An article in yesterdays Longmont Times raised (for me anyway) the issue of Facilitated Communication.
This is an issue that is, in its own way, just as divisive as the vaccine issue amongst sections of the autism community and science. You see, some autistic and autism advocates believe passionately in the efficacy of FC whilst science largely rejects FC:
Current position statements of certain professional and/or advocacy organizations do not support the use of Facilitated Communication due to their objections that it lacks scientific validity or reliability. These organizations include the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Association for Behavior Analysis International (ABAI), American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Association on Mental Retardation. ABAI calls FC a “discredited technique” and warns that “its use is unwarranted and unethical.”
The Association for Science in Autism Treatment reviewed the research and position statements and concluded that the messages typed on the communication device were controlled by the facilitator, not the individual with autism, and FC did not improve their language skills. Therefore, FC was reported to be an “inappropriate intervention” for individuals with autism spectrum disorders
The section of the autism community that accepts FC as a valid technique is largely the neurodiversity movement in who’s ranks I place myself. But is this making me a hypocrite? I place such firm emphasis on science when it comes to vaccines I can do no less in other areas. But on the other hand voices I trust implicitly within the neurodiversity movement speak out in favour of FC. Amanda Baggs, Kathleen Seidel and (I think) Michelle Dawson to name but three. * [correction: Michelle is not an FC supporter] *
So what do I do? Should I be making a call for more studies (sounds familiar!) or dismissing the voices of autistic people I trust on the issue or dismissing established science?
Or is there another option? What are your thoughts on FC? A decent debate would be useful for lots of people I think.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Richard, excellent posts. James Todd, my apologies for some of our misguided and cruel FC advocates. We have them on all sides of the issue.
Clay, here’s another definition of misogyny…
The Disciple asked: What is a misogynist?
The Master replied: I do not know; but it is used by cowards as a term of abuse for those who say what everybody thinks.
August Strindberg circa 1900
The more things change the more they stay the same. The truth is misogyny is rare while misandry, not even in most dictionaries, is probably genetic. Talk about “double standards”. The power of women is awesome. Men who abuse other men in defense of all powerful women are oppressors.
Is there more in the reference to suggest the communication was facilitated in some way? It sounds like the individual in this case simply communicated independently after being handed the Canon communicator.
Let’s not confuse things. This is like a bait and switch tactic. “See, this thing superficially similar to FC did work, so FC must be a good thing in general!”
Plus it goes without saying that anecdotal evidence is the lowest form of evidence.
Joseph,
I think the point is that Arthus Schawlow’s son typed to
communicate be it with or without support. A very similar
situation to myself – I first typed on a canon communicator.
Paul Shattock from the Autism Research Unit suggested a
canon communicator to my mother. How many others with
‘disability labels’ would have been able to type if they had been handed a canon communicator?
Richard
joseph say re
re: Is there more in the reference to suggest the communication was facilitated in some way? It sounds like the individual in this case simply communicated independently after being handed the Canon communicator.
sigh, bet cha $100 it was FC…why should i provide free research for you…what is your interest in attempting to prove FC snake oil…thus criminally denying many on the spectrum the right/opportunity to communicate with FC if they choose…
Oh well what the heck…
“In addition to his dedication to physics, Art Schawlow was a devoted husband and father of three children; Artie, Helen and Edie. Art and his late wife Aurelia devoted considerable time and energy caring for their son Artie, who has autism. Their efforts included organizing a nonprofit corporation to provide a group home for autistic people and the championing of ‘facilitated communication,’ a means of enhancing communication with autistic individuals.” http://www.stanford.edu/dept/physics/newsletter/1999/04tribute.html
Both parents worked intensively toward finding ways for communicating with autistic individuals. One somewhat controversial method on which Arthur Sr. did research and became well known was for the autistic individual to spell words with a small handheld machine. Arthur and Aurelia wrote a chapter in a book Integrating Moderate and Severely Handicapped Learners under the title “Our Son: The Endless Search for Help.” http://www.nap.edu/html/biomems/aschawlow.pdf
BTW my friend (PhD physicist, twin autistic boys who FCed) who opined psychologists didn’t have a clue to statistics re human behavior (see previous post) worked w/ Schawlow on laser projects…
mo on Schawlow
Typically, when Schawlow won the Nobel Prize, his first thought for the prize money was to help people with autism. When I apologised for calling him early in the morning the day the prize was announced, he said it didn’t bother him because he’d been woken earlier and was too excited to go back to sleep. Many people had assumed he had shared the 1964 prize with Townes, and he joked that the 1981 prize saved him the trouble of explaining that he did not have a Nobel
I [richard] think the point is that Arthus Schawlow’s son typed to communicate be it with or without support
wish that were the point…the point is there are those who are hell bent on denying the right to communicate using FC…reasonably sure i know todd-etals’ motives…not sure of J’s.
stanley seigler
Richard, you ARE aware of the experiments primarily responsible for discrediting FC in the first place, aren’t you?
Autistic individuals who were claimed to be able to communicate, but only through FC, were asked to identify the picture that was displayed to them.
The facilitator didn’t know that THEY were seeing a DIFFERENT picture than the one which was being displayed to the autistic individual.
And the autistic individual did not know what picture was being shown to the facilitator.
If FC had ACTUALLY been letting these autistic individuals communicate, then what they would have communicated is what THEY saw.
Instead – without exception – it was what the FACILITATOR saw that was reported. You cannot believe that that was the autistic individual communicating with the mere assistance of the facilitator unless you claim that the autistic individual was in each of these tested cases psychic, able to report what was in a picture they weren’t able to see.
If you can’t see that these autistic individuals were having someone else’s identity foisted on them by the facilitators who made what THEY were seeing come out through the FC and claimed “that’s what this autistic person is saying!” then I have to assume you aren’t even trying to approach this matter as a rational person.
You may make any assumption that you wish. Your perception of
truth is not my perception of truth. You perceive the situation
from one view point and I perceive the situation from another.
My experience is not based on ‘an assumption’.
But people have made assumptions about me all my life. In fact
twenty years of assumptions because they did not actually take
the time to ask or listen. They assumpted that I was
‘retarded’ because I had ataxic cerebral palsy. People today
still assume that I am ‘retarded’ – strangers in the street -because I do not fit into their picture of normality.
