The Misbehaviour of Behaviourists The Misbehaviour of Behaviourists - Discussion 001-257 | 258-300 | 301-400 | 401-500 | 501-600 | 601-700 | 701-725 301-350 | 351-400 | previous | next Clare 350 14 May 2004 16:38:17 -0000 Off on a slight tangent: anyone familiar with Edward Deci's work on intrinsic motivation and autonomy (my current reading)? Very interesting stuff. And based on replicated, controlled empirical research, too ... Clare 349 14 May 2004 16:20:03 -0000 I don’t think it’s about lack of intellectual ability, David. At least, I’m very wary of using that as an insult, given the number of people I work with and greatly respect who are considered to have severe learning difficulties ... (And I’m sure Dawn Prince-Hughes would want to argue with your remarks about those who live up trees :) ). I think it’s about refusal or unwillingness to think about things which challenge your world view in particular ways. Which seems to be a recurrent human failing. But if people are going to act in such a vitriolic and illogical manner, then they discredit themselves, IMHO. Hurling insults back won’t change their minds, and just make us look bad. Tempting though it is. David Andrews ApEdPsych 348 14 May 2004 15:50:49 -0000 Actually, Amanda, I have this horrible feeling that the likes of Mulick and Weintraub are a throwback to when we lived up trees. Not really verbally able, but very clever at foiling and bluffing others out. I don’t think they are very intelligent at all, and they have no ability to reason things out (which explains this idiotic harrassment that I got from Weintraub). When they encounter people diagnosed as autistic according to the internationally agreed criteria, but who differ so greatly in their views (particularly on autism issues), they have no intellectual resources to fall back on, so they have to resort to stupid behaviour (like, for example, dismissing those criteria and inventing their own non-reliable/valid “criteria” by which to redefine us as something totally different).... Weintraub is definitely responding to her emotional reactions about something she has invested quite too much money and time and hope in, and the reasoned argument put forth by people such as myself, the others contributing here, Drs Jones and Jordan (at my university), and by Prof gernsbacher at Wisconsin Madison, and others like us, just feels like wazzing our work up a wall if we try to share it with such intelectually unable folk as Weintraub. naturally, one feels sad for them, in their intellectual misery, but they had the choice to be able to comprehend our arguments: they just chose not to. So if I think that Weintraub is stupid, because of her stupid behaviour, then that is down to her being stupid, and not to me just being too fucking intelligent for her. I do so wish that woman would get a life. A M Baggs 347 14 May 2004 15:31:40 -0000 Nobody in Kit Weintraub's position has replied to autistics.org thus far. They have to have found us. Presumably they can't (by virtue of some of what we've written) just argue that we're not autistic, so they have no logical arguments? David Andrews ApEdPsych 346 14 May 2004 14:24:27 -0000 Hi Lucas, Clare said: “Lucas, if you sent her a virus or anything like that, she’d probably just use that as evidence of how anyone who disagrees with her is wicked and evil, etc. etc. etc. ....” And I concur; plus.... is that woman worth the waste of your expertise? I am not going to waste MY expertise on someone too stupid to read and understand what I write. I know I’m autistic, as does Digby Tantam; and I know that I am a good psychologist (as does Glenys Jones at Brum Uni); and I know that I am a gtood teacher/lecturer.... I know my abilities and what I cannot do; I don’t need the likes of Weintraub making out that I am not who I am. Her response suggests to me that she has very little respect for people who don’t agree with her. That seems to be a controlling type of attitude: “I will only repect you if you agree entirely with me”. Balls to that. Can’t educate people who prefer to remain ignorant, and so I refuse to waste any time on her. Lucas 345 14 May 2004 14:22:29 -0000 The sun has gone in here so I felt that I had to give a more in-depth analysis of Weintrub’s latest comments: “THERE ARE NO OVERT PERSONAL ATTACKS, BUT MICHELLE DAWSON’S TONE IS CONDESCENDING AND SARCASTIC. I WAS TOLD BY SEVERAL OF THE PRACTITIONERS THAT SHE SPOKE WITH THAT SHE CALLED THEM AND REPESENTED HERSELF AS A REPORTER WHO WAS AUTISTIC, PLUGGING THEM FOR INFORMATION AND THEN LATER TWISTING THEIR WORDS AND MEANING INTO VEILED PERSONAL ATTACKS. MICHELLE DAWSON IS TESTIFYING BEFORE THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT THAT ABA FOR CHILDREN SHOULD NOT BE PAID FOR BY THE STATE. PARENTS CONSIDER THAT A SERIOUS THREAT. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU AGREE THAT ABA IS ETHICAL OR NECESSARY, IF THE PARENT BELIEVES THAT THEN THEY HAVE A GOOD REASON TO FEEL THREATENED. I FEEL THAT NOT ONLY ARE ABA PRACTITIONERS ATTACKED, BUT SO IS THE ENTIRE FIELD.” No, if ABA is unethical parents do not have a good reason to feel threatened. Michelle has also stated that present herself as a journalist, and if those practitioners felt their words were twisted, they could have raised these concerns with Michelle. Instead, they decided to defame her. As to the whole field being attacked, is she talking about all ABA or Behaviourism? Either way, the only person that has decided to engage in debate with us on this is John. The others(who think we dislike logic and rational debate) have merely made a lot of noise but have said nothing of substance. “JUST BECAUSE I AM ANGRY AT SOME OF THE POSITIONS THAT PEOPLE WITH HIGH-FUNCTIONING ASPERGERS TAKE BECAUSE I SEE THOSE POSITIONS AS A THREAT TO MY CHILDREN’S ACCESS TO TREATMENT, DOES NOT MAKE ME FULL OF HATE. I DO NOT HATE PEOPLE WITH AUTISM, TWO OF THE PEOPLE I LOVE MOST IN THE WORLD HAPPEN TO HAVE AUTISM. I AM REALLY SICK AND TIRED OF PEOPLE TWISTING THINGS TO MAKE IT SEEM THAT PEOPLE WHO THINK AUTISM IS A DISORDER THAT NEEDS TREATMENT ARE HATEFUL AND UNACCEPTING. YOU BANDY THE WORD “HATE” AROUND A LITTLE TOO FREELY; I DO NOT CLAIM THAT PEOPLE WITH AUTISM ARE INFERIOR, I SAY MY CHILDREN AND CHILDREN LIKE THEM BENEFIT FROM TREATMENT TO MAKE THEIR AUTISTIC SYMPTOMS LESS A DIFFICULTY FOR THEM. YOU CAN ARGUE THAT IF YOU FLAP THAT IS NOT A DIFFICULTY FOR YOU BUT A PREJUDICE FROM SOCIETY, BUT I NOT SPEAKING FOR YOU. YOU, AND OTHERS, HOWEVER, ARE SPEAKING FOR MY CHILDREN. I HAVE GOTTEN LETTERS FROM PEOPLE LIKE FRANK KLEIN STATING THAT MY CHILDREN WILL WANT TO COMMIT SUICIDE BECAUSE OF THEIR MOTHER’S LACK OF ACCEPTANCE. TALK ABOUT HATEFUL. I HAVE SAID BEFORE AND I WILL SAY IT AGAIN, YOU ARE NOT LIKE MY CHILDREN AND SHOULD NOT SPEAK FOR THEM. THEY ARE FAR MORE SEVERELY AFFECTED THAN YOU, FRANK KLEIN, OR MICHELLE DAWSON. I SEE NO REASON OR NEED FOR ANY OF YOU TO CHANGE WHO YOU ARE, EXCEPT TO LEAVE PARENTS OF MORE SEVERELY AFFECTED KIDS TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR TREATMENT. I HAVE NO ARGUMENT THAT YOU ARE ANY OF THE OTHERS SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS WHO YOU ARE WITHOUT BEING JUDGED OR DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. MY KIDS ARE DIFFRENT. THEY ARE MUCH MORE IMPAIRE BY AUTISM THAN YOU OR THE REST OF THE PEOPLE I MENTION EVER HAVE BEEN. MY CHILDREN WOULD NEVER HAVE GONE THROUGH THEIR SCHOOL YEARS WITHOUT A DIAGNOSIS. THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO LEARN TO SPEAK ON THEIR OWN OR WITH OTHER TEACHING METHODS. THEY LEARNED THROUGH A VERBAL BEHAVIOR PROGRAM, WHICH IS A FORM OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS. WHY IS THAT SO WRONG?” You say you are angry at only ‘some’ of the positions we(apparently, you’ve diagnosed us all with AS) take, I’d like to know what the ones you agree with are? You are also being misleading when you say we are denying your children’s access to treatment(what was that you were saying about “twisting words” ?). You are assuming that ABA is the only effective means. I’d like to know what “High functioning Asperger’s” is; I’ve never heard of it? If you were not so hateful, then why are you still talking rubbish? Why are you talking AT us rather than TO us? You are still using person-first langauge too, and twisting words again; many have made it quite clear that the lobby you represent hates Autism, not people with Autism. We are not people with Autism; Autism isn’t an invisible friend that follows us around getting us into trouble, WE are Autism. You also seem to be misguided in what Autism is; a Low-functioner is not MORE Autistic than a High-functioner. The only difference is in speech and observable intelligence, so many Autistics that learn to articulate are found to be highly-intelligent where previously they were thought to be mentally retarded(Tito?). But these differences are not pathological, yet you adhere to the usual Behaviourist view of “what I can’t see doesn’t happen” by stating that we are all blanketly ‘not like your children’ . You accuse us of using “Hate” too freely? What about this “Dawson’s supporters, characterised by hate and personal attacks...”. I either read that on ASAT or FEAT, I forget which. No one I know of ever said that accepting your children and tolerating their behaviours would somehow create a miracle and they would be completely changed over-night, but it’s a start. You don’t even look into the possibility because you don’t listen to a thing we say. You say that you are not speaking for us so we shouldn’t be bothered? I say you are wrong. I am likely to have Autistic children Weintrub, it is genetic and the chances are so much higher with Autistic parents. May I just say that you will never know what it’s like to be Autistic, but my girlfriend could tell me she’s pregnant tomorrow. That’s starting to become my favourite quote now, I don’t even have a girlfriend, but the message is underpinned never the less. ABA’s proponents are claiming that it is “Medically Neccessary” , I don’t know what the law is where you live but here in Britain, to deny a child treatment which is “Medically Neccessary” is considered child-abuse. My future children are likely to be snatched from me by social services because I refuse to allow “Medically Neccessary” ABA to be done on them. YOU are speaking on my behalf wether you like it or not and I won’t stand for it. Of course there are others who will have sent you hateful e-mails; you have done much the same. But there are those of us willing to talk, but all you can is be offensive if you don’t outright ignore us. You seem to think that most Autistics are not like us? Yet one analysis shows that most Autistics do have some form of communication by the age of five. Just note something, a lot of the Autistic people you attack have seen/spoken to far more Autistics than you or most professionals have ever seen; they are our social-circle after all. So who do you think would have the best representational view of Autistic people? And we are trying to tell you why we think you are wrong, but you seem to be dismissing what we are saying and making up your own conclusions. “THEN WHY ARE SO MANY WITH ASPERGERS WHO CLAIM NOT TO HAVE A DISORDER TRYING TO GET DISABILITY? MICHELLE DAWSON IN HER COURT TESTIMONY STATES THAT SHE IS DISABLED DUE TO AUTISM. SHE REFERS TO “MY DISABILITY” WHEN SPEAKING OF AUTISM. PLEASE DON’T TELL ME THE ONLY DISABILITY IS BECAUSE OF SOCIETY’S INTOLERANCE, BLACK PEOPLE AND GAY PEOPLE DO NOT USUALLY GO ON DISABILTY DUE TO SOCIETY’S INTOLERANCE. I DO AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT WHAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SPEAKING OUT AGAINST MY ARTICLE ARE NOT DISABLED AS MY CHILDREN ARE.” Why are you asking David this? Or have you asked Michelle as well? I’m sure if you have, she has given her reply, so there is no need for me to do so. You can only go so far with the comparison to black and gay people, we understand that, why can’t you? Being black or gay doesn’t have any associated problems such as body-langauge, reading facial expression or misunderstanding Neurotypicals because they can’t speak literally. “YOU SHOULD SEE THE PRIVATE EMAILS I’VE GOTTEN. I’VE BEEN TOLD AS MUCH, AND ALSO, AS STATED BEFORE, THAT MY CHILDREN WILL COMMIT SUCIDE BECAUSE OF MY BAD PARENTING. NICE” We actually know this for a fact, both high and low functioners have attempted or succeeded in suicide, though in your sheltered world you wouldn’t know. “BECAUSE I HAVE READ THEM OR HAVE HAD THEM SAID TO ME.CHECK OUT FRANK KLEIN’S WEBSITE SOME TIME, AND SOME OF THE OTHERS. THEY SAY PLENTY OF NASTY HATEFUL THINGS ABOUT ME AND ANY PARENTS WHO TRY TO HELP THEIR CHILD GAIN SKILLS OR BECOME LESS AUTISTIC.” Those nasty hateful things on Frank Klein’s website are called facts, they tend to have that effect on ignorant people. “SHE SOUNDS NOTHING LIKE ANY OF THE PEOPLE WITH AUTISM I KNOW. I DO NOT CONSIDER WHAT SHE HAS AUTISM. ASPERGER’S, MAYBE. BUT NOT AUTISM. SORRY.” Stay in denial, all those who have been exposed as charlatans clung onto denial. Regardless of what you consider to be Autism, she has the Autism DX. You have shown up to this point that you don’t know what Asperger’s Syndrome is either. “IT AFFECTS ME BECAUSE SHE CLAIMS TO SPEAK FOR MY CHILDREN AND SHE ATTEMPTS TO INFLUENCE SERVICES PROVIDED IN CANADA FOR PEOPLE LIKE MY CHILDREN. SHE IS DANGEROUS. “ If she stops any of your children climbing into the bath with a toaster plugged in, I don’t see that as dangerous. Once again, you seem to think that your actions do not affect us, so we shouldn’t be bothered. “MY CHILDREN WILL NEVER FUNCTION AT THE LEVEL OF MICHELLE DAWSON OR HER FRIENDS WHO CLAIM TO HAVE AUTISM. THE DIAGNOSIS IS RATHER FUZZY AND CAN BE GIVEN EVEN WHEN A DIAGNOSIS OF ASPERGERS, WHICH I CONSIDER A SEPARATE BUT RELATED DISORDER, IS MORE APPROPRIATE.” What you consider more appropriate doesn’t matter, your opinions are not based on any facts or objective analysis of anything. It’s wonderful that your children have learned to speak; now they will may able to understand what you mean when you tell them they will never be as able as that nasty postal worker. “IN MY REBUTTAL I SPOKE OF MS. DAWSON BEING ONE OF THE MORE STRIDENT IN THE MOVEMENT. SHE IS NOT THE ONLY ONE CLAIMING THAT PARENTS WHO TEACH THEIR CHILDREN TO BECOME LESS AUTISTIC ARE BEHAVING UNETHICALLY. MANY OTHERS WHO SUPPORT HER SAY THAT WE PARENTS WHO BELIEVE THAT AUTISM IS A DISORDER DO NOT LOVE OUR CHILDREN. I HAVE HEARD THEM SAY IT, AND SHE IMPLIED IT. IN MY OPION. MANY OF YOUR FELLOW “AUTISTICS” HAVE MORE THAN IMPLIED, THEY HAVE COME RIGHT OUT TO ME AND SAID I DO NOT LOVE OR ACCEPT MY CHILDREN. I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT I AM TRYING TO CHANGE MY CHILDREN BECAUSE OF MY OWN INCONVENIENCE FROM THEIR AUTISM. YOU MAY ARGUE THAT MICHELLE DAWSON DID NOT SAY THESE THINGS BUT SHE IS CERTAINLY SUPPORTIVE OF THOSE STATEMENTS. I HAVE NOT HEARD HER SPEAK OUT AGAINST THEM.” You still don’t seem to understand why there are some who do say such nasty things to you. Can you think of any reason what possibly benefit there would be to us for an Autistic child to not learn to be able? I don’t think you can think of any, so stop assuming that’s what our goal is. I have not heard YOU speak out against proven cases of ABA mistreatment, so you are not one to criticise. But I have been wrong in the past and other Autistics have corrected me. Michelle’s website has cleared up a damn lot of things for me. “ACTUALLY, BY ABOUT AGE FIVE IT’S PRETTY EASY TO GET AN IDEA IF A CHILD WILL BE HIGH FUNCTIONING OR LOW FUNCTIONING, OR SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN, ESPECIALLY IF THEY HAVE HAD A LOT OF INTERVENTION. YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO THAT TRACKING HOW QUICKLY A CHILD PICKS UP CONCEPTS AND SKILLS GIVES ONE A PRETTY GOOD IDEA OF HOW THEY WILL FUNCTION AS ADULTS. OF COURSE WE DON’T KNOW EXACTLY HOW, BUT A FIVE YEARS OLD THAT DEVELOPS SPONTANEOUS SPEECH, GESTURES, SOME SOCIAL INTEREST AND WHO CAN FUNCTION IN A CLASSROOM IS GOING TO DO BETTER AS AN ADULT THAN A CHILD WHO HAS NOT