to the typical assumption that autistic people do not know anything about autism, please read these two articles (which were designed to answer these concerns):http://www.autistics.org/library/dawson.html and http://www.autistics.org/library/time.html .

4. Some parents like their autistic kids. Your position would be that those kids aren't "really" autistic, just like autistic people critical of ABA in any way can't really be autistic. That's interesting, because one of the ways Dr Maurice was unethically attacked was by saying that her kids were not "really" autistic. See http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?r...4:24:370080:OPINION . And since I am very careful judging people I have never met, I am always surprised when others do not exercise this basic caution.

5. As is pointed out in the articles above, I don't buy the "different levels" of autism idea. I have reason not to and I do science in this area.

5. The ethics I was looking for requires the involvement of autistic people in decision-making. This is the same standard Dr Baer used in judging some of Dr Lovaas' other work. All the behaviour analysts I spoke with agreed that not one autistic person had every been involved in any decision-making in ABA at any time. Dr Handleman, while pointing out that people with other disabilities were involved in his large centre, had to admit that no autistic people were. I give other concrete examples of ethics violations throughout. They are sourced and referenced, as is everything in this article.

6. I give the source for "I've seen reported". That source is also referenced. Reading the material before condemning the author is simple courtesy.

7. The lack of progress was reported in the Rett's girls in the study you quote me describing. Please read the study itself, which is sourced and referenced. Or talk to Dr Tristram Smith, the lead author. As I found out later, one of the Rett's girls was in Lovaas' Control Group 1. See http://www.autistics.org/library/dawson-response.html or http://www.sentex.net/~nexus23/naa_wro.html , where the information is referenced (Boyd, 1998).

8. If standing up for the worth and rights of autistic people, and wondering why we are not given the ethical consideration that is automatically given to all other human beings is, collectively, "vicious", then I have to wonder again why non-autistics are so opposed to any view of autism which suggests that we are valuable. If ABA is at the same time sacrosanct and beyond criticism at any level, then we have an interesting situation. Anyone can say anything appalling about autistic people, while writing off those who object; and no one is allowed to examine ABA for its conformity with ethical and scientific standards applied to all other interventions.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada


This is the URL for the other comment board, which is superfluous: http://www.quicktopic.com/27/H/pQnggSnPFxAc

Edited by author 06-27-2004 07:14 PM
I know CeleRate from another board, I'll have a word.

While I did commit the courtesy of responding to CeleRate on his/her board (is this one below his/her standard? I'm just wondering <scratches head>), I would prefer the discussion of this article and my own attributes to happen here as much as possible (what the space is for).

So if the discussion at all continues, I'll post any comments from others on the "other" board, and my responses to these, here. Also, I'll post the link to this board on the "other" board as necessary to show I've responded.

What is the address of the "other" board?

See bottom of /m5,
"This is the URL for the other comment board, which is superfluous: http://www.quicktopic.com/27/H/pQnggSnPFxAc "

Edited by author 06-28-2004 02:25 PM
I know that CeleRate from another board.

She had a go at me because I decried the totally decriable stuff she posted about toilet training the ABA way.

And she hasn't responded to my many responses to her individual bollocks-ups in her response to me.

She can't do anything without data..... ALWAYS data. Never uses simple reasoning.

I don't like to judge, but she seems a bit dim.

Behaviourists: they think they're scientists, but they're not.

Below is CeleRate's potty-training thing from another board. It's exactly the same as I saw suggested by Bobby Newman. And it's exactly as laughable as his.

Why?

Because parents haven't got TIME for this malarkey ever day until their kid learns to shit and piss on a pot.

It's written by a behaviourist and was not written with the time demands of parenthood in mind.