Well in actual fact I have proved the establishment wrong. So
if they were wrong about me then the likelihood is that were
wrong about other children.
The difference between us is not about being rational or irrational. The difference between us is about being open minded or closed minded.
Is it rational – to deny children and adults the means by which to
communicate because ‘a few research studies’ failed to produce
sufficient answers. You consider this rational? Even though
many people now type independently. It seems very irrational to me. You feel it is rational to deny human beings equality on
grounds of disability. Sounds very much irrational to me.
And that does not foister an identity on to a person. To ‘foist’
something on to someone is to ‘inflict something unwanted on to
them’ or to palm off something inferior on to them.
Segregation has been foisted on to countless children; an inferior education has been foisted on to countless children. Inequality has been foisted on to countless children. Social injustice has been foisted on to countless children. Disability labels have been foisted on to countless children.
And are we talking about recent research here or are we talking
about research that is how many years old? Like I stated much
the same as the case for ME – people were closed minded and
would not listen and now the case has been proven.
Richard
No Psychics (NPs) say re
re: it was what the FACILITATOR saw that was reported.
tood-etals base denying many on the spectrum on this and similar test results…how do they explain, eg, sue rubin completing college…do they deny the innate ability of carly…how do they explain a nobel prize physicist championing FC…do they believe them psychics
NPs, would you provide details of test which lead you to incorrectly believe Richard is irrational…
BTW there are days my daughter will not FC…screams and throws the machine at me…then there are days (infrequent) she type so rapidly i cant keep up…
FC works…those on the spectrum cant wait for the normal rationals to believe…”perhaps they never will”, vincent…not even on a starry starry nite…
much research is needed…look forward to reviewing details of test to which NPs refers…assume testers knew FCers well…
there is no way any one day, one week of testing, would be valid in testing my daughter…or any on the spectrum i have know over 40 years…
it would be almost like proving general relativity in a day…90 years later and there are still unanswered questions…
re: then I have to assume you aren’t even trying to approach this matter as a rational person.
would NPs and tood-etals condemn many on the spectrum to another 90 years of silence and pain…there may be a seat in ring at the bottom of the fiery pit for them.
in the world of odd balls, einstein, lenny bruce, diogenes, many on the spectrum: NPs, tood-etals are irrational…get out of the normal, rational, greed, ego, box…join the world of beautiful odd balls…
in the meantime if you provide me with details of the TEST we will play rational, todd-etal, games with it…but once out of the box…”oh the places we will go”
in between time you may want to rationally explain elizebeth: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/october-16-2009/autistic-poet/4595/
stanley seigler
Nobel Prize winning Arthur Schalow and his wife supported the communication of their son simply by standing next to him with their hand on his shoulder. Many communicators can type that way but many more need full support…hand in hand.
As for the double blinds and the source of the communication, while it may appear the communication is unconsciously coming from the facilitator there are many other explanations. Science isn’t supposed to be about “appearances” but in the social sciences it often is.
The important point here is in the context of science and autism treatment. Behaviorism has little validity in the treatment of autism but it does function well as a caretaker management tool. It helps structure the environment in a positive way when it works at it’s best. It is also a “command” intervention meaning it is very assertive towards directing the autistic and since autism is a motor disorder it gives the behaviorist an appearance of being able to help and control the autistic. In reality is just aggravates the autistic and does little or no good in helping him function.
FC actually has some of the same components of behaviorism and behaviorists make good facilitators as a result. It requires some assertiveness on the part of the facilitator but not nearly as much as in other behavioral methods and for a much higher and positive goal…communication, which the autistics are motivated for.
If you were to compare behavioral outcomes of FC to any other behavioral intervention, FC wins hands down. Negative behaviors melt away and are gone after a year of a decent FC program. The clients I worked with were adults and had been on meds most of their lives. After a year of FC, ALL of them were off their meds.
Another benefit to FC is that NOT everyone has to do it in lockstep like with behavioral programs. If you don’t believe it or think it unethical you don’t have to do it. It’s much less unethical than behaviorism and caretaking workers were forced to do that.
Anyone with extensive experience in treating autism who was exposed to both methods, FC or behaviorism, would come away supporting FC.
Historically behaviorism has been ridiculed and abolished in many other fields where treatment is done, particularly with mental health clients in the Eighties. In autism it has some efficacy, as I said, as a management tool for caretakers and workers but it is pure pseudoscience to claim it cures or helps autistics in any meaningful or measurable way.
I am wondering why one picture was shown to the facilitator and
another to the typist – if this was the case – why bother to
show a picture to the facilitator? And were the typists shown the
picture at the same time as the facilitator or beforehand? And were the typists screened before the study for Scotopic Sensitivity – because they would have possibly seen parts of a picture rather than the whole or the picture could have broken
up. And typing withor without support to communicate is not the same as looking at a picture and typing to identify it. One would have to question the light in the room – was it natural light or artifical – if it was artificial it would have added
extreme stress to someone with SS and also was there a machine to deaden white noise? Was the room carpeted to deaden sound or was
it in a room where sound would echo.
How many typists were included in the study and was it
explained to them before hand that they would have to
identify a picture. Were the typists children or adults?
Personally I have never used typing with or without support at this level. I covered word and picture matching pre school with pictures and word cards.
Richard
Tom the ‘behaviour modification’ program in special education in the UK for children would have been different to your experience.
Richard
Good points Richard about the double blinds. We’ve talked about them ad nauseum on forums I own, or have been on with scientists present, and none of them raised those issues. Most of this has very little to do with science but more to do with people’s agendas. One of the legitimate problems with FC was how it was promoted as “valid” and making a quick goal of independence. The valid part resulted in false accusations and people going to jail unjustly and for pushing people into college before we understood better what was happening with autism and the FC method. As for independence, most auties just can’t or won’t do it.
As for behaviorism… I worked long enough doing it to know both it’s limitations and more importantly the huge potential for abuse and unethical treatment. It’s a truly nasty treatment modality and should be banned in autism, or at least heavily regulated, which was the case where I worked. But even then it caused major problems both in ethics and staff dynamics. When I first started working in a behavioral program for autistics called “The Intensive Treatment Center” (ITC) in 1979 I almost quit over the unethical nature of the whole thing. I probably should have but rationalized at the time that the auties needed me and it would be better me doing that stupid stuff than someone meaner.