DEVELOPED SPEECH OR MUCH RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE DESPITE INTENSIVE TEACHING, AND WHO HAS SEVERELY SELF-INJURIOUS OR AGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS. GIMMEE A BREAK.” I was discovered to be a math genius in school, do you suppose I now work in some fantastic job related to mathmatic where I am respected? Or a member of MENSA? No, you are wrong to say that what a child can do in their early years has any bearing on what they will be capable of as an adult. There were very few concepts that I found troubling to grasp, but I never managed to achieve my dream of being a programmer. Why do you thinbk that is? There is also no such thing as “spontaneous speech” or ‘spontaneous development’ or even ‘spontaneous recovery’; these are just ideas made up to dismiss the existence of high-functioning Autistics, putting everything down to being ‘spontaneous’ . There are actually plenty of Autistics who fit the bill for not having alot of speech, no social interest that do self-injure and have aggressive behaviours that actually manage to pass off quite well in soceity. The difference is that YOU don’t see it. “OFF OF MEDICATION, EMILY IS SELF-INJURIOUS AND UNHAPPY. WE HAVE TRIED TO TAKE HER OFF OF THE LOW DOSE SHE IS ON WITHOUT SUCCESS. SHE IS MISERABLE. WE DO NOT HAVE HER ON MEDICATIONS TO MAKE HER CONFORM OR BE MORE SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE. WE HAVE HER ON MEDICATIONS BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY WAY SHE CAN REMAIN SELF-INJURIOUS AND WITHOUT DEPRESSION.” Medication does not deal with the reason WHY she self-harms or is unhappy, why can’t you see this is irresponsible? “SAID SHE MOST LIKELY WOULD SAY, I DID NOT SAY SHE SAID I WOULD ABUSE MY CHILDREN.” Now you are resorting to Semantics, you asre still making a personal attack on Michelle Dawson. “I KNOW, BUT SHE IS A POSTAL WORKER BY TRADE. SHE HAS NOT BEEN TRAINED IN THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN WITH AUTISM. SHE IS VERY BRIGHT, BUT THAT ALONE IS NOT QUALIFICATION FOR SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE ETHICS OF ABA, ANY MORE THAN HAVING SPINA BIFIDA MAKES ONE A SPINA BIFIDA EXPERT.” Do you believe we should all live in a Technocracy then? “NOT OUTRIGHT, BUT AGAIN, HER REMARKS WERE VERY CONDESCENDING, SMUG AND SARCASTIC.” It’s called satire, it’s very good at making light of serious issues which you are not willing to address. “EXACTLY. THEN WHY IS SHE SPEAKING TO THE CANADIAN COURTS ABOUT NOT ALLOWING ABA TO BE PAID FOR FOR CHILDREN SHE HAS NEVER MET?” Because the difference between high and low functioning isn’t pathological a lot of Autistics are asking “What if it was me? “ and in some cases, they did go through such treatments. “THANKS, BUT YOU HAVE NOT BEEN THERE. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOME OF YOU FOLKS STAY UP ALL NIGHT WITH MY CHILD WHO IS SCREAMING, WATCH HER WASTE AWAY, INJUR HERSELF, REFUSE TO EAT FOR WEEKS; COME TO MY HOUSE AND JUDGE ME, TELL ME WHAT I AM DOING WRONG AND HOW I SHOULD DO IT DIFFERENTLY. IT’S STATEMENT LIKE THE ABOVE THAT FUEL THE OUTRAGE THAT CAUSED ME TO RESPOND TO MICHELLE DAWSON’S LETTER.” Now you are assuming this is something we haven’t seen before. I’ve actually done it myself as a child. I would welcome the chance to watch how you run the home and tell you what you are doing wrong. “GOOD LORD. I CANNOT BELIEVE THIS. YOU ARE SAYING IF MY THERAPISTS WERE NICE SHE WOULD NOT HAVE STARVED HERSELF?” You are using a generalisation, but, yes. Is that so hard to imagine? “I GUESS THAT’S BECAUSE IN YOUR PRACTICE YOU DO NOT COME ACROSS CHILDREN WITH MODERATE TO SEVERE AUTISM. IF ALL YOU TREAT IS CHILDREN WHO CAN UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF DISCRIMINATION, THEN I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY YOU DON’T HAVE ANY IDEA WHY AUTISM IS A DISABILITY. I DO NOT CONSIDER YOU TO HAVE A DISABILTY RELATED TO AUTISM FROM READING YOUR RESPONSES TO MY ARTICLE, NOR DOES MICHELLE DAWSON. MY CHILDREN MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR DISABILITY BY THE STATE OF WISCONSIN AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AS DO THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WITH AUTISM THAT I KNOW. THAT’S WHY I SAY YOU AND SHE DO NOT HAVE WHAT MY KIDS HAVE AND SHOULD NOT SPEAK FOR THEM.” Assumptions again, you are full of them. I’m going to say something controversial here: NO WONDER YOUR CHILDREN HAVE SUCH DIFFICULTY IF WE SEEM TO HAVE TROUBLE GETTING ANYTHING THROUGH TO YOU. “ IT WAS NOT MEANT TO BE A REASONED SCIENTIFIC PIECE, IT WAS AN EMOTIONAL STATEMENT FROM A MOTHER WHO FINDS MICHELLE DAWSON DANGEROUS.” Yes, published on a website dedicated to ‘science’ , I would have thought that somethign more objective would have been used. Instead we had the misinformed opinion of a village idiot. Clare 344 14 May 2004 12:37:12 -0000 Lucas, please don’t send her a virus or anything like that. She’d probably just use that as evidence of how anyone who disagrees with her is wicked and evil, etc. etc. etc. .... She’s clearly not open to reason, and not able or not willing to understand anything anyone might say, however calm, rational or well-reasoned. So I think it’s not worth wasting energy trying to change her mind privately - it makes more sense to speak out publicly and change any minds that can be changed. (I did send an e-mail to ASAT protesting about Weintraub’s article, and pointing out that I am an autistic spectrum person who works with children with severe autism, so I really can’t be accused of not wanting children to be educated or not caring about their welfare. Didn’t get any reply at all, unsurprisingly I guess people like me don’t exist in their world view). Ralph Smith 343 14 May 2004 12:32:56 -0000 More notes on what the layman (like me) might find/learn/be-misled-by in seeking a general explanation of <i>behaviourism</i>: <i>Wikipedia</i> seems very thorough (but still a bit too ‘dense’ for me): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism <i>Encarta 2000</i> is smoothly written, but maybe just ‘slick’, considering the author: <i>Sidney W. Bijou Professor Emeritus, University of Illinois Adjunct Professor of Psychology, University of Arizona Author of</i> Contributions of Behavior Modification to Education <i>and</i> Behavior Analysis of Child Develpment [sic] “[Watson] claimed that emotional reactions are learned in much the same way as other skills.” This strikes me as mildly ‘Frankenstein’, assuming the idea still exists today. Clare 342 14 May 2004 12:13:58 -0000 John wrote, “Fair criticism, I say what I can and have been passed off before as a “novice behaviorist”, which is true enough.” Actually, that was intended as a collective “you”. There are plenty of non-novice, extremely famous behaviourists, who would be in an ideal position to speak out on the subject of good practice and enable the profession to publicly disclaim bad and abusive practices. They haven’t done so. “Okay, that’s a fair criticism, but not all behaviorist agree on what makes bad DTT. I have seen some DTT that I thought was excellent and ethically sound but another young radical behaviorists called it “poorly done”.” In that case, you have a problem. What you seem to be saying on the one hand is that things like the Sumlin notes shouldn’t be used to judge ABA/DTT because they are examples of bad, unethical practice. But then on the other hand, you seem to be saying that behaviourists can’t be expected to speak out publicly and make it clear that these things are bad practice because behaviourists don’t actually agree with one another on what is or isn’t bad practice. And apparently the need to present a united front to outsiders is more important than the need to disown abuse or establish ethical standards. David Andrews ApEdPsych 341 14 May 2004 12:10:59 -0000 >it seems to be the only thing that will put it into context that Kit can understand. Actually, I’m not sure she can understand anything, which is probably why the FEAT in Wisconsin were happy to have her write that fuckwitted ASAT article in the first place. Lucas 340 14 May 2004 12:10:29 -0000 Is that supposed to be her forgiving you for something? Notice how she apoligises for what an angry person you are and that you were upset by her response, but she doesn’t apoligise for what she has said. Now that you have printed her e-mail address, I’m tempted to send her something nasty in an attachment to fuck with her hard-drive. David Andrews ApEdPsych 339 14 May 2004 11:53:52 -0000 Is Kit Weintraub nasty? read this and cast a vote. -------------------------------------------------- Vastaanottaja dna138@jippii.fi Lähetetty 14.5.2004 14:02:54 Lähettäjä Kit Weintraub <lweintra@tds.net> Aihe Re: I am sorry you are such an angry person. I am sorry you were so upset by my response. The fact that you could talk when you were three proves my point. Perhaps you are joking. That is not what I would call a significant delay. I would hardly call it "classically autistic". I am sure there are plenty of doctors willing to diagnose autism when another diagnosis might be more appropriate. I am not saying you are normal, just that you do not have what my kids have. My children and most children I know with autism are far less able to communicate than you. I think the biggest problem you have is your anger and your chip on your soldier, not your autism. Just my opinion. I'll tell you what, you stop harrassing me, and stop writing ridiculous responses to what I have to say, especially when you know nothing about me and are obviously very confused, and I will stop responding to you. Lucas 338 14 May 2004 11:42:00 -0000 I just re-read that post. How can text have a 'tone' of sarcasm? Irony is intelligent and has class, Sarcasm is just a stupid pot-shot. I know who uses Irony and who uses Sarcasm. Lucas 337 14 May 2004 11:38:16 -0000 I once ate a tub of Play-doh. Hey, maybe that causes Autism! Lucas 336 14 May 2004 11:36:08 -0000 From the Hyperlexic's mouth: She hasn't said anything to that isn't to the effect of what she has said already. I was particuarly intrigued by her attempt at "Ad Hominem Tu Quoque" ; stating that Michelle says she's not disabled but she claims disability. I would point her in the direction of that Down's Syndrome soceity, it seems to be the only thing that will put it into context that Kit can understand. Clare 335 14 May 2004 11:34:11 -0000 David Andrews ApEdPsych 334 14 May 2004 09:21:53 -0000 Dig this bit, folks.... I really had to reply to one part of her e-mail... ---------------------------------------------------- Mrs Weintraub, “I DO NOT CONSIDER YOU TO HAVE A DISABILTY RELATED TO AUTISM FROM READING YOUR RESPONSES TO MY ARTICLE, NOR DOES MICHELLE DAWSON. <snip> THAT’S WHY I SAY YOU AND SHE DO NOT HAVE WHAT MY KIDS HAVE AND SHOULD NOT SPEAK FOR THEM.” You really ARE trying to be offensive, aren’t you?! You can not make a diagnosis from my writing without having met me, and I purposefully said that I would not do that regarding your children. I stood by what I said regarding them, but you still insist on denying my being autistic, when in fact I was diagnosed as such by a clinician FAR BETTER QUALIFIED THAN YOU WILL EVER BE! (Prof Digby Tantam) And nor do you know what my own development was like. I was actually a classically autistic kid, no speech until I was three years old, and no inclination to interact with anyone. I had difficulties in generalising and so on, and there has also been an ongoing dyslexic-dyspraxic difficulty: my question to you is, then, are you a qualified psychiatrist/psychologist who can decide that I am not autistic without having a clear developmental history from me and without having met me? And I am doing okay even without the so-called “medically necessary” “scientifically proven” “treatment for autism” that you say is essential for autistic children. If I were you, I would keep my mouth shut until I was better versed in science and more able to put together a cogent argument. Your continued contact with me - unless I receive a formal apology for you impudence and your arrogance regarding my diagnosis - will be seen as harrassment and will be dealt with as such. D. N. Andrews ----------------------------------------------------- An I right in thinking that she was trying to be nasty? David Andrews ApEdPsych 333 14 May 2004 08:54:04 -0000 Re: my post just there, Am I going mad or is Weintraub making assumptions about me and my practice that she cannot uphold? I shall be taking time out to deal with that mail from Weintraub more carefully when I return to Finland, but I am just curious as to whether any of you folks think she actually replied to me or tried to force an opinion on me? And was she being reasoned in her response to what I said? Or is she having a pop at me too? David Andrews ApEdPsych 332 14 May 2004 08:27:00 -0000 Sending from a pal's computer in the south of London... I got a reply to my commentary on Kit Weintraub's "rebuttal"... I post it here for comment... ---------------------------------------------------- Dear Mr. Andrews, I read your “Critical Analysis of Kit Weintraub’s Attack on Michelle Dawson” and would like to answer some of your comments and questions. My comments in caps. Guest Voice: A Mother’s Perspective Kit Weintraub >Recently, ASAT learned of material posted on the Web written by Michelle Dawson. While it is not ASAT’s usual policy to address every opinion on the Web that we find objectionable, fallacious, or dangerous, the level of animosity toward parents and professionals seeking Applied Behavior Analysis services for children is so high in this material, and the extent of misinformation regarding ABA seems, in our opinion, so misleading and harmful to families, that ASAT has elected to publish a response from someone on the “front lines:” a mother fighting for her children. Kit Weintraub, mother of Emily, 10, and Nicholas, 7, is a Board member of Families for Early Autism Treatment (FEAT), Wisconsin. *Immediately I am worried. I have read this article, and there are no personal attacks on ANY ABA-practitioners. Nor is Michelle misrepresenting the ABA methods: the things she says about the practices have been known to be true. And why the weird battle mentality? Most people of reasonable mind would see that as not being the rational response to what autism is. THERE ARE NO OVERT PERSONAL ATTACKS, BUT MICHELLE DAWSON’S TONE IS CONDESCENDING AND SARCASTIC. I WAS TOLD BY SEVERAL OF THE PRACTITIONERS THAT SHE SPOKE WITH THAT SHE CALLED THEM AND REPESENTED HERSELF AS A REPORTER WHO WAS AUTISTIC, PLUGGING THEM FOR INFORMATION AND THEN LATER TWISTING THEIR WORDS AND MEANING INTO VEILED PERSONAL ATTACKS. MICHELLE DAWSON IS TESTIFYING BEFORE THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT THAT ABA FOR CHILDREN SHOULD NOT BE PAID FOR BY THE STATE. PARENTS CONSIDER THAT A SERIOUS THREAT. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU AGREE THAT ABA IS ETHICAL OR NECESSARY, IF THE PARENT BELIEVES THAT THEN THEY HAVE A GOOD REASON TO FEEL THREATENED. I FEEL THAT NOT ONLY ARE ABA PRACTITIONERS ATTACKED, BUT SO IS THE ENTIRE FIELD. >My children have autism; they are not “autistics.” What’s the difference? The difference is that autism refers to a neurological disorder, hereditary in nature. Autism, according to the vast majority of medical experts today, causes severely abnormal development, and without appropriate treatment it can condemn those affected to a life of isolation and dependency. “Autistics” is a rather new politically-correct term that I find troubling; it is a label that attempts to define people with autism as members of an elite group of human beings who differ from the rest of us only in terms of their unique talents and their superior way of experiencing the world. *I should like to point out here that nobody has get ever PROVEN autism to be a medical problem. ANY MORE THAN SCHIZOPHRENIA, ANXIETY, DEPRESSION, OCD OR OTHER ILLNESS CAN BE PROVEN AS MEDICAL CONCLUSIVELY, THOUGH THEY ARE HIGHLY CONSIDERED TO BE MEDICAL AND TREATED WITH MEDICATIONS. Nor can it be said to cause anything, given that autism is specifically defined only in behavioural terms, with no theory as to how the behaviours clustered there. Autistics is, as a term used by autistic people, is nowhere near the politically correct terminology that Weintraub is claiming here: she should consider her research more carefully. And as for a an elite group superior way of experiencing the world? I have never seen that as something put forward by an autistic; where has Weintraub been looking? Has she no clue that this would of course be offensive to autistic people? Or is she so hateful that she doesnt really care? JUST BECAUSE I AM ANGRY AT SOME OF THE POSITIONS THAT PEOPLE WITH HIGH-FUNCTIONING ASPERGERS TAKE BECAUSE I SEE THOSE POSITIONS AS A THREAT TO MY CHILDREN’S ACCESS TO TREATMENT, DOES NOT MAKE ME FULL OF HATE. I DO NOT HATE PEOPLE WITH AUTISM, TWO OF THE PEOPLE I LOVE MOST IN THE WORLD HAPPEN TO HAVE AUTISM. I AM REALLY SICK AND TIRED OF PEOPLE TWISTING THINGS TO MAKE IT SEEM THAT PEOPLE WHO THINK AUTISM IS A DISORDER THAT NEEDS TREATMENT ARE HATEFUL AND UNACCEPTING. YOU BANDY THE WORD “HATE” AROUND A LITTLE TOO FREELY; I DO NOT CLAIM THAT PEOPLE WITH AUTISM ARE INFERIOR, I SAY MY CHILDREN AND CHILDREN LIKE THEM BENEFIT FROM TREATMENT TO MAKE THEIR AUTISTIC SYMPTOMS LESS A DIFFICULTY FOR THEM. YOU CAN ARGUE THAT IF YOU FLAP THAT IS NOT A DIFFICULTY FOR YOU BUT A PREJUDICE FROM SOCIETY, BUT I NOT SPEAKING FOR YOU. YOU, AND OTHERS, HOWEVER, ARE SPEAKING FOR MY CHILDREN. I HAVE GOTTEN LETTERS FROM PEOPLE LIKE FRANK KLEIN STATING THAT MY CHILDREN WILL WANT TO COMMIT SUICIDE BECAUSE OF THEIR MOTHER’S LACK OF ACCEPTANCE. TALK ABOUT HATEFUL. I HAVE SAID BEFORE AND I WILL SAY IT AGAIN, YOU ARE NOT LIKE MY CHILDREN AND SHOULD NOT SPEAK FOR THEM. THEY ARE FAR MORE SEVERELY AFFECTED THAN YOU, FRANK KLEIN, OR MICHELLE DAWSON. I SEE NO REASON OR NEED FOR ANY OF YOU TO CHANGE WHO YOU ARE, EXCEPT TO LEAVE PARENTS OF MORE SEVERELY AFFECTED KIDS TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR TREATMENT. I HAVE NO ARGUMENT THAT YOU ARE ANY OF THE OTHERS SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS WHO YOU ARE WITHOUT BEING JUDGED OR DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. MY KIDS ARE DIFFRENT. THEY ARE MUCH MORE IMPAIRE BY AUTISM THAN YOU OR THE REST OF THE PEOPLE I MENTION EVER HAVE BEEN. MY CHILDREN WOULD NEVER HAVE GONE THROUGH THEIR SCHOOL YEARS WITHOUT A DIAGNOSIS. THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO LEARN TO SPEAK ON THEIR OWN OR WITH OTHER TEACHING METHODS. THEY LEARNED THROUGH A VERBAL BEHAVIOR PROGRAM, WHICH IS A FORM OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS. WHY IS THAT SO WRONG? >Recently, I learned of self-proclaimed “high-functioning autistics” who are increasingly making themselves heard, claiming to be a voice for the autistic population. These people imply that our children’s autism is somehow one variation of human personality; that autism is not a disorder and therefore should not be treated with medication or scientifically based intensive behavioral intervention. “Autistics” (among whom they include our children) are who they are, and are not willing parties to changing their autism. Autism is the “very core of their being”. Any attempt to bring “autistics” closer to the realm of normalcy is ethically wrong; it should be condemned. Parents are depicted as selfish perfectionist control-freaks (shades of “refrigerator mothers!”), and professionals who have devoted their life to helping our children are painted as cold manipulative child-abusers. *The autistics Weintraub refers to here are not actually claiming to be the voice of the autistic population. Such people ARE, however, claiming back their own voices, because they are not satisfied with the way in which the autistic population is being represented. CLAIM YOUR OWN VOICE, DO NOT CLAIM MY CHILDREN’S VOICES. Autism as a personality variant? Actually, yes, it could be seen as such: certainly, Hans Asperger saw it as such. THEN WHY ARE SO MANY WITH ASPERGERS WHO CLAIM NOT TO HAVE A DISORDER TRYING TO GET DISABILITY? MICHELLE DAWSON IN HER COURT TESTIMONY STATES THAT SHE IS DISABLED DUE TO AUTISM. SHE REFERS TO “MY DISABILITY” WHEN SPEAKING OF AUTISM. PLEASE DON’T TELL ME THE ONLY DISABILITY IS BECAUSE OF SOCIETY’S INTOLERANCE, BLACK PEOPLE AND GAY PEOPLE DO NOT USUALLY GO ON DISABILTY DUE TO SOCIETY’S INTOLERANCE. I DO AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT WHAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SPEAKING OUT AGAINST MY ARTICLE ARE NOT DISABLED AS MY CHILDREN ARE. And while the idea of normalisingautistics is considered, by autistics, as wrong (as is the normalisation of thalidomide-affected people by that part of the general population; as evidenced in a BBC Radio 4 interview programme), nobody on any autistics website that I have seen (and as one who has seen very very many of these) has ever suggested that parents are selfish perfectionist control freaks, nor professionals in similarly nasty terms. YOU SHOULD SEE THE PRIVATE EMAILS I’VE GOTTEN. I’VE BEEN TOLD AS MUCH, AND ALSO, AS STATED BEFORE, THAT MY CHILDREN WILL COMMIT SUCIDE BECAUSE OF MY BAD PARENTING. NICE, HUH? Why is Weintraub saying these things? BECAUSE I HAVE READ THEM OR HAVE HAD THEM SAID TO ME.CHECK OUT FRANK KLEIN’S WEBSITE SOME TIME, AND SOME OF THE OTHERS. THEY SAY PLENTY OF NASTY HATEFUL THINGS ABOUT ME AND ANY PARENTS WHO TRY TO HELP THEIR CHILD GAIN SKILLS OR BECOME LESS AUTISTIC. >Michelle Dawson’s voice is one of the more strident of this movement. I do not know her, nor where she is from, nor what her background is. Frankly, after reading her essay, I have no desire to engage in any debate with anyone of such extreme and ideological views. However, for the sake of my children and other children who have autism, I feel it is important to address the assertions she has chosen to broadcast on the Internet about “autistics.” She herself claims to be autistic, but it is not clear who, if anyone, diagnosed her with the condition; she never explains the circumstances of her diagnosis. Is she autistic? She appears to be educated and highly verbal (although her endless, repetitive arguments do cry out for some serious editing). Moreover, while her continuous bashing of ABA and its practitioners is full of inconsistencies, leaps of logic, and personal attacks, one obvious reality that emerges from her meanderings is that she is not at all like my children, or any of the children I know who have autism. *In this paragraph, it is clear that Weintraub has every intention of causing injury and distress to Michelle Dawson. OH PLEASE. I FEEL SHE HAS DONE THE SAME IN HERS. As for not wishing to ever meet Ms Dawson that is Weintraubs prerogative. It is not, however, her prerogative to question the veracity of Ms Dawsons diagnosis as autistic. SHE SOUNDS NOTHING LIKE ANY OF THE PEOPLE WITH AUTISM I KNOW. I DO NOT CONSIDER WHAT SHE HAS AUTISM. ASPERGER’S, MAYBE. BUT NOT AUTISM. SORRY. If I (as a psychologist) were to suggest that Weintraubs children were not autistic or did not have autism, as she might put it, I can not be assured that Weintraub and her family would not be adversely affected by such a comment. IT AFFECTS ME BECAUSE SHE CLAIMS TO SPEAK FOR MY CHILDREN AND SHE ATTEMPTS TO INFLUENCE SERVICES PROVIDED IN CANADA FOR PEOPLE LIKE MY CHILDREN. SHE IS DANGEROUS. And it would indeed be wrong of me to do.. either as a psychologist or as a private person. So what actually justifies Weintraubs refutation or query of Ms Dawsons diagnosis of being autistic? Nothing, as far as I know. And, considering that this statement is about a paper written by Ms Dawson, I do not understand what Ms Dawsons diagnosis actually has (in terms of relevance) to do with this statement. The fact of Ms Dawsons not being like (Weintraubs) children does Weintraub not think that children actually develop? MY CHILDREN WILL NEVER FUNCTION AT THE LEVEL OF MICHELLE DAWSON OR HER FRIENDS WHO CLAIM TO HAVE AUTISM. THE DIAGNOSIS IS RATHER FUZZY AND CAN BE GIVEN EVEN WHEN A DIAGNOSIS OF ASPERGERS, WHICH I CONSIDER A SEPARATE BUT RELATED DISORDER, IS MORE APPROPRIATE. Even autistic ones? The vast body of evidence in research over the last 30 to 40 years suggests that they do. >Yes, I know, autism is a spectrum disorder, but Dawson, while clearly more lacking in insight and empathy than my own two children, is just as clearly not impaired in her ability to communicate verbally. Dawson appears to be so vastly different than most people I know with autism, that she cannot and should not pretend to understand what it’s like to be them, much less have the audacity to speak for them. *So far, I have not seen (in a statement purporting to pass comment on a paper by an autistic author) anything that resembles a reasoned comment on that paper. I AM A PARENT, NOT A PROFESSOR. I AM FURIOUS THAT MICHELLE DAWSON WOULD THREATEN THE CHANCES OF A CHILD RECEIVING TREATMENT. IF YOU DO NOT THINK THAT TREATMENT IS RIGHT FOR YOUR CHILD, OR NECESSARY, FINE. DON’T DO IT. BUT DON’T GO ON THE INTERNET AND CALL THE TREATMENT THAT I PROVIDE FOR MY CHILD UNETHICAL. YOU HAVE NO IDEA NOR DOES SHE WHAT OUR TREATMENT USING PRINCIPLES OF ABA LOOKS LIKE. ABA IS NOT ALL LOVAAS-ALA THE 1987 STUDY, INCIDENTALLY, AND MOST CHILDREN I KNOW ARE NOT FORCED TO SIT IN A CHAIR AND PERFORM. THEY ARE INVITED TO INTERACT AND REINFORCED ON THEIR OWN TERMS. THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH A PROGRAM IN WHICH A CHILD IS UNHAPPY. MANY ABA PROGRAMS DO NOT BELIEVE IN TEACHING ROTE RESPONSES, BUT USE A MORE FUNCTIONAL APPROACH. FOR SOME CHILDREN, TEACHING ROTE RESPONSES CAN LEAD TO HAVING THOSE RESPONSES BECOME NATURAL. I REMEMBER TEACHING MY SON “FIGURES OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSIONS.” AT FIRST THEY SOUNDED RATHER HOLLOW, BUT NOW HE USES THEM REGULARLY BECAUSE WE DEMONSTRATED THEM IN CONTEXT. At all. Ms Dawson did not personally attack ANY practitioners of ABA methods, I DISAGREE. SHE DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENTED SEVERAL OF THEM, JIM MULICK FOR ONE.nor did she make any inconsistencies or leaps of logic to my knowledge; I THINK IT IS A LEAP OF LOGIC TO SAY THAT ABA METHODS ARE UNETHICAL FOR THE REASONS SHE STATED. I ALSO THINK THAT THERE IS A LEAP OF LOGIC IN HER THINKING THAT HER EXPERIENCE IS RELEVANT TO THE EXPERIENCE OF CHILDREN WITH AUTISM WHO ARE MORE SEVERELY AFFECTED. moreover, I did not see any meanderings. In my role as an associate editor of the Good Autism Practice journal, I might have had reason to edit the text, in discussion with Ms Dawson herself. >But let me address what is perhaps one of the most harmful subtexts of her essay: The fact that my children have an abnormality of development does not mean that I do not love my children for who they are, as she so continuously implies. I love my children, but I do not love autism. My children are not part of a select group of superior beings named “autistics.” They have autism, a neurological impairment devastating in its implications for their lives, if left untreated. I do not know the cause of autism, but research tells me the most likely possibility is that there is some kind of genetic anomaly, perhaps influenced by environmental factors. In other words, it is no more normal to be autistic than it is to have spina bifida. As with any other condition that would threaten their future and their happiness, I do as much as I can to help them be as functional and as normal as possible. And no, “normal” to me does not mean “a cookie-cutter robot-child, trained to do my will.” It means: “able, like most people without autism, to lead an independent, purpose-filled life.” Able to speak, able to communicate, able to form and keep relationships. I have spent most of the last eight years poring over research on the treatment of autism. I have attended lectures and spent hours preparing materials for my children’s ABA therapy programs. I do all of this because I love my children and because this treatment has helped them develop language, cognitive, self-help and social skills, all things that they would not have acquired without this treatment. *At no point did Ms Dawson ever claim that parents using ABA did not love their children! IN MY REBUTTAL I SPOKE OF MS. DAWSON BEING ONE OF THE MORE STRIDENT IN THE MOVEMENT. SHE IS NOT THE ONLY ONE CLAIMING THAT PARENTS WHO TEACH THEIR CHILDREN TO BECOME LESS AUTISTIC ARE BEHAVING UNETHICALLY. MANY OTHERS WHO SUPPORT HER SAY THAT WE PARENTS WHO BELIEVE THAT AUTISM IS A DISORDER DO NOT LOVE OUR CHILDREN. I HAVE HEARD THEM SAY IT, AND SHE IMPLIED IT. IN MY OPION. MANY OF YOUR FELLOW “AUTISTICS” HAVE MORE THAN IMPLIED, THEY HAVE COME RIGHT OUT TO ME AND SAID I DO NOT LOVE OR ACCEPT MY CHILDREN. I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT I AM TRYING TO CHANGE MY CHILDREN BECAUSE OF MY OWN INCONVENIENCE FROM THEIR AUTISM. YOU MAY ARGUE THAT MICHELLE DAWSON DID NOT SAY THESE THINGS BUT SHE IS CERTAINLY SUPPORTIVE OF THOSE STATEMENTS. I HAVE NOT HEARD HER SPEAK OUT AGAINST THEM. As for a neurological impairment, even one of the researchers at the Yale Child Study Center (a geneticist) accepted the role of environmental factors (both physical and social) in the aetiology of what we currently describe as autism. As for autistic children not being able to develop without the treatments that Weintraubs have had: wrong. There is no proof. I was a socially unresponsive and non-verbal child, who ended up (as a 34 yr old) getting a diagnosis of being autistic (Asperger syndrome) yes, by TWO appropriately qualified persons (one of whom was Professor Digby Tantam at Sheffield University, UK). And I developed rather well without the ABA, as have many other autistic people whom I know, or know of. The claim of not being able to make developmental gains without these treatments well, since development is not THAT easy to predict, ACTUALLY, BY ABOUT AGE FIVE IT’S PRETTY EASY TO GET AN IDEA IF A CHILD WILL BE HIGH FUNCTIONING OR LOW FUNCTIONING, OR SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN, ESPECIALLY IF THEY HAVE HAD A LOT OF INTERVENTION. YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO THAT TRACKING HOW QUICKLY A CHILD PICKS UP CONCEPTS AND SKILLS GIVES ONE A PRETTY GOOD IDEA OF HOW THEY WILL FUNCTION AS ADULTS. OF COURSE WE DON’T KNOW EXACTLY HOW, BUT A FIVE YEARS OLD THAT DEVELOPS SPONTANEOUS SPEECH, GESTURES, SOME SOCIAL INTEREST AND WHO CAN FUNCTION IN A CLASSROOM IS GOING TO DO BETTER AS AN ADULT THAN A CHILD WHO HAS NOT DEVELOPED SPEECH OR MUCH RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE DESPITE INTENSIVE TEACHING, AND WHO HAS SEVERELY SELF-INJURIOUS OR AGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS. GIMMEE A BREAK.to give a very strongly certain opinion that development would not have developed no, I dont think so. I would never close out the possibility of spontaneous developmental gains mostly because I am not a behaviourist: I am influenced by Lewin, Vygotsky, Järvilehto and Kelly in my psychological practices. I find that their ideas are far superior to the behaviourist arguments as ideas about how development actually occurs. THAT IS YOUR OPINION. I AM ENTITLED TO MINE. IF YOU GO TO COURT TO HAVE MY CHILDREN’S SERVICES DISCONTINUED THEN IT IS MY BUSINESS. I AM NOT HURTING YOU, MICHELLE DAWSON IS HURTING CHILDREN WITH AUTISM IN MY OPINION AND THE OPINION OF MANY PARENTS. Most reasonable psychologists do. I dont hear of psychologists from the socio-cultural or constructivist or other backgrounds becoming behaviourists, precisely for that reason. I have heard of a number of behaviourists shifting paradigms substantially also for that reason. And I have colleagues who are behaviour therapists using ABA techniques! >Since Dawson seems to find this point so hard to understand, let me spell it out: Both children developed normally, and then began losing skills in their second year of life. The sheer agony of watching one’s children disappear before one’s very eyes is something that no one should have to experience. My daughter was seriously self-injurious. My husband and I had to take shifts with her through the night