Go figure.
------------------------------------------------------------


CeleRate
Registered User Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 111
 
Potty training

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Offer lots of liquids throughout the day (one opportunity to pee in a day is too little to teach correct toileting)
*No diapers and no pants on (initially)
*Identify something highly pleasurable for your child that can be provided only for correctly eliminating in the toilet. It should be something that can be delivered extremely quickly (i.e., almost as the first drops hit the toilet water)
*Time off the toilet should be extremely brief (e.g., 5 minutes on, 30 seconds off)
*Multiple practice runs (e.g., 3) are made to the toilet from where an accident occurs. "This is where you should pee."
*Accidents are cleaned by the child (Hand-over-hand) by the adult (recommended, not required).
*Stay close to the bathroom, possibly only in the bathroom when first teaching how to use the toilet. 1000's of children have learned this way. 1000's of parents did not think it would be possible (at first)
*If progress is not being made within the first couple of weeks, then some factor or factors need to be changed. Persisting with an ineffective strategy is too frustrating for everyone involved
__________________
CeleRate

This is the latest from CeleRate, and my response, so far, to it:

Michelle:

**Thank you for taking the time to respond. Since you appear to be civilized, I will respond in kind. I will not waste my time on people who engage in childish, unintelligent dialogue. My comments are below.**


2. I supplied a large section of notes/sources, as well as full references. They are right after the article, at the same URL. They would answer most of your concerns.


** I did look at this section, but did not feel that it answered my questions. I was wondering how you moved from the treatment of people with developmental disabilities, in general, to ABA treatment, specifically. Did you draw from case-specific examples to the field as a whole? One additional question: Is the premise under which you are working that Lovaas = ABA? **


3. As to the typical assumption that autistic people do not know anything about autism, please read these two articles (which were designed to answer these concerns):http://www.autistics.org/library/dawson.html and http://www.autistics.org/library/time.html .


**This does not speak to the point I was raising. I make as few assumptions as possible, in general, but one I would make deliberately is that there are many individuals diagnosed autistic that know a great deal about autism. I make this assumption partly because I know some of these individuals. However, is it your position that every individual with the diagnosis, regardless of age or presentation, has the capacity to make an informed decision with respect to treatment? **


4. Some parents like their autistic kids. Your position would be that those kids aren't "really" autistic, just like autistic people critical of ABA in any way can't really be autistic. That's interesting, because one of the ways Dr Maurice was unethically attacked was by saying that her kids were not "really" autistic. See http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?r...4:24:370080:OPINION . And since I am very careful judging people I have never met, I am always surprised when others do not exercise this basic caution.

**I’m afraid that you have some false beliefs here. Autism is a word. The word is associated with behaviors. When an individual has a particular presentation, then the word is associated with that presentation. It is not the other way around, which would be that a person with autism has presentations that are inconsistent with the diagnostic criteria. With respect to your first sentence, I’m not sure what you were implying here, but the many families with whom I have known not only like their child with autism, they love their child and love him/her dearly. I am sorry if your experiences have been different.**


5. As is pointed out in the articles above, I don't buy the "different levels" of autism idea. I have reason not to and I do science in this area.

**I’m not sure what you mean by levels, but whatever science you believe you do, it does not preclude the fact that people are different; even people with the diagnosis “autism.” Each person is unique, with their own cultural, behavioral, and biological histories. The result of these differences is that the environment affects different people in different ways. People with autism are not thinking your thoughts or feeling your feelings—no more than anyone else is thinking my thoughts or feeling my feelings. These are unique phenomena—despite many times being consistent with one another. I’m sorry to hear that you were treated badly growing up, but your experiences are not universal. Michelle, I support your efforts to ensure the ethical treatment of individuals with autism or any disability, but I am also saying that, in ways, your efforts have been misguided. Instead of limiting your fight to speaking out against cases of injustice, you have berated everyone with a role in the field. You have summarily dismissed all the good that is done as well as the testimonials of people diagnosed with autism who would take issue with your contention that all things behavioral are bad.**


8. If standing up for the worth and rights of autistic people, and wondering why we are not given the ethical consideration that is automatically given to all other human beings is, collectively, "vicious", then I have to wonder again why non-autistics are so opposed to any view of autism which suggests that we are valuable.


**I am intrigued by your ideas of good and evil. You would have to believe either that people who are evil are attracted to behaviorism or that behaviorism attracts evil to people if you were to believe that behavior analysts do not consider people with autism human beings with all the rights and privileges that everyone else should enjoy. You would also have to completely ignore all the public systems designed and devoted to the ethical treatment of individuals with autism and other developmental disabilities.