As I said Tom it would be hard to identify a picture or even
a word if it is dancing around, jumping out of sight, or
one experiences total wipe out. But that does not mean that one cannot type to communicate. That does not mean that one
cannot keep going and develop language. It just makes it
harder.
My typed language changed dramatically in the space
of a week after I was diagnosed with Scotopic Sensity Syndrome
and prescribed tinted lenses. They calm the whole environment.
In the UK we use a different system to Irlen lenses – Cerium
Technology developed by Professor Arnold Wilkins.
As to behaviour modification I agree with you in the hands
of the wrong people it is open to unethical treatment and
should be banned. It has no place in modern day society.
Richard
Tom,
re: ‘As for independence, most auties just can’t or won’t do it’.
‘Autism’ is a disability label. Some people are happy with
wearing ‘labels’ because it gives them a sense of identity others
like myself prefer to be seen as human beings.
And we will never know how many people would have typed independently because they were denied access to communication.
If a child has been denied an education how can they possibly
make up for that lost time in a short period? The goal of
independence was a goal that was set but how realistic was it
given that each person was an individual and would have had
different educational needs? It was a goal that was achievable
for some given the time for it to be implemented fairly. Now
we have lost all that information.
And people lie and make false statements verbally in mainstream but we do not take away the communication of other people or deny them access to communication because of it.
Richard
richard say re
re: As to behaviour modification I agree with you in the hands
of the wrong people it is open to unethical treatment and
should be banned. It has no place in modern day society.
COMMENT
probably getting off FC topic…but perchance worthwhile to reminds parent/stakeholders of the ultimate ABA program and it only cost $240,000 per year…no greed here just proven ABA techniques.
read all about it…School of Schock:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/08/school-shock
[MJ article clip]
Every time he woke from this dream, it took him a few moments to remember that he was in his own bed, that there weren’t electrodes locked to his skin, that he wasn’t about to be shocked. It was no mystery where this recurring nightmare came from—not A Clockwork Orange or 1984, but the years he spent confined in America’s most controversial “behavior modification” facility.
stanley seigler
Good points Richard…I agree. I would add that the best foundation for developing independent typing or teaching any skills would be a good FC program. Communication first everything else later.
As for behaviorism, I and others warned parents on these internet forums back in the Nineties some of the blowback they could expect if they went the ABA route. They are experiencing it now yet the new parents keep getting sucked in. Not to mention the horror to the autistics. I use labels as short hand Richard but agree that individuals hate them.
Tom, each person is an individual and what meets the needs of one person would not necessarily meet the needs of another. I feel that my communication developed along side main stream College studies because it was where I felt intellectually challenged. But then I had learnt all the basics at a small child. I think any FC program would have to consider the educational needs of the individual.
Unfortunately my parents were not even aware that the school had a behaviour modification program at the time of my entry to
the school. And once they realised they removed me from the
school.
I always try to make the point when using the word ‘autistic’
that I perceive it as a ‘disability label’. I also make it
clear that I do not identify with the word and do not consider
myself to be part of a disability concept. And I adhere to
the same rule for others in that I consider they deserve the
same respect. I feel the only way forward for people under the umbrella of disability is to challenge the concepts and the labels.
Richard
I am not afraid of the lable “disabled” because I refuse to see it through the same spectacles (Irlen lenses or not, mine are not Irlen they are “Larry”) as the arschlochischtischen artztlichkeit of the medical fraternity who think they “own” us all.
I own Autism, the word does not belong to one side at all and those of us who run from it are those who are internally oppressed by others ideologies not our own.
Ever hear the term “temprorarily able bodied” that is the true human condition as you get older you wear out, some of us faster than others, some of us depending on what we started out with.
So What!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To Deny the disability concept is actually to buy into the negative less than perspective.
Laurentius Rex,
I do not buy into the ‘disability’ theory I spent
too many years in special education and witnessed the destruction caused by ‘disability labels’ to wish to be part of it. I refuse to be ‘labelled’. If other people wish to use the term ‘autistic’ to refer to themselves that is their choice
but I crushed everything I saw as ‘autistic’ into the ground.
As I said I do not identify with it.
Richard
Richard say re
re: I can only re-iterate the points I have raised. I have never suffered at the hands of typing or fc but I certainly suffered at the hands of behaviour modification and segregation. As I stated none/or very few of the children at either schools I attended went on to higher things.
COMMENT
the todd-etals (FC doesn’t work behaviorists who call it snake oil) are on the wrong side of history…in company with the flat-earthers, the lobotomisters, bettelheimers…and;
for behaviorists who only make $10-$12 per hr (per todd) to maintain these rates (or maintain a lucrative livelihood) it would behoove them to incorporate a form of FC into their programs…the behaviorists with open minds and some vision have…
as a minimum, todd-etals should consider the approach of a respected PhD psychologist: “I adore Doug Biklen. I’m not very sure of FC, but if parents want to assist their child that way and it is not harmful, who am I to decide differently? Best of all, FC has gotten more interest in things like language devices and computer use – and that’s great!”
and/oh/btw, JRC’s Israel, the ultimate behaviorist, makes around $400,000 per (see MJ article)…no “venal pecuniary motives” here…wonder if israel’s wife (JRC’s sister, tobinworld in CA) works for $10/hr.
Perhaps with more open minded attitudes and research re the innate ability some/many (most/all?) on the spectrum have to learn w/o formal education, as mentioned: terms like “todd-etals” and “petulant third grader” will be eliminated …and then;
combinations of behavioral and FC type programs can be devised…and maybe one day FAPE will be SOP…hope springs
stanley seigler
That the behaviorists haven’t incorporated FC is not only a travesty to science but to their own approach…”Applied Behavioral Analysis”. They can’t even do behaviorism right! The only explanation is bias, political, and money grubbing. None are very scientific motivations.
the travesty is the untold thousands on the spectrum imprisoned in bettelheim’s empty fortress due to “bias, political, and money grubbing” motives of the todd-etals…
not all behaviorists…some are FCers at heart…the ones todd says have been tricked by “amazing feats, college degrees, scripts, awards of FC Stars and abounding testimonials”… (see previous todd post to this blog)…ie;
the stupid fools, so easily tricked by the likes of a petulant third grader.
stanley seigler
Todd say re:
re: What interesting rhetoric.