for years because she rarely slept for more than two hours at a time. Both children screamed inconsolably for most of the day for no reason that we could understand. They were unable to communicate and miserably unhappy. Yes, unhappy not basking in the serenity and joy of being autistic, but in fact, terrified and sad and isolated. *Weintraubs experience of her childrens developmental path is, absolutely, a very sad event to see. And it is not something that someone would wish upon their worst enemy. It would be interesting to know what the external pressures on the children were, WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? ARE WE GOING DOWN THE “MAYBE WEINTRAUB DID IT TO HER CHILDREN? ROUTE AGAIN? WHAT “EXTERNAL PRESSURES ARE YOU SPEAKING ABOUT?” MY EXPERIENCE VERY CLEARLY SHOWS ME THAT THEIR AUTISM IS A PHYSICAL DISORDER, NOT A VARIATION OF SPEECH. or if any neurological anomalies actually showed up in examination (e.g., in CT/CAT/MRI/etc). Any number of things could have brought about those developmental reversals. I do not blame the Weintraubs here, REALLY? incidentally; but I am aware of many possibly influences on development and behaviour as an applied educational psychologist. ANY INFLUENCE WAS PHSYCIAL/MEDICAL. I DON’T KNOW WHY THEY ARE AUTISTIC, BUT THEY DID NOT APPEAR TO BE AND THEN THEY WERE. EMILY HAS AN IRREGULAR EEG, NICK DOES NOT. NICK HAS A HUGE HEAD. BOTH KIDS BEHAVED ABNORMALLY IN UTERO, MOVING MORE SLOWLY THAN ONE WOULD EXPECT, ACCORDING TO THE OBGYN. And who said that there was any serenity and joy in being autistic? I never saw that on an autistics website either! Facts, Weintraub, facts! I HAVE HEARD PLENTY OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH AUTISM IS THE LACK OF ACCEPTANCE. PERHAPS SERENITY AND JOY ARE A STRETCH, BUT EMILY CRIED AND WAS SELF-INJURIOUS FOR MOST OF HER EARLY CHILDHOOD. AS IN, CRIED ALL NIGHT, CRIED WHEN HELD, CRIED WHEN ROCKED, CRIED WHEN LEFT ALONE, CRIED WHEN FOOD/DRINK WERE OFFERED...OBVIOUSLY SHE WAS SUFFERING. THE CRYING GOT WORSE AS SHE DESCENDED INTO AUTISM. SHE BEGAN TO SLEEP LESS, HAD NIGH TERRORS CONSTANTLY. IT WAS REALLY HARD TO SEE HER SUFFER. IT IS HARD TO HEAR PEOPLE SAY HER ONLY PROBLEM IS HER MOTHER’S LACK OF ACCEPTANCE. I WAS THERE. SHE WAS NOT HAPPY. TODAY SHE IS HAPPY, MOST OF THE TIME. SHE ENJOYS ASKING FOR THINGS, PLAYING WITH HER TOYS, WATCHING HER VIDEOS, SHE SEEKS ME OUT. THIS HAPPENED AFTER SHE WAS ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WHAT SHE WANTED. I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY SOME OF MICHELLE DAWSON’S SUPPORTERS WHEN I EXPLAINED THIS THAT THE ONLY REASON SHE CRIED IN CHILDHOOD WAS BECAUSE I DIDN’T LEAVE HER ALONG; THAT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TAUGHT HER TO TALK BUT JUST LEFT HER IN A QUIET ROOM, WITH LOW LIGHTS. THAT I WAS THE PROBELM. INCIDENTALLY, WE TRIED THE LOW LIGHTS AND LACK OF SENSORY INPUT. SHE CRIED ANYWAY, DIDN’T SEEM TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. I NEVER WAS ABLE TO FIND SENSORY ISSUES THAT COULD BE HELPED BY ANYTHING. LOW LIGHTS, SOOTHING BATHS, BEING LEFT ALONE, SWINGING, BEING ROLLED IN A BLANKET, WEIGHTED VESTS, TRAMPOLINE, NONE OF IT MATTERED. FOR EMILY, LEARNING TO COMMUNICATE WAS SUCH A HELP TO EASING HER FRUSTATIONS. OF COURSE IN EARLY CHILDHOOD THE CRYING WAS OBVIOUSLY ABOUT DISCOMFORT, BUT I STILL CANNOT FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT THAT WAS. IT WAS HEARTBREAKING TO WATCH HELPLESSLY. >Thankfully, for Emily, we discovered medication that helped improve her behaviors, (something that undoubtedly Dawson would also find morally reprehensible) and we were fortunate to have access to a well-run behavioral therapy clinic with the appropriate intensity of treatment hours. Emily today is a happy child, now ten years old. She is not recovered; she was among the most severely affected with autism; but she can read, and speak in clear sentences. She can count, follow directions, dress herself, and she is included in a regular classroom for most of her day. She continues to make great strides in her ABA program. Incidentally, she loves her therapists and her program and we have never used aversives of any kind with her or my son. *For most cases, there is no reason to use medication for behavioural improvement in autism. However, judicious use of medication at the lowest possible dose is not frowned upon generally, even in the autistic community for short term assistance in changing the direction of any behaviours of concern. OFF OF MEDICATION, EMILY IS SELF-INJURIOUS AND UNHAPPY. WE HAVE TRIED TO TAKE HER OFF OF THE LOW DOSE SHE IS ON WITHOUT SUCCESS. SHE IS MISERABLE. WE DO NOT HAVE HER ON MEDICATIONS TO MAKE HER CONFORM OR BE MORE SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE. WE HAVE HER ON MEDICATIONS BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY WAY SHE CAN REMAIN SELF-INJURIOUS AND WITHOUT DEPRESSION. And as for the effect of therapies with people involved the research has consistently demonstrated that background theory of therapist is of no significant consequence in helping clients in their development: I DISAGREE. I THINK RESEARCH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT METHOD MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE. I ACTUALLY AM UNAWARE OF ANY PUBLISHED RESEARCH OF ANY AUTISM INTERVENTION BESIDES ABA THAT HAS SIMILAR OUTCOME DATA. THAT SAID, I AGREE THAT CRUMMY UNINVOLVED, UNCARING THERAPISTS DO NOT HELP A CHILD AT ALL.the paramount influence seems to be the personal style within their paradigm of the therapist: and if Weintraubs daughter loves her therapist WE HAVE HAD DOZENS OF THERAPISTS OVER THE YEARS; THEY WERE, FOR THE MOST PART, WONDERFUL, BUT IT WAS CLEAR THAT THOSE WHO WERE MORE SKILLED AT ABA PRINCIPLES GOT BETTER RESULTS. MY KIDS MADE BETTER STRIDES WITH THERAPISTS THAT UNDERSTOOD ABA PRINCIPLES AND UTLIZED THEM MORE COMPETENTLY THAN THOSE WHO APPLIED THESE PRINCIPLES WITH LESS COMPETENCE. then that is most likely where the developmental gains are actually coming from no reason to stop in my mind. >Nicholas’s progress was much quicker than Emily’s was and today, at age 7, he is fully mainstreamed in a first grade classroom. He reads at the fifth grade level, is quite gifted and has many friends and hobbies. His IQ has risen almost fifty points, and he is very creative and smiles a lot. He is still quirky, and while it doesn’t bother me personally, it does set him apart, and it will cause him further challenges and hurt as he grows older. If I could wave a magic wand I would take away his quirkiness, because it is something that keeps him from fully belonging in his group of friends. *Again, therapist style can be a prominent factor in these developmental gains. NOT THE PROMINENT FACTOR, ONE CRITICAL FACTOR. THE OTHER IS A GOOD PROGRAM, GOOD TEACHING TECHNIQUES. YOU CAN HAVE THE NICEST WARMEST THERAPIST IN THE WORLD BUT IF THE PROGRAMMING IS BAD THE CHILD WILL NOT MAKE GOOD GAINS. AS far as I have been able to find out, no child has made good developmental gains if they have not liked their therapist: regardless of presenting difficulties or theoretical background of therapist. >Michelle Dawson and her supporters, I suspect, would most likely say that I have abused my children. In treating them with ABA therapy, I have imposed my value system on them, violated their right to be who they are. She appears to believe that my children need protection from me and from the team of therapists. I imagine, by this logic, one could say that when I took them to the doctor during those first years of their lives for their well-baby check-ups I was guilty then as well of violating their rights, and when I bought and administered the medicine for their various childhood illnesses, that was ethically unforgivable as well, since they were unable to consent to treatment. A few years ago, Emily refused to eat for weeks on end, apparently because food tastes and textures had become so aversive to her. After losing close to twenty pounds over a few weeks time, we had to hospitalize her and use a behavioral approach in an attempt to get her to eat again. It was tough going, but it worked. Emily left the hospital eating a variety of foods, and her eating issues are minimal today compared to the past. Were we guilty of abuse? Was our behavior unethical? Should we have done nothing and let her die? Because that’s where she was headed without aggressive intervention. What would you have done, Ms. Dawson? Stand for a moment in the shoes of the parents and professionals whom you condemn. What are you doing to help our children? Why are you trying to undermine the legitimacy of the one treatment that has been shown to significantly improve their lives? My child was starving herself to death - what solution would you propose? *I am a supporter of Ms Dawson, and I do not say that Weintraub has abused her children. And nor has Ms Dawson. She has never actually mentioned Weintraub by name in the article concerned. I SAID SHE MOST LIKELY WOULD SAY, I DID NOT SAY SHE SAID I WOULD ABUSE MY CHILDREN. Ms Dawson works in research at one of Canadas major hospitals with one of Canadas major medical experts (himself a supporter of Ms Dawson, having brought her in as an affiliate of his department, in honour of her abilities in this field). I KNOW, BUT SHE IS A POSTAL WORKER BY TRADE. SHE HAS NOT BEEN TRAINED IN THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN WITH AUTISM. SHE IS VERY BRIGHT, BUT THAT ALONE IS NOT QUALIFICATION FOR SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE ETHICS OF ABA, ANY MORE THAN HAVING SPINA BIFIDA MAKES ONE A SPINA BIFIDA EXPERT. She has experience of working with autistic children IN WHAT CAPACITY? and she is involved in research aimed at helping these children in their development. At no point has she condemned any ABA practitioner in her article; NOT OUTRIGHT, BUT AGAIN, HER REMARKS WERE VERY CONDESCENDING, SMUG AND SARCASTIC. her opinion as to the ethicality of their practice is her prerogative just as Weintraubs opinion is presumably hers. As for proposing solutions to a child she hasnt met, because a parent asks like this: how can she? EXACTLY. THEN WHY IS SHE SPEAKING TO THE CANADIAN COURTS ABOUT NOT ALLOWING ABA TO BE PAID FOR FOR CHILDREN SHE HAS NEVER MET? Ethically it would be wrong; I AGREE. also professionally and in terms of practicalitieswell, impossible to do. RIGHT. SHE IS A POSTAL WORKER ON DISABILITY, IF I AM NOT MISTAKEN. Not much point in Weintraub asking, really. Not a fairly put question. But maybe a Vygotskian approach could have helped with a lot less fuss than many non-eating children put out when being treated to ABA with some therapists. THANKS, BUT YOU HAVE NOT BEEN THERE. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOME OF YOU FOLKS STAY UP ALL NIGHT WITH MY CHILD WHO IS SCREAMING, WATCH HER WASTE AWAY, INJUR HERSELF, REFUSE TO EAT FOR WEEKS; COME TO MY HOUSE AND JUDGE ME, TELL ME WHAT I AM DOING WRONG AND HOW I SHOULD DO IT DIFFERENTLY. IT’S STATEMENT LIKE THE ABOVE THAT FUEL THE OUTRAGE THAT CAUSED ME TO RESPOND TO MICHELLE DAWSON’S LETTER. Again, the therapists personality has a lot to do with these types of developmental gain. GOOD LORD. I CANNOT BELIEVE THIS. YOU ARE SAYING IF MY THERAPISTS WERE NICE SHE WOULD NOT HAVE STARVED HERSELF? >The truth is that Dawson has no solution, to this or any of the other challenges that beset our loved ones. How dare this woman claim to speak for my children, or pronounce judgment on our life? Parents and professionals make tough choices every day regarding all children and particularly those who have disorders that put them at risk for a reduced quality of life. I do not see how a child who sits in diapers for most of her life and bangs her head against the wall is having her rights violated by teaching her to use the toilet and communicate her needs. I would never sit in judgment of the parents of a child with Asperger’s, should they encourage their child to speak and socialize in ways that do not isolate him or provoke teasing from his peers. Across the spectrum, Autism disables people. It leaves many of them without the skills they need to negotiate life, which is hard enough when a person is typically developing. *To expect a solution was unrealistic, in my view: PLEASE. SHE IS ATTACKING ABA AS UNETHICAL, SAYING IT SHOULD NOT BE PAID FOR BY CANADA FOR CHILDREN WITH AUTISM. SHE HAS NO EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND IN TEACHING OR TREATING CHILDREN WITH AUTISM. HER SOLE QUALIFICATION IS THAT SHE IS AUTISTIC, HOWEVER SHE WAS DIAGNOSED AS AN ADULT AND IS FAR LESS AFFECTED THAN MOST KIDS ON THE SPECTRUM, BUT IT IS UNREALISTIC THAT SHE SHOULD COME UP WITH A SOLUTION? which is why I have to question the validity of the argument in Weintraubs statement. As for autism disabling people: I can assure Weintraub that from my own practice I have found that what disables autistic people the most is the way in which society treats them. I GUESS THAT’S BECAUSE IN YOUR PRACTICE YOU DO NOT COME ACROSS CHILDREN WITH MODERATE TO SEVERE AUTISM. IF ALL YOU TREAT IS CHILDREN WHO CAN UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF DISCRIMINATION, THEN I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY YOU DON’T HAVE ANY IDEA WHY AUTISM IS A DISABILITY. I DO NOT CONSIDER YOU TO HAVE A DISABILTY RELATED TO AUTISM FROM READING YOUR RESPONSES TO MY ARTICLE, NOR DOES MICHELLE DAWSON. MY CHILDREN MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR DISABILITY BY THE STATE OF WISCONSIN AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AS DO THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WITH AUTISM THAT I KNOW. THAT’S WHY I SAY YOU AND SHE DO NOT HAVE WHAT MY KIDS HAVE AND SHOULD NOT SPEAK FOR THEM. >I find Dawson’s assertions damaging and dangerous to children. Anyone who mounts a public campaign to deny medically necessary and clinically appropriate treatment to children with autism is harming those children. It is hard to believe that people would take this rant seriously, but I have been surprised and dismayed by what people can believe. Dawson, autistic or not, could benefit from some intensive education in empathy, ethics and the reality of autism. I hope parents will find the time and the occasion to speak out publicly against this kind of nonsense. It is hard enough to find and fund appropriate services for our children. If we are silent in the face of such attacks, we allow ideology to triumph over the welfare of our children. *This paper was not a convincing attempt to answer Ms Dawsons points (from her paper) in a reasoned, scientific manner: IT WAS NOT MEANT TO BE A REASONED SCIENTIFIC PIECE, IT WAS AN EMOTIONAL STATEMENT FROM A MOTHER WHO FINDS MICHELLE DAWSON DANGEROUS. it is clearly an attempt to use rhetoric and invective in nothing more than an ad hominem attack on Ms Dawson. Given the name of the website on which this article was posted, I think it is clearly beneath ANY scientific organisation to publish personal attack in the name of science: even the British Psychological Society (against whom I have legitimate grievances) would not stoop that low! I therefore have to wonder about the credibility of ASAT, whose site this paper appeared on, and the FEAT organisations (one of which Weintraub is a board member of). And anybody in any organisation that I was involved in would not be in it anymore were they to publish such a hideous display of bile and vitriol as this statement turned out to be. David N. Andrews BA-status, AEPiT (U Bham) Applied Educational Psychologist/Psycho-educational Consultant Kotka Finland >Editors' Note: those wishing to review the Dawson piece for themselves may find it at http://www.sentex.net/~nexus23/naa_aba.html This criticism relates to Kit Weintraub's article which can be seen at the following URL: http://asatonline.org/resources/library/moms_perspective.html Michelle Dawson 331 14 May 2004 03:00:20 -0000 Hi John, I found it interesting that you discarded some of my points. Here’s the first one you missed: “I can add that your kids are predictably acting like autistics in an impoverished