David wrote: Didn't Lovaas refer to his work as applied behavioural analysis? I know that Skinner wrote on the analysis of behaviour.....

Michelle wrote: Sorry, me again. Re Lovaas=ABA, that's a trap, not a question

*CeleRate: It is a common misunderstanding; not a trap. What folks see first are teaching techniques and curricula. What is not as easy to see or understand is how the science informs one with respect to how to navigate through a curriculum. ABA is not the Lovaas curriculum or the way that he teaches children with autism. There are numerous examples of teaching, informed by ABA, that do not look like the work of Dr. Lovaas.

Michelle wrote: I asked one of the PRT people (Schriebman) about our supposed lack of motivation and got a pile of stuff in response, which simply assumed lack of motivation. So the question wasn't answered. In PRT, the reinforcers are actually what the kid asks for. Kid says "truck" he gets a truck, not a candy.

*CeleRate: Consequences of behavior have different outcomes. Some increase how frequently someone says or does something, some decrease how frequently someone says or does something, and some do nothing at all. “Motivation” is everyday language for having been without something for whatever period of time that increases the value of the something for a particular individual. Or it is having enough of something. Or it is one thing that changes the value of something else. The effects of being with or without apply to all people. Instead of allowing a person to hit him/herself in the head, or hit other people to get the things they want, the cruel behaviorists <sarcasm> actually recommend teaching the individual an appropriate way to communicate that desire (to decrease hitting and increase language).

Michelle wrote: In AVB, language is reduced to Skinner's version of language (tacts, mands, etc) in his (non-scientific) book Verbal Behavior. This is the book that Noam Chomsky famously ripped to shreds, Skinner having strayed outside of his area of expertise (pigeons, rats) and into Chomsky's (language).

*CeleRate: Language was not reduced in Skinner’s analysis; it was described with respect to how it functioned. Chomsky’s infamous assessment was, in turn, refuted point-by-point. By the way, in the interest of accurate historical record, Chomsky later abandoned the theory of language he was advancing at the time he critiqued Skinner’s book.

Michelle wrote: AVB does require the extreme compliance you've described. It does require the child to obtain everything by asking for it from an adult. It does prevent the autistic from doing anything except what the adult wants ("errorless learning"), so the autistic is prevented from expressing autistic learning.

*CeleRate: This is a strawman argument. There are no such requirements. I defy anyone to find the textbook (written or edited by behavior analysts) that states that this is the practice (I have no interest in seeing lay-people’s interpretations as written somewhere on the internet). The reference to “errorless learning” has absolutely nothing to do with what errorless learning is.

Michelle wrote: ABA includes the study of traffic safety and OBM (Organizational Behaviour Management) and what all.

*CeleRate: It also includes training doctors to perform more accurate mammographies, pilot training, smoking cessation, decreasing substance abuse, etc. So, given what you think ABA is, how could it be used in all these examples? Perhaps there is a behavioral practitioner saying to the doctor, “Find lump,” and after this is done, the practitioner says, “Good job finding lump” and sticks and M&M in the doctor’s mouth? That’s what you would have to believe given what is said about ABA. It’s rubbish. It’s also why certain anti-science people are so easily dismissed. The zeal to correct identified problems ends up being wasted by the anti-ABA crowd because they either didn’t want to understand the issues any better or they let their personal belief systems obscure the truth.

Michelle wrote: "ABA" has come to have meanings in law and in the public domain in autism.

*CeleRate: ABA was clearly defined in 1968 and the definition is now what it was then.

Edited by author 07-03-2004 06:43 PM
Hello Annonymous Precision Teacher (that's CeleRate, who refused to divulge even a single name on the grounds s/he's too good for that--this was after setting up a separate comment board with MY name on it):

Welcome! Nice to see you. I suggest you read the back-posts (now available as a rough copy), to show how it is possible to bahave respectfully towards other posters and what they have actually written.

Now, I suppose you can call the SCC and Canada's various governments and courts stupid in their colloquial use of ABA. That's rude on your part, by my standards, and myopic. We accept a word has a different connotation in public than it does in an academic discussion. We cannot restrict a discussion of public policy to those who call themselves experts and claim to know the Truth.

In Canada, provinces have all used somewhat different definitions, as have some of their respective courts and human rights commissions. The Attorney General of British Columbia in its written argument in Auton complained that Dr John McEachin did not know what ABA means. I'm not going to shake my finger at them and try to make them see the one correct way to use "ABA" in a sentence. I thought it was autisics who supposedly lacked flexibility and the ability to see another point of view?