Indeed interesting
re: We should all chafe the sound of a graduate of Harvard Law School casting aspersions on the honest work of someone [a paid expert witness] coming to the aid of accused defendants in an American courtroom. It does not matter if those defendants are accused of littering or of the most heinous sexual crimes. It does not matter if those defendants actually did the thing or not. An adequate defense is not only a right under the U.S. Constitution, but an absolute necessity if we are going to even begin approach a balance between the massive power of the state and often very limited resources of the accused individual. Nothing reminds us of the disparity of power I speak of like seeing a defendant, technically said to be innocent, jailed without bond, transported to hearings in shackles and dressed in embarrassing coveralls, deprived of income, limited in contact with friends, loved ones, and counsel, completely powerless to do anything similar to those who have brought the charges. Such was the case in Michigan FC matter last year. [for context see todd post]
COMMENT
OTOH perhaps…
We should all chafe the sound of an arrogant PhD behaviorist casting aspersions on the honest work of parents (what do they know compared to todd-etals) coming to the aid of those condemned lifetimes of silence in bettelheims empty fortress.
It does matter untold thousands are condemned to life times of silence by tood-etals.
An adequate means of communications is not only a right under the U.S. Constitution, but an absolute necessity if we are going to even begin approach a balance between the massive power of the state and often very limited resources of the individual with special needs…ie, freedom and justice for all.
Nothing reminds us of the disparity of power I speak of like seeing those on the spectrum (and all w/ special needs) being, by myopic behaviorist, denied their right to communicate…transported to hearings (tests) in mental shackles and dressed in embarrassing coverall labels, deprived of income, limited in contact with friends, loved ones, and counsel, completely powerless to do anything similar to those who deny them a means to communicate…charged with incompetence, disability, retarded.
Such was/is the case of untold thousands on the spectrum over the decades.
And/oh/btw…speaking of the range of crimes from littering to the most heinous sexual crimes…wonder whats tood-etals position is on the torture performed by the arch behaviorist at JRC…do they condemn torture with the same vitriol (it does not work) as they do FC…
There is a ring at the bottom…hope there is justice…
stanley seigler
There’s a couple hundred studies on FC validation out in the peer-reviewed literature. Those with scientifically sound controls *overwhelmingly* show that at least the vast majority of those communicating via FC are unwittingly having the communication produced by the facilitator, likely via the ideomotor effect. How that is not foisting one’s own thoughts upon another person is beyond me. And anyone even with a cursory familiarity with the state of research of FC, supporter or no, should at least be aware that this is the state of the peer-reviewed literature.
The type of picture study referenced above is just one example of research design. There are a variety of ways to attack the problem, each resulting in confirmation FC not being valid for the subjects being tested. Indeed, the few papers that show some evidence of FC validation invariably suffer from poor research methodology that should be apparent to an intro research methods student.
It is worth noting that when you give conflicting answers to a question (say a message passing test) to the facilitator and the facilitatee, what the facilitator heard or saw is invariably the answer produced. When you give the information just to the facilitatee and leave the facilitator in the dark, what you get is either incorrect (or only right at the level of guessing), gibberish, or a refusal to answer the question. What’s going on in those studies alone is pretty obvious, but it isn’t the only way sound validation procedures are done.
Linus Pauling is the only person to ever have two unshared Nobel Prizes. He was one of the greatest scientists to ever live. Yet, he spent his latter years evangelizing the health benefits of taking superdoses of Vitamin C. It was successful enough that even to this day you can see the residual effects of those efforts in US culture. The sad thing about that is the research pretty conclusively showed that Pauling’s views were, at first, simply unwarranted by the evidence and later just flat wrong.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pauling.html
Even people with Nobel prizes are subject to human foibles and biases that leave us wrong or given to pseudoscientific pursuits. As in the case of Pauling, when commenting outside of their native area of expertise the chances that they will be no better than your average educated person go up significantly.
Assuming FC is valid to argue that those who oppose it (because they think it is invalid) are deserving of contempt for desiring to suppress people’s communication is about as transparent of an example of begging the question as you could hope for.
If a support team was executing life-alerting decisions for a person with autism by consulting a Ouija board or a crystal ball to read their thoughts, those who opposed that team’s efforts wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to the person making decisions for themselves. The problem is what’s in dispute is whether the Ouija board or the crystal ball is a reliable way for the person with autism to communicate their thoughts. And if you point out that they consented to use the crystal ball via the crystal ball, then you are just engaging in circular reasoning so bad that you deserve to be pitied and ignored.
Jason S say re:
Re: He [Pauling] was one of the greatest scientists to ever live…The sad thing about that [vit c] is the research pretty conclusively showed that Pauling’s views were, at first, simply unwarranted by the evidence and later just flat wrong.
That a greatest scientist to ever live was just flat wrong…makes one ponder the validity of “a couple hundred studies [by pseudo scientists] on FC validation”…and;
another great scientist, bettelheim, was also flat-a wrong re refrigerator moms…and we all know based on scientific testing by the tobacco companies nicotine is not addictive…andand;
as there are serious questions re IQ tests providing a true indication of kids from the hood’s intelligence…the tests used to invalidate FC are questionable based on observational science…
a PhD physicist (with twin autistic sons who FC) say: “Worst of all are behavioral psychologists and charlatan psychiatrists. The former apply all manner of behavior modification systems to people with innate neurological anomalies without a hope of benefit to anyone (except their own earnings)…Psychologists use statistical methods that require large samples to calculate standard deviations and error bars from sets of as few as ten subjects…many of them do not understand observational science as applied to human beings, who are not robots and do not obey fixed laws of behavior.” (see a previous post for context)
would you please provide links to a couple of the hundreds to which you refer…and any details you feel might help someone who “deserve[s] to be pitied and ignored”…(oh, why didn’t you ignore)
and/oh, have you met anyone (names please) who uses FC…eg, sue rubin…seeing is the believing…except for the case of the flat earth scientists.
jason and the toad-etals deserve to be ignored and pitied… would be ignored if they didnt condemn many on the spectrum to a silent prison…they are pitied and on the wrong side of history…
stanley seigler
“another great scientist, bettelheim,”
are you kidding? he was a bloody lying git! he lied his arse off about having graduated at all, let alone ‘summa cum laude’!