These ethical guidelines have been codified
“Because of the common concerns and issues encountered by professionals in disparate fields, the BACB appreciates the guidance and models provided by numerous organizations that have grappled with the complexities of describing ethical behavior and have developed codes to increase the likelihood of ethical conduct of scientists and practitioners. These organizations include:”
• American Anthropological Association
• American Educational Research Association
• American Psychological Association
• American Sociological Association
• California Association for Behavior Analysis
• Florida Association for Behavior Analysis
• National Association of Social Workers
• National Association of School Psychologists
• Texas Association for Behavior Analysis
Not that we should not stop here—once we have an ethical code, we should make sure that it is applied in letter and in spirit. And if you feel that the code is lacking, then why not address how it could be improved?**

If ABA is at the same time sacrosanct and beyond criticism at any level, then we have an interesting situation. Anyone can say anything appalling about autistic people, while writing off those who object; and no one is allowed to examine ABA for its conformity with ethical and scientific standards applied to all other interventions.

**This departs from reality on several points. ABA is a science applied to behavior. Behavioral scientists do not consider the discipline sacrosanct by any stretch of the imagination. I applaud vigilance in one’s efforts to make improvements. However, when gross generalizations are made, and when statements are made that are inconsistent with the facts, expect a reaction.Michelle:

**Thank you for taking the time to respond. Since you appear to be civilized, I will respond in kind. I will not waste my time on people who engage in childish, unintelligent dialogue. My comments are below.**


2. I supplied a large section of notes/sources, as well as full references. They are right after the article, at the same URL. They would answer most of your concerns.


** I did look at this section, but did not feel that it answered my questions. I was wondering how you moved from the treatment of people with developmental disabilities, in general, to ABA treatment, specifically. Did you draw from case-specific examples to the field as a whole? One additional question: Is the premise under which you are working that Lovaas = ABA? **


3. As to the typical assumption that autistic people do not know anything about autism, please read these two articles (which were designed to answer these concerns):http://www.autistics.org/library/dawson.html and http://www.autistics.org/library/time.html .


**This does not speak to the point I was raising. I make as few assumptions as possible, in general, but one I would make deliberately is that there are many individuals diagnosed autistic that know a great deal about autism. I make this assumption partly because I know some of these individuals. However, is it your position that every individual with the diagnosis, regardless of age or presentation, has the capacity to make an informed decision with respect to treatment? **


4. Some parents like their autistic kids. Your position would be that those kids aren't "really" autistic, just like autistic people critical of ABA in any way can't really be autistic. That's interesting, because one of the ways Dr Maurice was unethically attacked was by saying that her kids were not "really" autistic. See http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?r...4:24:370080:OPINION . And since I am very careful judging people I have never met, I am always surprised when others do not exercise this basic caution.

**I’m afraid that you have some false beliefs here. Autism is a word. The word is associated with behaviors. When an individual has a particular presentation, then the word is associated with that presentation. It is not the other way around, which would be that a person with autism has presentations that are inconsistent with the diagnostic criteria. With respect to your first sentence, I’m not sure what you were implying here, but the many families with whom I have known not only like their child with autism, they love their child and love him/her dearly. I am sorry if your experiences have been different.**


5. As is pointed out in the articles above, I don't buy the "different levels" of autism idea. I have reason not to and I do science in this area.

**I’m not sure what you mean by levels, but whatever science you believe you do, it does not preclude the fact that people are different; even people with the diagnosis “autism.” Each person is unique, with their own cultural, behavioral, and biological histories. The result of these differences is that the environment affects different people in different ways. People with autism are not thinking your thoughts or feeling your feelings—no more than anyone else is thinking my thoughts or feeling my feelings. These are unique phenomena—despite many times being consistent with one another. I’m sorry to hear that you were treated badly growing up, but your experiences are not universal. Michelle, I support your efforts to ensure the ethical treatment of individuals with autism or any disability, but I am also saying that, in ways, your efforts have been misguided. Instead of limiting your fight to speaking out against cases of injustice, you have berated everyone with a role in the field. You have summarily dismissed all the good that is done as well as the testimonials of people diagnosed with autism who would take issue with your contention that all things behavioral are bad.**


8. If standing up for the worth and rights of autistic people, and wondering why we are not given the ethical consideration that is automatically given to all other human beings is, collectively, "vicious", then I have to wonder again why non-autistics are so opposed to any view of autism which suggests that we are valuable.