In the legal proceedings I'm interested in, the word "autistic" was used in a flexible way. I don't think this was grounds for halting the proceedings and throwing out the case.

I stated this in my article (and am repeating myself): "ABA is hard to argue against. Its behavioural principles are used in teaching all kinds of children basic skills. As an intensive intervention, ABA is agreed to be a powerful therapy."

The purpose of my article was not to explain the history and scope of ABA. My article is about the public, legal, and scientific promotion of ABA as an autism treatment. Dr Lovaas' work has been of paramount importance in this promotion. None of the above is a statement limiting the nature and scope of ABA outside of Lovaas and autism.

I was simply relaying the PRT version of motivation. It isn't mine.

We had a very nice discussion here about communication. I'll translate what you wrote. You wrote that after ignoring the autistic's honest and accurate communication about a dozen times (usually it is between ten and twelve), resulting in the autistic hitting her head (since she is angry at herself for being so stupid that her accurate and honest communication does not work), you stop the head hitting (having done a functional analysis which only notices the last straw behaviour) then attempt to drill the autistic in communicating your way, since her way is wrong and useless to you.

There was also a long discussion about language not solving the problem, when what an autistic needs (due to having measurable differences in perception, attention, memory, intelligence, and so on) is not what everyone else needs and is therefore mocked, denied, or ignored.

You're saying that Dr Chomsky recanted and supports Skinner now? Or that Dr Chomsky's science progressed just like Skinner's did? Or is your version of science being "right" whereupon no changes or discoveries are allowed? I think Dr Chomsky also had something to say about how language functioned.

In errorless learning, the child is not allowed to guess. The question is posed and the child is shown how to answer. This way no errors are made, ergo "errorless learning". This is opposed to "no, no, prompt", which allows the child to guess twice.

I did point out that ABA=golf and is considered by some behaviour analysts to be the substance of life itself.

A person claiming to know the truth (while refusing to identify his/herself) is the epitome of anti-science.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

About CeleRate,

I'm with Michelle on this one.

Michelle:

I spoke very plainly on the issues. If you manage to actually address a point, and please, without the sophomoric attempts to translate my statements, I will be happy to respond. By the way, good guess with "Precision Teacher;" but no cigar.

"Michelle wrote: In AVB, language is reduced to Skinner's version of language (tacts, mands, etc) in his (non-scientific) book Verbal Behavior. This is the book that Noam Chomsky famously ripped to shreds, Skinner having strayed outside of his area of expertise (pigeons, rats) and into Chomsky's (language)."

"*CeleRate: Language was not reduced in Skinner’s analysis; it was described with respect to how it functioned. Chomsky’s infamous assessment was, in turn, refuted point-by-point. By the way, in the interest of accurate historical record, Chomsky later abandoned the theory of language he was advancing at the time he critiqued Skinner’s book."

Actually CeleRate, it WAS very much reduced. Behaviourism is, almost by definition, a reductionist theory. Any book on the scientific philosophy and methodology of psychology will tell you so. Unless, of course, behaviourists use a different set of books entirely from the rest of us!!!!

I have a theory.

CeleRate likes to upset people. Being willing to debate with him/her provides the necessary reinforcement for him/her to carry on doing so. It is obvious (by the difference between what Jim and John have been writing and willing to discuss) that CeleRate has no intention of learning anything and is using this whole thing with Michelle's board as a means to wind us up, and gets his/her jollies from that.

We should try some ABA in him/her: and essentially put _it_ on ignore.

Oh dear, the non-precision non-teacher does not like encounters with reality. Maybe we can all guess who/what s/he is/isn't, but I think we have better things to do.

>I spoke very plainly on the issues. If you manage to actually address a point, and please, without the sophomoric attempts to translate my statements, I will be happy to respond. By the way, good guess with "Precision Teacher;" but no cigar.



Hmmm...


Appeal to ridicule.

Not clever.

>Oh dear, the non-precision non-teacher does not like encounters with reality. Maybe we can all guess who/what s/he is/isn't, but I think we have better things to do.

I'd say so, Michelle.