environment where the materials they need in order to learn are either scarce or absent, and their attempts to communicate what they need to know are ignored or rejected.” Now I can further add that there seems to be actual rationing. Why? This reminds me of my favourite “case study”, where the autistic kid kept escaping into the “wrong” classroom, because of the materials there. He was constantly reprimanded because the materials he needed were “wrong” for his age, never mind the extravagant quantities he needed. The consequence was that he is home schooled, in a situation where it is considered that the materials required for him to learn and develop should not be subject to unnecessary rationing. The kid, it turns out, is more considerate and more generous than most people I’ve ever known, never mind brilliant. I consider witholding materials needed for autistics to learn to be unethical. Here’s another one: “In this case, the self-injury could more accurately be seen as the “am I ever stupid” self-punishment that results when we communicate extremely accurately and for good reason and learn that this is wrong too.” If your kids are acting aggressively, I hold you and your set-up entirely responsible. We don’t become aggressive for nothing, nor for the reasons you list. You’re dealing with kids who have no way to express themselves (you’re the one who decides what they need and why) and as yet lack the maturity to conceal their emotions and needs and defer them to a time when they are alone and hidden. The internal reality of the external behaviour you describe includes, overwhelmingly, fear, confusion, and pain-all of these being a big deal in autism. One of the first conscious observations I made was that people were free to hurt me however they wanted and that I must do absolutely nothing about this. Another was that what I needed was different from what other people needed and was “wrong”. I’ve literally known those things all my life. And I don’t expect other autistics, especially very young ones, to have such a high pain threshold, nor to deny themselves so thoroughly. Learning to pretend to need what other people need is not recommended as a life strategy. If this is what you want for your kids, you might help us out by explaining why it’s wrong to need what autistics need, and why it’s wrong to learn how we learn, and so on. I need an example of an extinction procedure done on a non-autistic adult, please. Also I need to know if your cycle of SIB (involving parent and child) is reported by parents, and whether you ask more specific questions or just assume that this positive/negative reinforcement is all there is. And that the kid has no other needs, etc, and the parents (or yourself) have no other responsibilities. I am not prepared to accept that Clare and I and all other autistics who have for substantial parts of our lives (in my case all of it) hurt ourselves in private for no reason allowed for by behaviourists are total freaks, or are perhaps deluded. I don’t think we should disappear ourselves for the sake of behaviourist theory. If I remember properly, I did mention that “right to effective behavioral treatment” thing in my article. I responded by pointing out the essential precursor right to effective ethics. I haven’t noticed anyone taking up that challenge. John, you have taught me that behaviourists really do not want to be contaminated by other ideas. Even venturing into a non-behaviourist-run comment board seems to have made you a bit suspect in the eyes of some of your peers. Your bravery relative to your colleagues has been noted. Let me find my data sheet... Michelle Dawson Naacanada John 330 13 May 2004 23:51:57 -0000 Hi Clare, You said “Indeed. Trust me, it’s even more aversive to read if you’re potentially on the receiving end. And if it’s aversive to read, god knows what it’s like to experience.” I do and would like to add that I break down bad DTT into: DTT that is bad ethically, and DTT that is bad procedurally (sloppy). I dislike them both. You said “(If the argument is that top professionals can’t be expected to respond to something on a website, one must note how very quickly top professionals jumped in to harass and slander Michelle).” See my response to Michelle. Also I think the novelty and the fact that many behaviorists would struggle to find something to agree with in Michelle’s article is a factor. You said “But then it’s your job to stand up publicly and make it clear that such practices are harmful and unacceptable. If you’re concerned about ABA’s public reputation, that reputation is surely damaged far more when abusive and harmful practices are publicly presented as “models” than by anything critics like Michelle can say.” Fair criticism, I say what I can and have been passed off before as a “novice behaviorist”, which is true enough. Such persons as Dr.s Green, Mulick, Newman, and other have written on Michelle’s article. Some in a poorly done way, some more acceptably. These would seem to make my own observations appear small and limited to many professionals not simply behaviorists. You said “But you didn’t give him a “more adaptive” option, did you? He asked verbally for what he wanted, and his request was refused. As you said, he only resorted to SIB “when asking failed”.” No, this is true in this case. You said “For functional equivalence to work, “more adaptive” has to mean more effective for the person in question, not just “more convenient for everyone else but ineffective for meeting the person’s needs”. As your behaviourism should teach you, if he learns that communicating verbally is ineffective, of course he will resort to other behaviours.” On post 83 of this “large discussion attached to a small article”, I defined adaptive behavior as being “(a) able to produce enough reinforcement to maintain it’s own occurrence (b) and as a direct means of gaining more ability/knowledge © it can be specified in a way that is appropriate to novel circumstances.” I recognize the subjective elements in this definition but I stick with it for the moment. And although a behavior is not more adaptive because it is more convenient for others it is also not more adaptive by effectively meeting a persons needs. This is functional, not adaptive. I doubt in some cases, that tantrum behavior is less effective when serving as a request than politely asking. Of course this depends on the context. The social cycle ensures that. It is very easy when someone is tantruming to just try whatever to calm them down. Even behaviorists are guilty of this. No one I know seems to enjoy (behaviorally speaking) watching any child cry and hit themselves. I myself have given in before. It can be so aversive to watch that most folks may just do whatever to make the behavior stop. My behaviorism does teach me about “other behaviors”, and it also teaches me that behaviors that are only reinforced part of the time are more resistant to extinction. A verbal request extinguished in one setting may be reinforced in another. I have created a likelihood that the behavior will occur more often with less chance fading, by “not”, reinforcing it every time. You said “You’re not allowing this kid any way of getting what he wants (and wanting a certain colour of playdough is a remarkably reasonable request which could easily be met without harming or inconveniencing anyone else. Yes, there are times where you have to set a limit no matter what; this is clearly not one of them).” There are times I would not advocate giving a child what they prefer. This is one of them. The color in question was the most preferred by three students. Some days the student accepted other colors without problem, some days not. If we had removed the color from other students they would have tantrumed. We also would have broke our own rules and simultaneously reinforced the child’s SIB. Logically, we tried to break the Play-Doh in pieces, each child receiving a piece. But not single one of the three children seemed to like that either. Logic tells us that everyone is unhappy (but the teachers) if we put that color away forever or if we split it up. Logic also tells us that it is reasonable to ask a child to share a preferred item by switching its user every now and then and to take turns on certain days. I have rejected the logic previously of some behaviorists on related issues. I will not violate the ethical policy of sharing (in this case) in order to meet the preference (changed some days anyway) of a singular student. Tell me why this should be otherwise and why I should remove the Play-Doh from another child and I will listen (but I probably not agree). You said “A really radical question: how can an arbitrary policy about random assignation of colours of playdough possibly be more important than reinforcing this child’s perception that verbal communication works?” I think I answered this previously, but if not let me know. You said “The only conceivable rationale for such a policy is the standard “it’s bad for them to get what they want, they just have to learn to put up with things” line. Which makes no sense of any sort. The priority here is the child’s learning, not adult ego about Who’s The Boss.” I don’t take the policy it is bad to give children what they want, neither do the other adults from this story. But thinking about it, I really don’t think that I want any child to have what they want in certain circumstances. And I agree that it is a matter of children’s learning. But I think I can address that without appealing to the idea of adults’ egos. Or of rules, especially since the rules were designed to help protect the right of others to have a turn. Honestly, it seems more a matter of ethics than egos to me. You said “Later on in life, when this child is communicating fluently and not tempted to revert to SIB, he will be able to learn that he won’t always get what he asks for (but mostly does). Right now, though, all you’re teaching him is that the hard work it takes him to communicate verbally is wasted.” I am not sure what to say to this. I have little (no) idea what it is like to grow up autistic. I therefore can not fully appreciate the effort of communicating verbally for autistics. I readily acknowledge this, but this is not the same as agreeing with that last paragraph of yours. You asked if the “some good advice some bad thing”, was all I had to say in response to the bad DTT site. Perhaps I am guilty of sometimes being a master of understatements. If so, then I am satisfied to say “I would not recommend this”. I do not see waiting to be taught to accept rejected requests as a very good idea. I do generalize this to many skills that I think should (must) must be taught in childhood because they allow for more learning and better social skills. John 329 13 May 2004 23:51:12 -0000 Hi Michelle, You said “When the self-injury is ignored, the behaviour increases temporarily (what you would call the extinction burst) in a last ditch effort to obtain a reason why one’s needs, communication, and characteristics are wrong. Then silence. This is very different from wanting attention. This is needing to know, accompanied by confusion and actual fear.” Needing to know? Tell me more about this. And fear? If we look that sometimes children will even hit/bite/kick others during extinction then maybe we would talk in terms of what are called “aggression reinforcers”, not fear. We know that extinction acts as an aggression EO in humans and other animals as well. Also, in at least two cases I have seen, when “attention”, seemed to be (based on FA) the reinforcer of interest; attention was given for SIB. Not surprisingly, the behavior ceased. This seems like a social cycle to me. Child hits self....Parent hugs child....Child dos not hit self....Parent does not hug child....Child hits self. And so it goes. So the child gets some positive reinforcement while the parent gets some negative reinforcement. I wonder sometimes if this isn’t just as damaging in terms of creating negative behavior as physical abuse. You said “Your solution is to enforce compliance. I suppose it works by some standards.” I am not a drill sergeant and doubt I will ever be called one. But there are some behaviors I do not accept. I do not have to fight, but that does not mean I have to reinforce either. Although, there are some behaviors I will directly suppress (verbally), but these are more for typically developing children anyway. This is not my position based on emotion or moral indignation but on logic, I am open to criticism and to alternative logic. . You said “I would guess that most autistics around my age have undergone hundreds of extinction procedures. I certainly have.” Maybe not from a behaviorist but so have many non autistics. I do not nearly always consider this a bad thing. You said “John, is there any thought on the part of behaviourists about how much of our necessary and/or compensatory behaviour goes underground? I know this issue was raised in the FBP. I haven’t seen any behaviourist take this on in autism, but I stand to be corrected.” Little to none. Even based on our discussion I claim to understand what you mean by this very little. You said “Finally, like Clare, I find the silence of behaviourists while their profession is being disgraced from within to be greatly in contrast with their being galvanized into elaborate acts of defamation when genuinely criticized. I would like to hear one behaviourist speak out, for example, against the dishonest misuse of the term “medically necessary” to describe ABA in legal proceedings.” Okay, that’s a fair criticism, but not all behaviorist agree on what makes bad DTT. I have seen some DTT that I thought was excellent and ethically sound but another young radical behaviorists called it “poorly done”. In contrast I can’t think of many young behaviorists who would embrace (or even agree at all) with your article as written. I would like to see the medically necessary thing cease to be in use. But this is only one of the many things I would like to see. I had a little chat the other day with a fellow student. We were talking about different forms of DT. I likes some methods she likes others. She seemed to think that a technique I like was a bad idea (even unethical) because it was not endorsed by Lovaas and company. She invoked a topic we haven’t really directly touched on “The right to effective treatment”. She made some good but obvious points. Measurable learning and things like that. Then you came up. This has happened three times now. She said “there is a woman with autism who was a mail carrier in Canada who doesn’t want early intervention for kids with autism.” I thought “really.....now who could that be.” She asked me if I had heard about this person, since she knows I did a review on the different ways of teaching/treating kids with autism. I said I had heard about this person and then told her I was currently active on a message board attached to her site. The student got quiet and walked off. Oh well.....I guess some other behaviorist have heard about your work now. I heard some emails went out to behaviorists, which is probably why you had such a response to your article. John 328 13 May 2004 23:50:40 -0000 Hi Leif, You said “I don’t think animal studies are very relevant for studying autistic self-stim behaviors.” Neither do I. You said “Not so, and if SIBs are just repressed, the problem most likely persists in a silent (and potentially more dangerous) form. The goal must clearly be to find the reason behind tantrums and SIBs, and not to tell the autistic person he is misbehaving and need to develop alternative ways of showing his feelings.” Interesting......Tell me more about this, if you find time. Michelle Dawson 327 13 May 2004 18:12:28 -0000 Hi John, I agree with Clare’s analysis of your SIB extinction procedures. I can add that your kids are predictably acting like autistics in an impoverished environment where the materials they need in order to learn are either scarce or absent, and their attempts to communicate what they need to know are ignored or rejected. As Clare pointed out, your form of functional analysis