“many of them do not understand observational science as applied to human beings, who are not robots and do not obey fixed laws of behavior.”
indeed, but ‘many’ does not mean ‘all’!
“bettelheim’s empty fortress”
you a fan of that lying turd, then?
Stanley Seigler… wtf is wrong with you? you seem to be anti-EVERYthing that could possibly be used well to empower people and prepared to believe complete and utter bullshit. You love Bettelheim… and sure love Biklen.
hardly surprising… both are/were total frauds!
As mentioned before Dr Schalows, a nobel prize winner in physics who also had a son he FC’d with, supported FC. I talked with him about this science vs FC problem. He said that most scientists in this arena of autism are not scientists at all and there is nothing unscientific about the use and study of FC.
The criticism that the facilitators are speaking for autistics through FC and the ethics of that is totally bogus. We are always doing that in autism, FC or no FC. It can’t be helped most of the time due to the nature of autism. We also don’t know for sure if that is what we are doing in FC. The facilitators certainly aren’t doing it consciously either. Maybe there are other explanations for what is happening though I agree it appears that it is the facilitator unconsciously talking for the client. But appearances aren’t science.
As I also said before, vaccines and FC are apples and oranges scientifically speaking. Little or no comparison. Vaccines is physical and much more accessible to science and FC is social and very unaccessible to science.
Tony –
The standard explanation for what’s happening during FC primarily is unconscious prompting from the facilitator via the ideomotor effect. It’s the same effect that allows people to write on a Ouija board and genuinely feel like it’s not coming from them. It’s sometimes known as “automatic writing.” When confronted with decisive evidence that information produced during FC should only have been known by the facilitator, some FC advocates argued that telepathy explained it. (See Dr. Anne Donnellan for a famous example.) I don’t understand why one would posit a heretofore unjustified cognitive ability that defies our theoretical framework for brain/mental function when we have a perfectly well supported and understood phenomenon that fits the observational data like a glove.
I really don’t understand how you can argue that people speak through autistics anyway, so there’s nothing wrong with using a method where you write communication and misattribute it to them. It’s about as slam dunk unethical as it gets.
Stanley –
One scientist commenting outside his area of expertise with little to no sound research backing him up is much, much more likely to be wrong than dozens of them commenting inside their area of expertise backed up by hundreds of sound, repeatable experiments. One authority isn’t a particularly reliable source while the other is.
That said, the mere fact that scientists were wrong before can’t be used to distrust the product of any scientific inquiry. The problem of induction doesn’t allow you to believe whatever you want. That Mendel was at first ignored doesn’t mean whatever pseudoscience du jour you believe is going to be vindicated. The only way to know what will be vindicated by the evidence in the future is to actually vindicate it. So, to use an example you brought up, flat earthers shouldn’t expect to be vindicated simply because Linus Pauling was wrong about Vitamin C. Or more broadly, they shouldn’t expect vindication because the scientific community initially didn’t except plate tectonics when there was already conclusive evidence for it. Linus Pauling’s foray into bad health science is more a cautionary tale about how biases that lead to pseudoscience can effect even the brightest and best among us.
Arthur Shawlow got a Nobel for his work in optics, which has essentially nothing to do with the science behind the validity of FC. His Nobel is almost no more meaningful for conferring expertise or authority on that subject than it would be for making him a reliable expert on Russian literature in the 12th century. His Nobel also does not indicate that he was a good judge of the demarcation criteria of science, as it has very little to do with philosophy of science. And his quotes can be judged by anyone who does have some background in phil of science and psychology. His naked assertions come off as quite naive, and there’s not much to say beyond the fact that he’s wrong (or more specifically, has a strawman understanding of the research he’s criticizing). At least Micheal Behe has a Ph.D. in a biology related field when he makes awful arguments for the design of life.
Since Shawlow is just being cited for the authority that his Nobel is supposed to offer, there’s not much more to say beyond the fact that his Nobel doesn’t make him an authority on every scientific subject ever. If there are any evidence based arguments or *specific* critiques of studies to address from him, they aren’t being offered. Instead we get demeaning statements about experimental psychologists and psychiatrists and a false assertion that behavioral experiments must presume people are robots and are flawed due to that assumption being false.
Indeed it is increasingly the case as specialisation proceeds apace that expertise in ones field means total ignorance in 99% of anything else.
The age of the renaissance man has long gone, and the polymath is almost an extinct species.
I say almost because I am one of the last of the line 🙂
How did that rhyme about Jowett go now?
Further, it’s worth noting that if human behavior is so impenetrable by empirical research and thus disconfirming results cannot be held against FC, then how does one come off saying observation has confirmed FC as a valid tool to tap into hidden literacy skills? That seems like special pleading. Even if it were true that something like message passing tests somehow are bad science, that does not make uncritical anecdotal observation any more a reasonable basis for validating FC than it already is. And it isn’t.
Moreoever, if you can’t say FC has been vindicated as a legtimate means of communication by sound analysis of observational data (i.e. science), then how exactly are you warranted to believe in it as legtimate? And if you are not warranted to believe in it, then why on earth would you recommend or implement it as a communication tool for public consumption? It seems that if to rescue FC you must make it untouchable by science, it’s unclear how FC is any better off than the person who reads fortunes in the stars or communicates with an autistic via a Ouija board. Advocates of those phenomena have an intersting habit of not being amenable to carefully controlled experiments due to an unweildly and implausible house of ad hocs too.
At least your traditional advocates of FC are more circumspect about validation methodolgy and just given to poorly constructed experiment design rather than being hostile to behavioral science in general.
Jason S say re
re: The standard explanation for what’s happening during FC primarily is unconscious prompting from the facilitator via the ideomotor effect. It’s the same effect that allows people to write on a Ouija board and genuinely feel like it’s not coming from them.