**I am intrigued by your ideas of good and evil. You would have to believe either that people who are evil are attracted to behaviorism or that behaviorism attracts evil to people if you were to believe that behavior analysts do not consider people with autism human beings with all the rights and privileges that everyone else should enjoy. You would also have to completely ignore all the public systems designed and devoted to the ethical treatment of individuals with autism and other developmental disabilities.

These ethical guidelines have been codified
“Because of the common concerns and issues encountered by professionals in disparate fields, the BACB appreciates the guidance and models provided by numerous organizations that have grappled with the complexities of describing ethical behavior and have developed codes to increase the likelihood of ethical conduct of scientists and practitioners. These organizations include:”
• American Anthropological Association
• American Educational Research Association
• American Psychological Association
• American Sociological Association
• California Association for Behavior Analysis
• Florida Association for Behavior Analysis
• National Association of Social Workers
• National Association of School Psychologists
• Texas Association for Behavior Analysis
Not that we should not stop here—once we have an ethical code, we should make sure that it is applied in letter and in spirit. And if you feel that the code is lacking, then why not address how it could be improved?**

If ABA is at the same time sacrosanct and beyond criticism at any level, then we have an interesting situation. Anyone can say anything appalling about autistic people, while writing off those who object; and no one is allowed to examine ABA for its conformity with ethical and scientific standards applied to all other interventions.

**This departs from reality on several points. ABA is a science applied to behavior. Behavioral scientists do not consider the discipline sacrosanct by any stretch of the imagination. I applaud vigilance in one’s efforts to make improvements. However, when gross generalizations are made, and when statements are made that are inconsistent with the facts, expect a reaction.


Here is my response (so far):

It would be "civilized" to discuss me and my work on the comment board attached to the relevant article, which was supplied for that purpose. So I'm going to (when I have time) import your message (no time to read it yet) there and respond to it there. I supplied the URL below.

Edited by author 06-28-2004 04:28 PM
Having a bit of spare time, I'll respond to CeleRate.

1. If you are going to make personal remarks about me, you should provide your own real name.

2. If you wish to be credible and accountable in your arguments, you should provide your real name.

3. While many, many people have berated me, I have not berated anyone. Disagreeing with a person or a position or an ideology or a methodology or whatever is not the equivalent of "berating".

4. I don't mention good, evil, or love. I don't say anything about my own experiences. I don't generalize about anyone or anything. For example, if any of the factions for or against ABA as an autism treatment had put forth the position that ethical review is required when those who can't consent are treated, then I would not have been able to make that statement. I couldn't make that statement about the FBP, for example, since ethical review was put forth by critics of the FBP. In this case, the critics were behaviourists.

5. I mention nowhere that all autistics, or for that matter, all children, including the feminine boys, are able to make informed consent decisions. My point is that they often can't.

6. The people who know what autism is are autistic.

7. If autism is just a word to describe behaviours, why didn't ABA work on autistic behaviours in those diagnosed with Rett syndrome?

8. I will repeat that I didn't mention love. But parents of kids with Down syndrome (and many, many other examples) do not call their kids a plague, or less than half living, or better off dead, or a holocaust, or as "festering". Parents of autistic children have done this and much similar. Nor do parents of other disabled or otherwise different children claim that none of these children ever contribute to society. And do on. Things really are different in autism-land. More than one parent has replied to this problem by saying that we can't be hurt by these statements, since we have no feelings.

8. On the other hand, I know parents of autistic children who feel blessed, who say, "I am very fortunate", who understand that their "non-verbal" children might be hurt by being discussed as though they were a catastrophe.

9. In my article, I discuss Lovaas a lot, because of the use of his study in all legal/public/scientific discussions claiming ABA is "scientifically-proven" or "medically necessary" as an autism treatment. There is a discussion of AVB and PRT and incidental teaching and PECS and what-all which can be called behavioural on the existing comment board here (the stuff you can get, and the stuff being reformatted).