denies the communication of your clients. You can be sure your kids will learn from this. In this case, the self-injury could more accurately be seen as the “am I ever stupid” self-punishment that results when we communicate extremely accurately and for good reason and learn that this is wrong too. When the self-injury is ignored, the behaviour increases temporarily (what you would call the extinction burst) in a last ditch effort to obtain a reason why one’s needs, communication, and characteristics are wrong. Then silence. This is very different from wanting attention. This is needing to know, accompanied by confusion and actual fear. Your solution is to enforce compliance. I suppose it works by some standards. Autistics who run away, which is most of us, are sometimes escaping, but are often as well running towards the kinds of information we need in order to learn. This usually results in extinction procedures also. I would guess that most autistics around my age have undergone hundreds of extinction procedures. I certainly have. John, is there any thought on the part of behaviourists about how much of our necessary and/or compensatory behaviour goes underground? I know this issue was raised in the FBP. I haven’t seen any behaviourist take this on in autism, but I stand to be corrected. Finally, like Clare, I find the silence of behaviourists while their profession is being disgraced from within to be greatly in contrast with their being galvanized into elaborate acts of defamation when genuinely criticized. I would like to hear one behaviourist speak out, for example, against the dishonest misuse of the term “medically necessary” to describe ABA in legal proceedings. Clare 326 13 May 2004 12:23:14 -0000 John wrote, “In one case it occurred because a child did not receive a specific color of Play- Doh. It had always been our policy to randomly assign these colors day to day. This child was not unfamiliar with this. His SIB was part of his tantrum behaviors and probably (based on my functional assessment) served as a request and as a maladaptive form of communication, even though he was quite verbal and had the ability to ask for it. When asking failed he went for tantruming and SIB.” John also wrote, “we replaced the behavior with a more adaptive and almost equally useful option and because we did not simultaneously reinforce the SIB. “ But you didn’t give him a “more adaptive” option, did you? He asked verbally for what he wanted, and his request was refused. As you said, he only resorted to SIB “when asking failed”. For functional equivalence to work, “more adaptive” has to mean more effective for the person in question, not just “more convenient for everyone else but ineffective for meeting the person’s needs”. As your behaviourism should teach you, if he learns that communicating verbally is ineffective, of course he will resort to other behaviours. This sort of thing is what I believe Michelle was referring to a while back when she asks what happens when a kid finds out that talking doesn’t work. You’re not allowing this kid <i>any</i> way of getting what he wants (and wanting a certain colour of playdough is a remarkably reasonable request which could easily be met without harming or inconveniencing anyone else. Yes, there are times where you have to set a limit no matter what; this is clearly not one of them). A really radical question: how can an arbitrary policy about random assignation of colours of playdough <i>possibly</i> be more important than reinforcing this child’s perception that verbal communication works? The only conceivable rationale for such a policy is the standard “it’s bad for them to get what they want, they just have to learn to put up with things” line. Which makes no sense of any sort. The priority here is the child’s learning, not adult ego about Who’s The Boss. Later on in life, when this child is communicating fluently and not tempted to revert to SIB, he will be able to learn that he won’t always get what he asks for (but mostly does). Right now, though, all you’re teaching him is that the hard work it takes him to communicate verbally is wasted. Clare 325 13 May 2004 12:20:39 -0000 John wrote, “I find it very aversive to read more than a few lines of bad DTT practices.” Indeed. Trust me, it’s even more aversive to read if you’re potentially on the receiving end. And if it’s aversive to read, god knows what it’s like to experience. But given how prominently this (and accounts like this) are featured on the net as “what to do”, why hasn’t a single behaviourist criticised them? (If the argument is that top professionals can’t be expected to respond to something on a website, one must note how very quickly top professionals jumped in to harass and slander Michelle). I’ve seen frequent acknowledgements by behaviourists that there’s a lot of bad ABA out there, but nobody seems willing to actually criticise specific practices or set standards of good practice and ethical behaviour. It’s just called on whenever anyone cites a particularly abusive example, and behaviourists chorus that that’s bad DTT, no good teacher would do anything like that, etc. etc. Fine. But then it’s your job to stand up publicly and make it clear that such practices are harmful and unacceptable. If you’re concerned about ABA’s public reputation, that reputation is surely damaged far more when abusive and harmful practices are publicly presented as “models” than by anything critics like Michelle can say. Leif Ekblad 324 13 May 2004 07:53:19 -0000 I don't think animal studies are very relevant for studying autistic self-stim behaviors. If these are part of non-verbal comnmunications, they would clearly be species-typical, and couldn't possibly be studied in another species. This is comparable to using animal studies to research NT facial expressions. It just won't work. Leif Ekblad 323 13 May 2004 07:48:25 -0000 on SIBs and extinction. While I agree that ignoring might be a good temporary solution, it cannot be restricted to just this. There is always a reason behind these behaviors, whether they are displayed by autistics and non-autistics. John’s reasoning seems to imply that if you only can avoid SIB behavior, you’ve solved the problem. Not so, and if SIBs are just repressed, the problem most likely persists in a silent (and potentially more dangerous) form. The goal must clearly be to find the reason behind tantrums and SIBs, and not to tell the autistic person he is misbehaving and need to develop alternative ways of showing his feelings. Besides, the experiences with ignoring this and getting fast results does not match my experience at all. John 322 12 May 2004 23:25:20 -0000 Hi Clare, You said “Depends what you mean. I’ve seen plenty of cases (my own included) where SIB was a result of external stress and/or someone’s only means of coping or communicating. Remove the intolerable external stress, give someone alternative means of communication/coping - which I think are extremely desirable things to do anyway - and you can often “get rid of” the SIB.” I agree, but mention that I will not reinforce SIB in between while training the new behavior. You said “So I think it’s often replaceable. But never without function. Just try to “suppress” it, and you can do a lot of harm.” Not my policy, sorry for the confusion. You said “And I’m kind of puzzled by your position here - a while back, you were talking about the importance of functional analysis, systematic observation, looking at what’s maintaining the individual operants, etc. Now you’re stating that SIB is “always” treated by extinction. Where’s the analysis? Where’s the observation?” Please see my answer to Michelle. On Delprato. Last night was clearly not my finest night for communicating ideas. What I should have written was he was the first (only to my knowledge) one to begin to offer a comprehensive review study. You said “The most I’ve seen (in “Making A Difference” and related books) is the claim that incidental teaching and other procedures may be introduced to aid generalization once a child has successfully graduated from a good year or so of strict DTT, or in addition to ongoing DTT. The assumption is that DTT is always the best initial mode.” I think even then, they would tell you it depends on the kid. I would agree. In some cases it may take awhile (notice no time specified) before even I would recommend other strategies to help supplement. You said “But the evidence from every study that I’ve seen that has directly compared DTT with naturalistic language models suggests otherwise.” Which is limited both in study and to verbal behavior. You said “Is “some bad advice” really the most you can say here?” If I were to list all the problems or the things I disagree with and why, I would be up to quite late. This is just a cursory glance, I find it very aversive to read more than a few lines of bad DTT practices. Be that as it may, there were beneficial techniques used as well. You said “And understand, I very rarely speak like this: I think I’ve demonstrated that I can usually engage in discussion in a calm and professional manner, cite my academic references, and play nice. So please make the appropriate inference about just how strongly I have to feel before I’ll put things like this.” True, and while I don’t claim to understand I have made the appropriate inference. Also, assumed empathy of “NTs”, is just another myth. John 321 12 May 2004 23:24:45 -0000 Hi Michelle, You said “I disagree entirely with your reasoning on self-injury. I find your views on this subject actually offensive. No science is involved. You’re guessing.” Looking back at my statement, I see that is was simplistic and inadequate. Understand that I don’t apologize for the view, but for the way I worded it. I will re-word that statement. I don’t doubt that if some of my friends found their way to this site, that they would be furious by some things I have written (maybe even things you like or support). Whenever I take a firm stance I am going to make some people unhappy, but that does not make me happy or pleased. There are such things as hard truths, whether I have successfully recognized those is the real question. Although, I thank you for not letting me get away with (what I now see as) an inadequate answer. Now let me try to write the same paragraph again: Depending on what you may consider to be an autistic behavior, such places already exist. Do you put self-injurious-behavior on the list? If you do, then I doubt you will find any DT program tolerable. Most of my experience with SIB was limited to very young individuals. These same persons were (early) verbal or lacked requesting language. Upon analysis, these SIB’s appeared to be (in all the cases I remember but one) maintained by attention. As we were already teaching language (PECS or spoken words) we focused more on teaching verbal replacement behavior. The extinction (ignoring) was used only when the behavior occurred and only as long as it occurred. This was infrequently anyway. In one case it occurred because a child did not receive a specific color of Play- Doh. It had always been our policy to randomly assign these colors day to day. This child was not unfamiliar with this. His SIB was part of his tantrum behaviors and probably (based on my functional assessment) served as a request and as a maladaptive form of communication, even though he was quite verbal and had the ability to ask for it. When asking failed he went for tantruming and SIB. This is what is called a response class hierarchy. Your first behavior fails so you go for a related option. We would always give him reminders and forewarning of what would that we did not know what color he would get that day. On the occasions he did tantrum or use SIB then we did ignore. These behaviors decreased over a two weeks just as it had for the other children. If we had broken our policy and gave him the color he requested (even when it was not his turn) next time he would have tantrumed longer and harder, this is what the rules of learning and logic tell us. Oh...... and someone else would likely have tantrumed. We would make it more likely that the behavior would increase because we had reinforced it, and had unintentionally given one heck of an EO. In all cases the behavior subsided to zero occurrence (in school and as far as I know at home) because we replaced the behavior with a more adaptive and almost equally useful option and because we did not simultaneously reinforce the SIB. As long as we are on the subject, what is called “planned ignoring”, (extinction) is used by special educators and regular educators. It is widespread and used for both typically and non-typically developing children. It is not used on the same level as Clare’s example in the FBP anymore to my knowledge. And many kids (of whatever sort) produce strong attention getting behaviors during extinction. This is indeed a strong form of an EO. You said “This is an area where there’s a big discrepancy between observation by a non-autistic behaviourist observer and the autistic reality. Many autistics, myself included, with few exceptions (which would be emergencies) hurt ourselves only when we are alone. Since no behaviourist will ever see this, this behaviour, I guess, does not exist.” I agree that claiming this doesn’t exist is inadequate. You said “This reminds me of the commonplace observation that “self-stim” and self injury diminish with age in autistics. The reality is that older autistics have the ability and opportunity to hide. We become very, very good at hiding.” Okay, I am listening. You said “In any case, you’re trying to tell me why I hurt myself, and that you could halt this useless behaviour by not paying attention to it. You have generalized to that point. That is not okay.” I rejected my earlier statement. Hopefully, that is adequate for the moment. Michelle Dawson 320 12 May 2004 20:52:04 - At IMFAR one of the big presentations was about repetitive behaviours, ie, “self-stim”. It was admitted that pretty much nothing is known about the function of these behaviours. It turns out function is very low priority. Meanwhile, there’s a lot of work in structural and functional imaging, description and classification, quantification, and animal studies. In contrast, from an autistic viewpoint, function is everything. Someday, someone will get around to it. Leif Ekblad 319 12 May 2004 18:49:00 -0000 Interesting discussion here. I’m fairly interested in the “self-stim” thing being discussed. There is probably a link to body-language here, and to the “tics” of Tourette Syndrome. The claim that self-stim behaviors can be removed without any consequences might actually be totally wrong. My hypothesis is that by removing the autistic’s native emotions and their expressions, will have the same consequences as emotional neglect of NT children. It might be this suppression that is behind “cold” autistics, that won’t express emotions, and analyse other’s emotions with logic. Looking at my own family, this seems to be true. I never was encouraged to use native emotions as a child, but as a father I’ve encouraged this, even though it means creating a non-NT home environment. I clearly see that my kids express their feelings a lot more than I do. In fact, I also think that if ABA should be used at all on autistics, it must be after age of 10 or something like that, when they have enough ability to analyse things with logic. Clare 318 12 May 2004 10:38:44 -0000 "I skimmed through the site. Seems like some good advice mixed with some bad e.g. (the drill sergeant thing)." That's all? How about the systematic use of physical restraint to punish stims (he's not even allowed to "wipe off" a body part once it's been touched, which is a very obvious sign of tactile defensiveness)? The deliberate ridicule of this child's natural ways of behaving (note that they insist that only "negative" terms be used)? The physical forcing of eye contact? The insistence that he interact with other children when he doesn't want to? The deliberate upsetting of his coping mechanisms (refusing to allow him to predict what's going to happen next, refusing to allow him to put objects in certain places, "continue to purposely mess with his stuff")? The hostility to any sort of discussion or explanation on his part ("This includes ANY argument he gives you - "I can't", "I don't want to", "Why can't I..", etc."