Sigh oh my, bless yo lil old heart, you got it wrong…the standard explanation is observational science…ie, seeing is believing… do you know anyone who uses FC…
Re Linus Pauling’s foray into bad health science is more a cautionary tale about how biases that lead to pseudoscience can effect even the brightest and best among us.
then be warned re your FC bias…Ditto re seeing believing…except for those who will not see…none so blind as those who will not see…
Repeating: “would you please provide links to a couple of the hundreds to which you refer (studies disproving FC)…and any details you feel might help someone who deserve[s] to be pitied and ignored”…hope some are post 1994…
I know the todd-etals motive in trashing FC is greed (paid experts); whats yours…or are you a toad-etal (jim todd and his ilk)…
stanley seigler
Stanley –
Yes, I know people who “use” FC. Two to be exact. It is overwhelmingly likely in their cases that the communication produced via FC is the result of unconscious prompting by the facilitators. How do you recommend we test and control for that explanation with your *ahem* “seeing is believing” method?
Dr. James Todd already mentioned two of the most relevant meta-analysis studies. I don’t think I can find public access to Gina Green’s paper, but if you want a link to one:
Click to access facilitated-communicaton-since-1995.pdf
I said the people who deserve to be pitied and ignored are those who engage in a type of circular reasoning I outlined.
Stanley –
Yes I know two people who use facilitated communication. I’m perfectly comfortable saying that it is extremely likely that the communication they produce during FC is a byproduct of unconscious prompting by the facilitators. How do you suggest we test and control for that possiblity with your “seeing is believing” method?
Dr. James Todd already referenced to the the most important meta-analysis studies. I don’t think there is online public access to Gina Green’s paper, but you can look up Mostert’s easily enough:
Click to access facilitated-communicaton-since-1995.pdf
The people I said who deserve to be pitied and ignored are those who engage in a type of circular reasoning I outlined.
Jason S.,
one of your comments got caught by the spam trap. I don’t know if I caught everything that might have been caught there–in other words, I apologize if I deleted anything you (or anyone else) wrote recently.
—-
I apologize. A typo snuck in there. That should’ve read, “Dr. James Todd already referenced to of the most important meta-analysis studies.”
We are always putting words in auties mouths! Get real.
As for Schalow’s critique, it was of the “soft” sciences and many have made the same critique. That’s not to say we shouldn’t do “soft” science or that it doesn’t have value, but it should be approached much more carefully and kept in perspective…something many behaviorists don’t do though the best do it.
Listen, you fool skeptics don’t have to do FC or believe a word of it but you do have to allow and encourage others to do it if for no other reason than freedom and the fact it is so obviously therapeutic. The same goes for any other autism intervention, most of which have very low levels of utility or scientific validation.
If you guys worked in patient care and treatment for auties like I did for thirty years and did all the most scientific interventions like I and many others did all those years you would think this discussion laughable. If you did FC too, this discussion is a horror.
Tom –
There are some physicists (and chemists, geologists, etc.) here and there who make critiques of the “soft” sciences, some going as far as to not call them science, that don’t really show a good grasp of those fields. Often there is a parallel misplaced confidence in how scientific inference works in the “hard” sciences. The upshot is that physicists aren’t necessarily philosophers of science or informed on the subject, so we shoudn’t fret about taking their views on the matter as the authoritative position of academia. We can examine their arguments, of course, but when they amount to a strawman understanding of what they are criticizing, there’s not much to do but point that out.
I don’t have to “allow” or especially encourage others to do FC, especially when I think it is at least almost always an example of misattribution of thoughts to the person being facilitated. That is a harm being visited upon them. There are few things more fundamentally harmful than replacing someone’s personality and choices with another’s. It’s abusive.
If the therapeutic benefits of FC could attributed to FC simpliciter rather than things like working closely with someone with attentiveness, often using hand over hand techniques, then it would be nice to see evidence of that. Just because you do X,Y, and Z and there is some benefit, it doesn’t not follow that X,Y, and Z are responsible for the benefit. Z might be what helps and X and Y might be pointless ritual or, as in this case, harmful. That’s what careful scientific examination is for.
That you continue to argue that people always put words in the mouths of people with autism, therefore there’s nothing wrong with a technique that puts words in their proverbial mouth is disturbing. If that were true, which it’s not, that should be an argument to overhaul everything about how we treat people with autism, not an argument to continue the abuse. Unfortunately, interventions for people with autism spectrum disorders used by caretakers do have a history of being rife with pointless rituals, dubious theories, and pseudoscientific crazes. That’s not an argument to continue fanning that flame.
Sullivan –
I ended up double posting it. Well, sort of. If you could erase the second version and correction, I’d appreciate it.
Thanks.
David Andrews say re:
Re: “bettelheim’s empty fortress
The sarcasm in “another great scientist” was missed…Apologies for my poor communicative skills (make that unskills)…
As a victim (a refrigerator parent) of “the great scientist/PhD psychologist” (NOTE THIS SARCASM); I am very familiar with BB… read the “empty fortress” in late 1964…my non verbal daughter with classic kanner autism was born in 1965, when BB still had some credibility…actually held in high regard by his peers (psychologists, scientists)
So I have little regard for most psychologists (unless they also happen to be on the spectrum…ie, been there done that)…tho, do have much difficulty understaning the position of those on the spectrum who deny others on the spectrum the FC opportunity …
those who provide misleading opines …like BBs refrigaratror parents and FC is snake oil…thus, young parents do not pursue FC as a possibility.
Ditto (kinda) scientific studies by the greedy and paid expert witnesses…
As said in a post to this blog: as a minimum, todd-etals should consider the approach of a respected PhD psychologist: “I adore Doug Biklen. I’m not very sure of FC, but if parents want to assist their child that way and it is not harmful, who am I to decide differently? Best of all, FC has gotten more interest in things like language devices and computer use – and that’s great!”
it would behoove them…the flat earth society (scientists/psychologists who will NOT see; none so blind)…to consider/apply American Speech Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) guidelines and study recommendations…
ASHS discredits FC in a 1994, position paper (ref A and B). But do say: Given the flurry of activity in this area, it is reasonable to assume that significant new findings that challenge statements made in this document may appear in the near future. Clinicians and others are encouraged to keep apprised of the latest findings concerning facilitated communication.