10. I am aware that people are different from each other. If I struggle very hard, I can just about get that concept. <howls with laughter> . I think such strange remarks do not deserve a serious answer. I always love it when behaviourists do theory of mind.

11. I still don't have any "facts" my arguments are inconsistent with.

12. I'm aware of the BACB ethical guidelines (only guidelines, mind you). Nothing in there covers the problem of clients who can't consent, nor of community prejudice (an accurate term for community standards when those being judged are ostracized). The APA does not cover this except for expressing concern over "conversion therapies", to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals. This has also been touched on on this comment board.

13. While repeating, puzzled, that I never mentioned "good" never mind "evil", I can add that I make no judgment of any person. I describe their actions and the consequences of those actions.

I think that's all. I don't have much time. The above in no order whatsoever.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

Sorry I posted CeleRate's message more or less twice in /m12 . Have no idea how on earth I did that...

My last response to CeleRate, unless this person decides to post here (this is a response to a comment not worth importing):

Mr/Ms CeleRate,

I suggested in a very civil way that you yourself behave in a civil way. I suggested ways in which you could do this, including posting on the comment board where this discussion belongs, and also noticing what I have actually written (as opposed to what you believe I have written). You've decided not to. I've decided, given your behaviour, not to respond to you.

Thanks for your interest.

I've just been having a look at ASC's wesbite and came across that list of Autistic strengths that they made. I don't want to read deep into it, but one of them caught my eye:

"Have an accurate and detailed memory of information and facts and a superb ability to manipulate data for useful purposes"

What do they mean by 'manipulate' data for useful purposes? Sounds like a form of Freudian slip.

Hi Michelle,

That comment about evil from Celerate makes me wonder if Celerate has seen MY comments on behaviorists and thought they were yours.
*I* ME, MI, MI, MI...I say that a psychologist who spoke to a freind of mine who is on the spectrum and has 2 spectrum offspring...told him that the very strict ABA type programs attract to them evil people.

Well maybe that person didn't say evil, but more like "people who get their jollies out of controlling others and let it go to their heads and then get mean with their subjects".

I don't know why you don't think "Celerate" is his/her real name. I mean one guy in the US changed his name to "Trout Fishing in America". Celerate could be xyr real name.

Not likely, though.
Reminds me of "J" on the aut advo board.

no sex, no location, no name. just "J".

Don't like J, either.

J don't respond to me any more. :-)

Maybe xe didn't like all the dog training comments.

I started to read about Vygotsky, dear me, to read about Vygotsky you gotta understand he's reacting to Handel or Himmler or ....oh, Hegel! Then you get Marx in there. sigh. But it's worth it to me to get a grip on learning theories.
Outside of behaviorism there are about 20 other theories.

Who knew? I think Vygotsky is associated with Contsructivism.

Let me say this, if I hear or read the expression, "unpack" one more time and it's not in connection with a suitcase, I'm going to scream.

"Now I will unpack Constructivism for you all."

If it's at a behaviorists convention that I scream I will tell them not to cattle prod me, cuz I have Tourette's, and I can't help it.
:-)

Dang the autistics, if they had the sense to maintain their headbanging forever, then the stupid behaviorists wouldn't get it in their heads that it's a simple thing to get a kid to stop head banging and then move on from there to the assumption that the headbanging was meaningless, only annoying to them.

The kid rewards the trainer with the removal of the offending stimuli ->headbanging-> thereby reinforcing the trainer's belief that he/she has godlike powers over the autistic.

The Tourette's kids maintain their tics in spite of m&m's and therefore deny the trainers the the reward of thinking that they are demigods (with Lovaas being the second God in the Trinity of Skinner, Lovaas and Pavlov). The trainers go away with tails between legs and seek out nice submissive autistics...it's a sad tale.

I read that schizophrenics have stereotypical behaviors, does anyone try to stop them? No, I think they only try to stop schizophrenics from living under bridges because they think the CIA is after them.

Looks like maybe they have stopped trying to stop the stereotypies of Retts girls, too.

Lucky Retts girls.

If you are a monkey in a cage and exhibit stereotypies they don't try to train you out of them, they enrich your environment or remove the painful stimulus causing the behavior. At least that's what I have heard.