?") The policing of his play, even of his "unacceptable thoughts"? Even behaviours like "touching small objects" and "holding more than one [toy] animal per hand" are forbidden! This is a kid who's being put in time-out for "playing with his fingers", for god's sake. Is "some bad advice" really the most you can say here? The truth is that I look at those notes and I can't help thinking: if that had been done to me, I would be dead. I am not speaking metaphorically here. As it was, with a highly supportive family, I still learnt enough from my teachers and peers about how very unacceptable my real self was to ensure that I developed clinical depression by the age of 13 and spent most of the next decade contemplating suicide. It wasn't until I finally got diagnosed with AS at 20 that things really started improving. I know many, many people who went through very similar things. And I know many people who became very good at "faking" normal - often by means of some level of dissociation - but spent decades trying to undo the emotional damage and loss of self they'd suffered in order to manage that. Before I get accused of attacking anyone, let me state that I'm not: I'm sure the Sumlins sincerely thought they were doing the best thing for their son; I don't know this kid; I can't comment on how well he may or may not be doing now. But I would be dead. I can't imagine the program described in the Sumlin notes as being anything other than deeply psychologically destructive. And understand, I very rarely speak like this: I think I've demonstrated that I can usually engage in discussion in a calm and professional manner, cite my academic references, and play nice. So please make the appropriate inference about just how strongly I have to feel before I'll put things like this. You NTs are supposed to be the ones with the "empathy" - you try and imagine how it feels to have it communicated to you every waking minute that everything you want, everything that you naturally do, is wrong and bad and forbidden, that even your coping strategies will be punished, that you are only acceptable when pretending to be someone you're not. Clare 317 12 May 2004 09:39:23 -0000 John wrote, “Do you know of anyone from the 1987 study who is now dx’ed with Aspergers?” I don’t know anyone from the 1987 study personally. And I am unlikely to, given that none of them ever seem to appear publicly. Which is their choice, of course, but does require everyone else to take a lot of what’s being claimed on faith. But I know many people with HFA/AS who could meet the same criteria that Lovaas used. “Fine, but do you think that these folks have lost all autistic traits?” I don’t. But that’s what Lovaas is claiming. And we’re talking about more than a matter of “terminology” here - we’re talking about a claim of “normal functioning” on which an entire industry has been built. “If you only use the most rigid DT and never progress to looser structure then this would be true. Even Lovaas writes in the “Me Book”, about loosening the structure later.” The most I’ve seen (in “Making A Difference” and related books) is the claim that incidental teaching and other procedures may be introduced to adi generalization <i>once</i> a child has successfully graduated from a good year or so of strict DTT, or in addition to ongoing DTT. The assumption is that DTT is always the best initial mode. But the evidence from every study that I’ve seen that has directly compared DTT with naturalistic language models suggests otherwise. “Also Delprato and company made one study on the issue; let’s see where it goes from here.” Delprato didn’t do a study; he did a literature review of ten existing studies. Which are not the only ones out there, incidentally. Clare 316 12 May 2004 09:26:06 -0000 "Do you put self-injurious-behavior on the list?" Depends what you mean. I’ve seen plenty of cases (my own included) where SIB was a result of external stress and/or someone’s only means of coping or communicating. Remove the intolerable external stress, give someone alternative means of communication/coping - which I think are extremely desirable things to do anyway - and you can often “get rid of” the SIB. (In my case, at this current point in my life, for example, I’ve generally managed to find ways of coping without SIB). So I think it’s often replaceable. But never without function. Just try to “suppress” it, and you can do a lot of harm. And ditto to what Michelle said. All the SIB in my life was done in private. Extinction wouldn’t have made the slightest bit of difference. And I’m kind of puzzled by your position here - a while back, you were talking about the importance of functional analysis, systematic observation, looking at what’s maintaining the individual operants, etc. Now you’re stating that SIB is “always” treated by extinction. Where’s the analysis? Where’s the observation? Michelle Dawson 315 12 May 2004 03:02:28 -0000 Even though I could never get his name straight, David Reimer was one of my heroes. In my wildest dreams I'd hope to have a fraction of his courage. Michelle Dawson 314 12 May 2004 01:21:59 -0000 Hi John, I disagree entirely with your reasoning on self-injury. I find your views on this subject actually offensive. No science is involved. You’re guessing. This is an area where there’s a big discrepancy between observation by a non-autistic behaviourist observer and the autistic reality. Many autistics, myself included, with few exceptions (which would be emergencies) hurt ourselves only when we are alone. Since no behaviourist will ever see this, this behaviour, I guess, does not exist. This reminds me of the commonplace observation that “self-stim” and self injury diminish with age in autistics. The reality is that older autistics have the ability and opportunity to hide. We become very, very good at hiding. In any case, you’re trying to tell me why I hurt myself, and that you could halt this useless behaviour by not paying attention to it. You have generalized to that point. That is not okay. Michelle Dawson Naacanada John 313 12 May 2004 00:01:01 -0000 Hi Michelle, You said “There’s a very disorganized Canadian site (URL is useless unless you want to go through more than 200 pages of chaos) with many ABA/AVB programs notes and descriptions, and a “recovery” story, where the boy’s diagnosis will neither be disclosed to himself nor his teachers. In this program, the boy’s mother describes any time he isn’t actually performing a trial as “dead time”. She mounts a crusade to fill all the “dead time”.” I am not liking the dead-time thing much either. Although, many of the best teachers in DT will not limit their interactions with a student just to the DT procedures. In fact, I would even say that this is critical to more advanced learning. These excellent tutors will use other set ups too, like incidental teaching. Although, they may not know it themselves. You said “It’s interesting re John Money that many of the behaviour analysts I spoke with (including Drs Mulick and Foxx) spontaneously mentioned him and his work.” Depending on the context, I might have mentioned him too, but not as a behaviorist. You said “I consider Dr Money’s most famous case to be not just a failure of socially-constructed gender, but a failure of behaviourism.” Sorry, I am not about to accept this as behaviorism. Nurturist...yes, but not behaviorism. Even the use of social factors and rewards does not add up to behaviorism. On the cradle to grave thing...Thanks, and yes I don’t like where this (treatment forever concept) seems to be heading in Canada, based on your description. John 312 12 May 2004 00:00:32 -0000 Hi Clare, You said “If you are going to claim “normalcy” and “recovery from autism”, then you have to be prepared to define normalcy - and to define it in such a way that it cannot be attained by significant numbers of people who are still very much on the spectrum!” I am not, although I agree this burden lies on Maurice if she makes those statements. You said “(Which leaves me pencilling marginal notes reading, “Fine, I’ll just go back to my empty, meaningless, tragic husk of a life, then! Oh, I forgot - I’m not supposed to have a sense of humor either ...” )” Yes, I dislike that description as well. And I also know people who are on the spectrum who lead a life with all of the named points. You said “Well, to point again to the example I cited, you jumped to the conclusion that the “successful” autistic adults I described could only have been diagnosed in adulthood:” Not exactly, but since the wording made it hard to tell I happily retract this. You said “I haven’t personally tracked her down and verified her identity, though, so feel free to accuse me or her of hoaxing.” No need, you and I make enough good points to not have to worry about this. And my questions reflected my genuine curiosity. You said “No, you’re still missing my point. If someone can simultaneously meet the criteria for “recovery” and have Asperger’s syndrome, then it is clearly nonsensical to see those criteria as representing “normal functioning”.” Do you know of anyone from the 1987 study who is now dx’ed with Aspergers? But I would agree that this is not a productive way of thinking/labeling. I would be much happier to say “learning”, rather than “recovery.” You said “As far as I know, the 1987 study didn’t have any “too much speech” exclusion criteria.” True, but I don’t recall hearing that any child came into that study with more than a few words. You said “It does seem disingenuous (to say the least) to claim that the FBP didn’t play any role in what happened to him, especially since in his developmental history his suicide attempt seems to be directly connected to his paranoia about homosexuality, which seems directly connected to the behaviour which the FBP had held up as proof of their “success”.” I do not claim the FBP played no role. I did try to put the FBP in context with events that may have happened in his life. No, my point is that Lovaas did not claim that he was increasing the percentage of autistic children who became very high-functioning as adults in this way. He specifically claimed that his “successes” were not just high-functioning, like previously described cases, but were now “normal” and “recovered” from autism. Fine, but do you think that these folks have lost all autistic traits?.... I do not. Do you think they are likely to have many skills, maybe even more than some folks who had typically developing speech and are AS? ........Well, I think that’s possible. So you see while I take issue with this, I will not defend Lovaas’ terminology You said “I’m not addressing what you as an individual are doing - I’m addressing what I see repeatedly described in published DTT manuals and descriptions of programs, and held up by groups like ASAT as examples of “good practice” and good research.” I know you were not specifically referring to me. But since I am an example of a behaviorist, I wanted to let you know that some of us do take the approach I described. You said “I am mostly able to maintain a fairly cool and objective tone in discussion, I think, but I have to say that I am unable to read the Sumlin notes without physical nausea. And the programs are apparently designed for a child very much at my level of functioning (or somewhat higher) at the same age.” I skimmed through the site. Seems like some good advice mixed with some bad e.g. (the drill sergeant thing). I usually find it objectionable whenever we train by increasing anxiety and what is technically called shaping by negative reinforcement (escape). I think this procedure is responsible for the disastrous (unethical) case of one child I have read about on the net. You said “If someone came up with a DTT program which was exclusively focused on building functional and meaningful skills for an individual, not on suppressing “autistic” behaviours, I’d likely feel more tolerant towards it.” Depending on what you may consider to be an autistic behavior, such places already exist. Do you put self-injurious-behavior on the list? If you do, then I doubt you will find any DT program tolerable. Although this is always done by extinction. In all the cases I have seen the SIB was being maintained by attention, so we used extinction. The behavior always decreased down to zero. You said “But anyone writing up or publishing such a curriculum or program description would certainly have to fight an uphill battle against the dominant culture within ABA at the moment, which, as Michelle has pointed out, presents “normalcy”, “recovery” and elimination of autistic behaviours as the goal.” I know it and accept that. You said “And I would still maintain that evidence (such as Delprato, etc.) shows that the entirely teacher-directed DTT format is very far from optimal in terms of developing spontaneously-usable skills or motivation. In assuming that learning can only occur through compliance and response to teacher-directed stimuli, it completely ignores the vast amount of learning that can take place via child-initiated activities.” If you only use the most rigid DT and never progress to looser structure then this would be true. Even Lovaas writes in the “Me Book”, about loosening the structure later and certainly Dr. Leaf writes and speaks on this very subject. Also Delprato and company made one study on the issue; let’s see where it goes from here. Although I do not doubt we have much to learn and improve upon. I have seen some presentations by Delprato’s students and talked with them. They have a look at DT that is different than most behaviorists. On the obsessions thing. Good DT tutors will use interests to help build other skills. In a manual/book that I served as undergraduate editor for, the authors argued that DTT can even be thought of as very individualistic when used in this way. Although this does depend on the specific tutor. But based on my own experience I see that tutors get the best results when they use individual interests and try to engage the student in them. You said “OK, this may be a productive line of thought. How about considering a definition of “nature” in terms of the hypothesis that for any individual, there may be certain behaviors which have such valuable functions that they cannot be suppressed without harm (even though they may not be deemed socially acceptable or “normal”), and for which there may not be functional equivalents? Would that be compatible with behaviourism?” I could accept that definition. Although, I would still prefer to use specific descriptive terms to label what is going on and why. “A nature”, seems too simple just by itself. This does not contradict basic behavioral theory or the rules of learning, but it would be a tough sell in certain quarters. Clare 311 11 May 2004 18:45:06 -0000 A sad fact to add to the discussions of Money: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/ Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1084227010783&call_pageid=968 332188492&col=968793972154 David Reimer killed himself a few days ago. It sounds as if there were a lot of contributory factors, but accordin to this article: ‘His mother, Janet Reimer, told Canadian Press that she believes her son would still be alive had it not been for the devastating gender study. “I think he felt he had no options. It just kept building up and building up.”’ Michelle Dawson 310 11 May 2004 18:32:06 -0000 Hi John, It’s interesting re John Money that many of the behaviour analysts I spoke with (including Drs Mulick and Foxx) spontaneously mentioned him and his work. I consider Dr Money’s most famous case to be not just a failure of socially-constructed gender, but a failure of behaviourism. This boy was raised and treated as a girl for more than a decade. All those around him encouraged and rewarded his feminine behaviour. This made no difference to him. Without anyone telling him his history, he figured out he was a boy and took the necessary steps to establish his true identity, his <clears throat> nature. I hope you’re not saying that if only this boy had been in the hands of competent behaviourists, he’d be female to this day. I really don’t think you’re saying that. Cradle to grave means exactly what it says. Here’s how it looks. Kid goes into an ABA program as soon as the “at risk for autism” signs are recorded at 12 to 18 months. Kid stays in program forever. We’re seeing this in Canada up to age 19; someone is going to do an adult case, arguing that denying “medically necessary” treatment on the basis of age is unconstitutional. I don’t know if this situation is possible in the US system. It has already happened here, where any kid still showing any sign of autism is considered at risk for institutionalization, and if the program is not paid for by the government, the parents will impoverish themselves and their relatives in order to get rid of those incredibly stubborn but potentially lethal quirks. I’m not really kidding. In Auton, one of the “infant” petitioners has had 40hrs/wk (while not in school) and 21hrs/wk (while in school) from age 3 to 16 (so far). No sign of this letting up. She’s still not indistinguishable. She’s way more “indistinguishable” than I’ll ever be, but that’s not okay. She’s got to “pass”, and the public must, as a priority, pay for this. That is, resources must be drawn from elsewhere in the health care system so that autistics can be made as non-autistic as possible. This is where we’re heading. Michelle Dawson Naacanada Michelle Dawson 309 11 May 2004 18:01:44 -0000 Re the Sumlin notes, I have yet to read them from beginning to end. Maybe my stomach is less strong than Clare’s. Then there’s the kid grateful he’s no longer his previously appalling self. This resonates perfectly with the FBP boys. There’s a very disorganized Canadian site (URL is useless unless you want to go through more than 200 pages of chaos) with many ABA/AVB programs notes and descriptions, and a “recovery” story, where the boy’s diagnosis will neither be disclosed to himself nor his teachers. In this program, the boy’s mother describes any time he isn’t actually performing a trial as “dead time”. She mounts a crusade to fill all the “dead time”. Clare 308 11 May 2004 16:35:57 -0000 John wrote, “Some behaviors have valuable functions not previously considered”. OK, this may be a productive line of thought. How about considering a definition of “nature” in terms of the hypothesis that for any individual, there may be certain behaviors which have such valuable functions that they cannot be suppressed without harm (even though they may not be deemed socially acceptable or “normal”), and for which there may not be functional equivalents? Would that be compatible with behaviourism? Clare 307 11 May 2004 10:53:14 -0000 John wrote, “I have never done anything on obsessions”. I’m not addressing what you as an individual are doing - I’m addressing what I see repeatedly described in published DTT manuals and descriptions of programs, and held up by groups like ASAT as examples of “good practice” and good research. I’d suggest you take a look at http://rsaffran.tripod.com/Sumlin.html , which is on-line on one of the most prominent parent-run ABA sites on the net, apparently as an example of “what to do” and how to produce “recovery”. I am mostly able to maintain a fairly cool and objective tone in discussion, I think, but I have to say that I am unable to read the Sumlin notes without physical nausea. The programs are apparently designed for a child very much at my level of functioning (or somewhat higher) at the same age. Had such programs been applied to me, I think there’s a strong likelihood that I would not have made it through my teens without committing suicide. If someone came up with a DTT program which was exclusively focused on building functional and meaningful skills for an individual, not on suppressing “autistic” behaviours, I’d likely feel more tolerant towards it. But anyone writing up or publishing such a curriculum or program description would certainly have to fight an uphill battle against the dominant culture within ABA at the moment, which, as Michelle has pointed out, presents “normalcy”, “recovery” and elimination of autistic behaviours as the goal. And I would still maintain that evidence (such as Delprato, etc.) shows that the entirely teacher-directed DTT format is very far from optimal in terms of developing spontaneously-usable skills or motivation. In assuming that learning can only occur through compliance and response to teacher-directed stimuli, it completely ignores the vast amount of learning that can take place via child-initiated activities. I not only have obsessions, I do most of my learning <i>through</i> them. And “compliance” has never been my strong point. One of my mum’s favourite stories concerns me flunking one of my early developmental checks by refusing to build a tower of a certain number of blocks at the right age - apparently I lectured the health visitor about exactly what colour each block was, but wouldn’t build the tower. So I “failed”. Frame learning entirely in response to “correct” or “incorrect” responses to teacher-presented SD, and people would probably <i>still</i> be trying to teach me to stack blocks on cue ... Clare 306 11 May 2004 10:20:30 -0000 John wrote, “Was the “recovered”, adult part of the 1987 study?” No, she was one of the earlier group of studies in the late 1970s, thus making her one of the first people to be declared “indistinguishable from her peers” in print (and I have checked the references, and there is a published Lovaas case which exactly fits what she described). I haven’t personally tracked her down and verified her identity, though, so feel free to accuse me or her of hoaxing. If you want to look at one of the 1987 successes, though, check out “Autism: From Tragedy to Triumph” by Carol Johnson and read the essay written by “Drew” while he was at university. And compare it with modern essays by university students with autism or Asperger’s. “I don’t think we should consider that you could now be called “recovered”,” No, you’re still missing my point. If someone can simultaneously meet the criteria for “recovery” and have Asperger’s syndrome, then it is clearly nonsensical to see those criteria as representing “normal functioning”. “because you would have more verbal ability to start with. Maybe not typical or idiosyncratic, but possibly functional? “ As far as I know, the 1987 study didn’t have any “too much speech” exclusion criteria. “Was it? How do you know it was this and not something else like his parents teachings and attitudes. “ It does seem disingenuous (to say the least) to claim that the FBP didn’t play any role in what happened to him, especially since in his developmental history his suicide attempt seems to be directly connected to his paranoia about homosexuality, which seems directly connected to the behaviour which the FBP had held up as proof of their “success”. And it also seems implausible to claim simultaneously that his parents’ attitudes (that homosexuality and “effeminacy” were unacceptable) could have caused great harm, but the FBP’s forceful communication of the exact same message couldn’t possibly have done so. Especially since the FBP documented that it had a far greater impact on his behaviour that his parents had been able to. “Ahhh....but what is the exact rates and do we know what teaching methods/therapies the child has gone through. Now compare that to DT.” No, my point is that Lovaas <i>did not claim</i> that he was increasing the percentage of autistic children who became very high-functioning as adults in this way. He specifically claimed that his “successes” were not just high-functioning, like previously described cases, but were now “normal” and “recovered” from autism. Clare 305 11 May 2004 10:20:11 -0000 John wrote, "My apologies, but please explain how I have done so." Well, to point again to the example I cited, you jumped to the conclusion that the "successful" autistic adults I described could only have been diagnosed in adulthood: "1)Adults are sometimes diagnosed with autism as well." Clare 304 11 May 2004 09:40:07 -0000 John wrote, “I disagree, I think it is highly appropriate to question (what is normal?). Especially after Dr. Maurice goes to some length to describe her children’s behavior. “ If you are going to claim “normalcy” and “recovery from autism”, then you have to be prepared to define normalcy - and to define it in such a way that it cannot be attained by significant numbers of people who are still very much on the spectrum! Dr. Maurice says that the suggestion that her children are high-functioning belies “the creative, imaginative, and richly affective lives that some children formerly diagnosed with autism” are living. (Which leaves me pencilling marginal notes reading, “Fine, I’ll just go back to my empty, meaningless, tragic husk of a life, then! Oh, I forgot - I’m not supposed to have a sense of humor either ...” ) I know an awful lot of people (myself included) who are very much on the autistic spectrum and who certainly lead creative, imaginative and richly affective lives. John 303 11 May 2004 02:57:37 -0000 Hi Michelle, You said "I would have qualified for Dr Lovaas' study. While Dr Lovaas told me I was a "spontaneous recovery" on the phone (the telephone and the internet being the most common behaviourist diagnostic "instruments" for adults these days...), I'm distinguishable enough that basic survival is quite difficult, and I have greatly to limit my freedom of movement in order to maintain my freedom, period." Yes this was an overgeneralization of Lovaas'. I am glad the IMFAR folks were cool. You said "This was a social construction/behaviourist view of gender, as opposed to a purely behaviourist view, but the consequences were dire." You see, I know of no behaviorist who are quick to claim John Money or his theories as particularly behavioral. What is cradle to grave, I have never heard that before? More thoughts later. John 302 11 May 2004 02:57:07 -0000 Hi Clare, Here goes: Was the “recovered”, adult part of the 1987 study? On the (you being considered recovered thing). I know you didn’t say you could be part of the study, but this is still relevant. I could not be considered eligible for the study either, but we would say that I was recovered. I don’t think we should consider that you could now be called “recovered”, because you would have more verbal ability to start with. Maybe not typical or idiosyncratic, but possibly functional? Although I don’t know your situation, nor is it fair for me to ask, so I won’t. You said “If someone wants to say that an educational treatment has helped improve someone’s level of functioning - from classical autism to something more AS-like - that seems a far more plausible and honest claim.” Although I have helped in programs that have indeed made lower functioning children something more like AS, I don’t know if I would describe it this way. I would prefer to talk of the specific behaviors I am working with. You said “Working at a school for autistic children, I saw quite a number of children who initially presented at 4 or 5 as classic “Kanner” types, or even as “low-functioning”, and subsequently became high-functioning.” So do I. But not as many as what I see from kids who go through DT. You said “I’m afraid you do rather simplify/misread what I was saying” My apologies, but please explain how I have done so. You said “My obsessions? “Socially inappropriate”. My stims? “Stigmatizing”. The fact that I learn much better when I can choose what I learn? Doesn’t fit into any DTT curriculum I’ve seen. The fact that I have extreme trouble learning when forced to sit still and make eye contact? Inconceivable.” I have never done anything on obsessions except to verbally remind a high functioning student that he/she has gone off on a tangent, or to ask them how information they are discussing relates to a current group subject. I have only deal with stims when I see evidence that it is interfering with learning and even then I only intervene for the lessons I teach. No one can always choose what they learn, certainly not typically developing children. I do not take issue with the eye contact part provided the children do attend in some way, although I remember the case of a boy who I taught it to, who now uses eye contact all the time. You said “You’re the behaviourist, you tell me ...” It was rhetorical, but since the context made that hard to tell, I will answer that. They don’t always (rarely) have to be removed. I am less interested in old school behavior modification, than learning processes. But as we discussed before I do see some self-stim interfering in learning in some contexts. You said “In which case, why not eliminate any behaviours which are socially unacceptable, whether because they’re autistic or “effeminate”?” Some behaviors have valuable functions not previously considered, and this is sometimes done with an aversive or unethical methodology. These are things to consider. All the same I do propose that some socially unacceptable behaviors be reduced/removed e.g. (bullying, actions that violate the rights of others, hitting, biting). You said “And I’m curious: do you have any explanation of why the FBP was so deeply psychologically damaging to Kraig? Is it possible to explain that without some sort of reference to his nature, or who he was?” Was it? How do you know it was this and not something else like his parents teachings and attitudes. On the autism/Aspergers thing. From what I understand some diagnosticians advocate that we only diagnose those who developed speech without delays as AS. Anyone who develops regular speech later should still be dx’ed with Autism Disorder. The difference seems to be obvious to me from what I see. Some kids come in with functional language (AS) others do not. You said “Which is perfectly respectable as a point of view - unless one is also simultaneously making large claims about “normalcy” and “recovery.” If you’re claiming “these children are now normal”, it would seem to render it meaningless to then add “well, gee, what is normal, is anyone really normal anyway?”” I disagree, I think it is highly appropriate to question (what is normal?). Especially after Dr. Maurice goes to some length to describe her children’s behavior. You said “Lovaas’s claim of “recovery” and “normal functioning” were so controversial in the field partly because it had already been well documented (from Kanner’s follow-ups onwards) that some people who initially presented with classical autism could go on to survive mainstream school, live independently, go to university, hold down jobs, or even sometimes get married (or whatever other external indicators of “success” you want to pick), but that they generally remained distinctly “different”.” Ahhh....but what is the exact rates and do we know what teaching methods/therapies the child has gone through. Now compare that to DT. You said “So one of the factors that made Lovaas so controversial was that he wasn’t simply asserting that he was increasing children’s levels of functioning, or enabling kids to master mainstream academics who wouldn’t otherwise have been able to - he was claiming that they were now “normal”.” The enabling kids to master mainstream academics is my goal. I think from the studies and my own personal experience that DT is more likely to allow that than other learning situations. Michelle Dawson 301 10 May 2004 21:33:11 -0000 Dr Sallows uses “normalcy”, and the goal of “normal”. This is one of the main behaviourist arguments against TEACCH. I don’t want to set off an ABA vs TEACCH thing; the point is that to distinguish ABA from TEACCH, behaviourists very much used the idea that TEACCH did not allow for recovery, and that TEACCH was cradle to grave. We’re now getting ABA that has little to do with “recovery”, whatever that is, and is rapidly going towards cradle to grave. 301-350 | 351-400 | previous | next |
|
|
| Top | Comments | E-mail |