I just had a thought (while galloping out the door) that the language used by our anonymous (and ever welcomed) guest reminds me of the letters I got from Mr Schafer. He was less polite, and he used the word "manure", and he did promise revenge, but still. Then again, he does stand behind his words with his name.

Just got round to reading this, Philip, so do forgive the delayed response.

"In the book Developmental Psychology - An Introduction
<snip>
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."

Wow.... bet that was amusing to read ;)

"Under the heading "Behavior Modification" in the section headed "Treatment of Autism" there is the following description of 'treatment' carried out by Lovaas:-"

Ahaa......

" '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.' "

Yes. Ignoring aetiological factors was typically and properly behaviouristic. BUT, and this is a big BUT.... He would have known by that time that Skinner had said that punishments were useless simply because they did not work. So, on that point, Lovaas was actually not on a proper behaviouristic footing at all. He was merely acting out some bizarre power fantasy, by sounds of it.

"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."

I would imagine that it would, purely on a reasoned track here, be worse for the autistic kid; I know that when I am subjected to some nasty consequence of anything I mess up on, I get edgy, and I can become very nasty. If I am like other autistics then they are like me (bi-directional inference); so I would imagine that the same happens for them, in that there is an evoked emotional reaction that is very uncomfortable. That cannot be good. Eventually, I would say that such kids, treated like that all the time, would be at great risk of developing mental health problems. I did. Many of us on here did.

"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"' "

"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?"

Michelle has answered these. :)

"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."

Funny thing, but I don't think that the Lovaas/ABA-types' "science" is anything like Skinner's. Even if he ignored the role of emotions, he did accept that they were there, as with cognitions. And I really do believe that he would have reacted to these writings herein in a similar manner to those of Jim and John - both of whom I would have no difficulty in seeing as colleagues: they too acknowledge the roles of cognition and emotion, and accept our arguments as they are... not as personal attacks. That seems to be the way of the "new behaviourists"... the Lovaas's and the Mulicks and the Newmans and so on.... none of whom can stand to be told they might be wrong.

No. The behaviourism of Skinner has nothing to do with the behaviourism of ABA/Lovaas. The latter is - from my reading of things - just nastiness dressed up as science.

"I just had a thought"

Oooooh, Michelle.... dangerous thing to do, you know... thinking.... that IS gonna upset CeleRate!

"(while galloping out the door)"

You turn into an equine thingie just to go through a door???? I turn into a wave-particle version of myself and I never walk through them... I just diffract all over the place and then, when someone decides to inspect if I'm there, I come back into existence as a particle.

"that the language used by our anonymous (and ever welcomed) guest reminds me of the letters I got from Mr Schafer."

Oh?

"He was less polite,"

And CeleRate has been polite? I don't think so. Seriously nasty subtext going on in that lot written by that one...

"and he used the word 'manure',"

Oh? Can he not spell "shit", then?

"and he did promise revenge,"

What sort? Eternal damnation and not being allowed to join his shitty little FEAT group? Can't see me missing that!

"but still. Then again, he does stand behind his words with his name."

Yes, he does. Not necessarily through politeness, though. Could be he's just too bloody stupid to realise that people know his name now....

About CeleRate,

Is that name based on Salary Rate? Silly Hourly Rate? Celery Ate? Celery on a Plate? Cell Erate? Accelerate? Decelerate? I think I'm getting close.

"It is a common misunderstanding; not a trap."- "CeleRate"

hmmmm....Trying to think of a common misunderanding that is not simultaneously a trap for someone if not for all involved.

Nope. I think that common misunderstandings are traps. But I might have to run that by Chomsky.

Reminds me of that quote: "Language is a false friend."
-----
Just in case CeleRate is not visiting the aut advo board in the guise of someone else...or just lurking.
I'm posting this again.

Ann Mastergeorge is having a crisis of conscience it looks like, right there on video tape. I think she is drawing away from behaviorism...not sure though. She needs a cookie and a pat on the head...surely that would solve her distressed sounding mands for reassurance.

Maybe CeleRate, since xe is so into definitions, could tell us what "operationalizing the zone of proximal development" means.

Ann tells of a time when she just went bad with a Mr. Potato Head. She just would not give up, even when the evidence was that it was time to move on.

Deep breathing, Ann, put down Mister Potato Head and step back from the child...slowly....that's right Ann...good girl...deep cleansing breaths...

-----

http://www.uctv.tv/library-health.asp?seri...I.N.D_Institute_Sum mer_Series_on_Neurodevelopmental_Disorders
It's the first video on that page about individualizing treaments...