That's what they did with the prairie voles, remember Michelle, they had that cool backflip thing for a stim. but then they gave them a Barbie dream house to live in and internet access and credit cards...and the backflipping stopped.
who said scientists don't have a sense of humor?

Them and the Japanese trying to make autistic rats with valproic acid and thalidomide. It would appear that they got ADHD rats instead.

oddizm

Edited by author 06-29-2004 08:49 PM
Lucas--Hi--I commented on ASC's hasty list (circa Feb, 2004) of strengths on their website in the Pierre Pettigrew letter http://www.sentex.net/~nexus23/naa_pp.html.

Then ASC went to the Supreme Court and said we're all doomed unless our "core medical need" (ABA) is met. But only a very, very few autistics with a diagnosis of AS are ever, ever permitted to have strengths, and only if they're prepared to state that all other autistics are totally hopeless without ABA...Oh well...

Camille wrote "That comment about evil from Celerate makes me wonder if Celerate has seen MY comments on behaviorists and thought they were yours."

Jeez, is this what they mean by "indistinguishable"?

Funny how I've criticized the hell out of cognitive scientists in autism and none has responded by assuming that I associate cognitive science and/or scientists with evil.

I'm beginning to have delusions that I'm prescient. I mean, look what I named my article. Now look what the behaviourists are doing (again).

I work as a volunteer in a shop which sells secondhand books. Today I looked through a high school/undergraduate textbook entitled 'Psychology - an Introduction' second edition 1993 published in the UK. I thought people would be interested in the following extracts from it.
"In 1913 J.B.Watson produced a paper entitled'Psychology as the behaviourist views it', which was an attempt to produce a new scientific psychology based on the principles of learning, as they were understood at the time."
There are several pages about B.F.Skinner and behaviourism with a discussion of its ethics, and a photograph of his notorious box.It informs us that "Skinner argued that all human behaviour is produced through conditioning".
From the Glossary:-
"autistic children - Severely disturbed children who withdraw from reality and contact with others."
"behaviour therapy - The process of treating abnormal behaviour by looking only at the symptoms, and using conditioning techniques to modify them."
"behaviourist - Belonging to the school of thought which states that simply studying behaviour alone is adequate for psychology."

Thanks Philip, I will point this out to the next parent that tells me ABA is wonderful.

Edited by author 06-30-2004 08:14 PM
I'm "severely disturbed" by the extremely "withdrawn from reality" definition of autistics in that textbook.

In the book Developmental Psychology - An Introduction
Author: Gardner, Howard
Publisher: Little, Brown & Company, Boston and Toronto 1978
ISBN 0-316-303801
there are 8-9 pages on "infantile autism" which is characterised as "an especially bizarre condition." There is an overview of the studies and theories of Kanner, Bettelheim and Bernard Rimland. Under the heading "Behavior Modification" in the section headed "Treatment of Autism" there is the following description of 'treatment' carried out by Lovaas:-
"In proper behavorist fashion, Lovaas has skirted the controversial question of the causes of autism and concentrated instead on modifying abnormal behaviors by regular use of aversive conditioning methods." Instead of reinforcing or shaping a desired activity, he "punishes the child for undesirable behavior."
 There was a girl who harmed herself by hitting her head against steel cabinets. Lovaas rejected the natural impulse to calm her, but "instead favors striking the child, hard, each time the behavior occurs- indeed such severe punishment eventually extinguishes the behavior altogether. In Lovaas's words 'We sort of specialized in treating self-mutilating kids....we had electric shock and spanking as punishment. The procedure was simple - we just set up a contingent punishment for self-mutilative behavior'".
Reference:- Lovaas, O.I. Conversation with Paul Chance, Psycholgy Today 1974 No.8 pp76-84.
Does anyone know if or when Lovaas stopped using torture 'treatment' methods on autistic children? Has he apologised for using them? Has he repudiated those methods?
 In the psychology textbook referred to in my previous message /m20 the account of Skinner's experiments with animals, with his use of immediate reinforcement of behaviour, made me realise that it is the same theory which informs the use of ABA on autistic children.