ASHS’ 1994, position contradicts their 1990 position re augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). FC is a form of AAC and is highly successful with quite a few…toad say there are:
“amazing feats, college degrees, scripts, awards of FC Stars and abounding testimonials”… Of course he then dismissed amazing feats and abounding testimonials as tricks of FCers…, “they can make claims and lots of people, universities have been fooled” (for context, see previous todd post to this blog)…and of course lots of people, universities all just idiots…unlike the brilliant toad-etals…(note more sarcasm)
Tho, ASHA does not mention FC, refs: 1. guidelines; 2. skills and knowledge; 3. position 1990; provide excellent reasons to include FC in all programs…ASHA should have followed them when publishing their 1994 FC Position Paper…and followed their advice “to keep appraised”…in 2010 the todd-etals still quote 1994 studies…
ASHA, clips:
[CLIP]All persons, regardless of the extent or severity of their disabilities, have a basic right to affect, through communication, the conditions of their own existence [AKA life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]. Beyond this general right, a number of specific communication rights should be ensured in all daily interactions and interventions involving persons who have severe disabilities. These basic communication rights are as follows [goto link]
[CLIP] The most effective means to establish functional communication is through the coordinated efforts of all team members…Each team member will bring unique knowledge, experience, and skills to the process of assessment and management of intervention programs…The knowledge, skills, and competencies needed within the interdisciplinary team, if optimal attention is to be given to the communication needs of persons with a severe disability, are listed below: [goto link]
stanley seigler
ref A, B, ASHA CLIPS
A Position Statement (1994)ASHA
http://www.asha.org/docs/html/PS1995-00089.html
[CLIP] When information available to facilitators is controlled and objective evaluation methods are used, peer-reviewed studies and clinical assessments find no conclusive evidence that facilitated messages can be reliably attributed to people with disabilities. Rather, most messages originate with the facilitator. Moreover, facilitated communication may have negative consequences if it precludes the use of effective and appropriate treatment, supplants other forms of communication, and/or leads to false or unsubstantiated allegations of abuse or mistreatment.
B. ASHA Subcommittee on Facilitated Communication
http://www.asha.org/docs/html/TR1994-00139.html#sec1.12
[CLIP] It is important to note that this technical report is based on published and in press research that was available to the committee through April 1994. Given the flurry of activity in this area, it is reasonable to assume that significant new findings that challenge statements made in this document may appear in the near future. Clinicians and others are encouraged to keep apprised of the latest findings concerning facilitated communication.
Ref 1,2,3, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1. AHSA Guidelines (1991)
ASHA.AAC.Natl Jt Comm.pdf
[CLIP]All persons, regardless of the extent or severity of their disabilities, have a basic right to affect, through communication, the conditions of their own existence [AKA life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]. Beyond this general right, a number of specific communication rights should be ensured in all daily interactions and interventions involving persons who have severe disabilities. These basic communication rights are as follows [goto link]
[CLIP] The most effective means to establish functional communication is through the coordinated efforts of all team members engaged in the development and implementation of education and treatment programs for persons with severe disabilities. Traditionally, this would involve the speech-language pathologist, audiologist, special educator, occupational therapist, and physical therapist working in concert with individuals and family members. The skills of professionals from other disciplines also may be required.
Each team member will bring unique knowledge, experience, and skills to the process of assessment and management of intervention programs. There may be variations in the interdisciplinary resources and functions in different service delivery settings. The knowledge, skills, and competencies needed within the interdisciplinary team, if optimal attention is to be given to the communication needs of persons with a severe disability, are listed below: [goto link]
[CLIP] The level of interpersonal, interdisciplinary, and interagency cooperation required to create such facilitating and enabling communication environments and to meet personnel needs may seem, at first, to present overwhelming logistical obstacles. However, without such a commitment, there can be no true quality of life for persons with severe disabilities. This is a challenge worthy of our best efforts.
2. Knowledge and Skills (2001): Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Knowledge and Skills for Service Delivery
ASHA.AAC.K&S.pdf
3. Position Statement (1990) Augmentative and Alternative Communication
ASHA.AAC.Position.pdf
[CLIP] It is the position of the American Speech Language-Hearing Association that communication is the essence of human life and that all people have the right to communicate to the fullest extent possible. Furthermore, provision of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) services is within the scope of practice of speech-language pathologists and audiologists (ASHA, 1990).
Jason say re:
Re: Yes I know two people who use facilitated communication. I’m perfectly comfortable saying that it is extremely likely that the communication they produce during FC is a byproduct of unconscious prompting by the facilitators. How do you suggest we test and control for that possibility with your “seeing is believing” method?
Thanks for the FC nay sayer links…past historical naysers say: the sun revolves around a flat earth
and appreciate fact you are not among the toad-etals who have never met a person who uses FC…
How do we test…well I dunno…most all tests (including those you provided, some already read) leave me a little less than comfortable…eg IQ test for the boys in the hood…and 90 year later they are still proving parts of general relativity…
many with special needs will die waiting for the toal-etal…many who have agendas other than freeing those with special needs from a silent prison…to stop categorically denying FC…
Having been around a few more than two who use FC…I am just as comfortable as you with view much of the communication is not unconscious prompting…so guess we will just have to be comfortable in our comfort zones…
but like my zone best…I have not denied (condemned them to a silent prison, BBs “empty fortress”) anyone the right to express their feelings by whatever means they choose…
of 30 some in my daughter’s peer group, the majority have shown improvement in behaviors and general well being, as a result of FC…the numbers increase as I consider all I have met through wapadh (whittier ca), elsewhere and on the Internet…
tho, not about jason s/my comfort zone; perhaps ASHS has a solution with which we both would be comfortable. if interest see my response to David Andrews on this blog.
stanley seigler
“Given the flurry of activity in this area, it is reasonable to assume that significant new findings that challenge statements made in this document may appear in the near future. Clinicians and others are encouraged to keep apprised of the latest findings concerning facilitated communication.”
Well, sure. The research pool slowly evaporated after 1995ish as more and more papers added to the disconfirmation of FC, but even given that clinicians should always stay open to the latest findings concerning FC or anything else. They should keep appraised of the latest findings concerning the “refrigerator mom” theory as well. Of course this is all bearing in mind that a research community’s time and intellectual resources are limited and attention should be directed given in proportion towards the ideas that are most likely to be useful/correct. I wouldn’t expect any vindication at this point, but if sound evidence were to turn up, then it would be appropriate to reevaluate our views. That’s not an argument to treat every idea as equally valid. As I said above, the problem of induction doesn’t allow you to believe whatever you want. Scientists should keep an open mind to flat earthers, but that doesn’t mean anyone should expect they’re just as likely to be right tomorrow as wrong. There’s lots of reason at this point to not expect any vindication coming. And we sure as heck shouldn’t act as though it is valid today because compelling evidence might turn up on Tuesday.