I thought I would tell you at what points in her presentation where she
says the things I said she did. If your real player has the same
setting mine does you can slide the dial thing over to start at a
certain time...and the time is shown at the top of the window.

(She mentions constructivism...the thing I'm trying to understand
now...it's associated with Vygotsky.)
at about the 4 minutes 30 seconds mark.

She has done homogenizing interventions and says they aren't as
difficult as individualized interventions. (after 5 minutes and
before 6 minutes.)

What is the utility in documenting the process of transfer...we talk
about the outcomes...(some of this is hard to grasp...it's very
jargonny to me)
What is the role of the family intervention?...
If you have intensive services, how do you talk about the intensity of
(7 minutes 30 seconds) the intervention with a child who has a severe
disability as compared to a child with a mild disabilty...?

I talked about some tensions and now I want to talk about some problems...(7 minutes 45 seconds)

I have this tension in my head about "evidence promise"..
how do we take risks not only clinically but also in our research...(8
minutes something)
Who makes the demands what happens or orchestrates what happens in a
session, is it the cinician or the child??(8: 45)Then this notion of
degrees of freedom...(9:15?)I have painfully learned this lesson...I
spent with this young child I think 20 minutes and I would not give up
on my decision
on him completing the task, we can talk about this idea of
flexibility...on a procedural level it's not always easy to (9:
50)implement...
(10:22) "nobody has time to do the research" trying to figure out how
much research, how much practice...is another tension...

This notion of engagement..what is the hook for getting the kids
engaged, there definately is a hook...(11 minutes) mentions
Vygotsky(11:23) sharing a definition of the goal
11:45- Who are the agents of change, should we include the families,
parents?

looking at apprenticeships and skill transformation...12:10

Operationalizing the zone of proximal development...

shifts in terms of including families...(13 minutes)

Paradigm shift to include families 13:25

empowering families by including their belief systems...

14:08 looking at parents as colaborators...it's hard work, very hard
to do (to include parents)

15:27 be responsive to childrens' skills knowlege.. interests, very
hard to do.

16:30 now looking at the families
16:43 even if you don't agree with the family's goals, looking at
trying to incorporate their wishes...


(17:32) the ugly is what we face every day in ourselves as
interventionists, constantly ...trying to be flexible..
if we go back to the drawing board...is what we are reluctant to do...

----

Like David said, she is difficult to listen to, and seems to be
practicing some kind of emotional catharsis for the audience with all
her talk about tensions and the ugly in the interventionists.

She admits to using non customized intervetions in the past.
She admits that they generally don't take into consideration the
family's goals and culture...
she admits that there is no good evidence from research because no one
is doing it.
She says people claim to be doing good evidence-based work with
kids...and are succeding...oooh boy. How's that for non scientific?
It's pretty thick with jargon.
my favorite is
"operationalizing the zone of proximal development"

I'm going to put that one on a t-shirt! ought to sell like hotcakes.


-----
Ann Mastergeorge: "Then this notion of degrees of freedom".

ack! I hate that. She's misusing the term!!!

Camille aka "C"

"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?"

a Better question, has anyone proven that he no longer hits kids?

I found a letter to an editor of a journal written by Lovaas.borg some time ago...maybe the 1970's..in which he whines about how picked on he is. He whines about how the other scientists characterize his science as sophomoric or something...

but so far I haven't found any apologies...

http://www.geocities.com/autistry/researchrats.html

This is a call for an apology, but there hasn't been one that I know of.

Can I guess who CeleRate is?? huh? If it's Lenny, "Hi, Lenny!" ;-)

If it isn't Lenny. Maybe it's Ol'y.
I'm pretty sure we can rule out Tristram. I would love to have a talk with Tristram. -> Find out what a nice guy like him is doing involved with Ole.

--
" '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 eve

"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"' "

I just went to the previous Quick topic page and saw that google had a bunch of ads on there for Dog Training.

Hmmmm.

Do they know something we don't??

Sit! Stay! No more treats for you Camille!!!

Bad! Bad girl.


self manding.

Camille

Usually, terrible things that are done with the excuse that progress requires them are not really progress at all, but just terrible things.
    Russell Baker (1925 - )

I just might have to do that one on a t-shirt. Right after I do "operationalize the zone of proximal development"

oddizm