Stanley –
“Having been around a few more than two who use FC…I am just as comfortable as you with view much of the communication is not unconscious prompting…so guess we will just have to be comfortable in our comfort zones…”
The difference is that my view is the one amply backed up by the research, while yours appears to be an assertion based on, what?, your personal impression? You could substitute “Using dowsing rods to find water” for “FC” and your statement would be as meaningful.
The end goal needs to teach independent communication.
Discussing how to test is wonderful, but serious attempts at validation of FC have met with failure.
Scienceblogs.com/Insolence has a few references, including the man who was in the news last year. (Houten?)
Patrick,
Much depends on the definition of “independent”. If one needs some support, but is communicating his/her own thoughts, that is a success.
“So I have little regard for most psychologists (unless they also happen to be on the spectrum…ie, been there done that)…tho, do have much difficulty understaning the position of those on the spectrum who deny others on the spectrum the FC opportunity …”
Well, Stanley…. you’re gonna fucking LOVE me. I’m a psychologist who is autistic as well. So I can say – been there, done that, lived it, seen the shit that happens, found out why and how to go some way to making it stop!
There was nothing in your comment to indicate sarcasm, and many (especially in Finland, where I live) do still think that Bettelheim was great.
Regarding this “FC opportunity” you mention… as Jason says, you base your evaluation on what? I am an autistic psychologist, who also has training in mathematics and physics (and archaeology, if that matters), and I still take the scientific view: any claims of efficacy must be put to a test by those making the claim. None of them are putting their claims to the test. So scientists are doing it for them. And the results are not pleasing the proponents/”twue-bewievers” so they are all up in bloody arms about it (notwithstanding that the scientists are actually doing their work for them!) … wtf?!
When I was working in medical physics, we had a client whose brain – through a horrible sequence of events related to menningitis and a subsequent herpes infection – had much of his cortical brain tissue scraped out because the virus had literally “turned it to much” (as I had been told by other hospital staff dealing with his case). He had been taught one code system for the day activity centre where he was during the day (this was the code he used at home). Us physicists… being sceptical (and rightly so… note, not dismissive, but sceptical)… we decided to use a different code from that one. The guy was observed to simultaneously use the signs for “yes” and for “no” from both codes if people from the hospital physics department were there along with people from the day activity centre. Sadly, these were only informal observations and we cannot say that there was much reliability in them: my placement ended before we got chance to devise the sort of experimental protocol that would have allowed us to get to know more reliably whether his communications to us were chance events or actual affirmatives/negatives.
Such a protocol would have involved a lot of direct observation of behaviour, with some visits being done with a 2nd observer (to ascertain the inter-rater reliability of these observations). It would have needed a lot of statistical analysis of the observations, which would have had to be made in a number of settings, with some control for who was present at the time of any observed responses on his part to questions offering binary choices. The whole thing would have needed to be operationalised properly in order to be clear on what would count as a response. It would have taken some time to find out what his communicative skills using these codes were.
This guy’s case was the one that got me seriously into psychology as a scientific enterprise, collecting data based on observations made according to a replicatable protocol.
Don’t ask me to accept that I am “denying people on the spectrum the FC opportunity” based on your very poor-grade observations of not many people with no describable methodology. I see it as my duty as an autistic psychologist to protect/defend my fellow autistics from shite “interventions” such as FC (at least, as Biklen is trying to market it). I have issues with the way that the more strict behaviourists in the ABA camp have tried to turn autistic children into normal ones (such as normal actually exists), but I agree whole-heartedly with their objections to the hyping of FC as a viable method for working with autistic people who have difficulties in initiating any communication.
“As said in a post to this blog: as a minimum, todd-etals should consider the approach of a respected PhD psychologist: “I adore Doug Biklen. I’m not very sure of FC…”
Questions:
1- what ‘respected PhD psychologist?
2- why would a PhD in psychology make someone automatically relevant as a commentator here? (essential professional skills in psychology are learned at the Master’s degree stage; doctoral stage work is geared towards advanced professional and research skills)
3- why should the ‘todd-et-als’ consider that PhD psychologist’s approach?
From what I’ve seen and read of Biklen – including on video and in his own text – I can’t help but conclude that he’s a bloody arse-hole!
Stanley – you’re crap at science… don’t try to blind us real scientists with science when you don’t have the expertise. Not a put-down. Advice. Because you’re making yourself look foolish.
Exactly. Indepence is best defined in this context by independent communication. Independent typing absent any physical prompting or body language cueing is just a very strong indication of independent communication.
Japansese researchers are making interesting strides in exoskeleton research. If FC were valid, it’s not difficult to imagine a scenario where needed physical support was taken over by a properly programmed exoskeleton. That’s a bit sci-fi, but given the underpinnings of FC, it sounds like a potentially fruitful research avenue to explore. If that were to happen, the person communciating would still be physically dependent in a sense, but it’d be easy to observe independence in the desired sense here provided there were no programing shenanigans or distal cueing.
It’s also worth noting that while the evidence pretty conclusively demonstrates that at least in the vast majority of cases, facilitated communication is a byproduct of facilitator control, I don’t think the evidence can rule out outliers who learn to type independently by using FC as a sort of game where literacy skills are aquired. It would be a roundabout way to teach literacy in this case, but it’s not theoretically implausible. Just because we find facilitator control of unexpected literacy skills pratically, if not every time it is looked for with sound validation procedures, I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on finding one or a handful of magic bullet cases.
Jason say re:
re: Well, sure. The research pool slowly evaporated after 1995ish […] bearing in mind that a research community’s time and intellectual resources are limited and attention should be directed given in proportion towards the ideas that are most likely to be useful/correct.
COMMENT
Well sure, a research community’s time and intellectual resources are limited and attention should be directed given in proportion towards the ideas that are most likely to be useful/correct.
sad the FC research was biased, misdirected and unlikely to be useful or correct (more likely harmful)…motivated by todd-etals who annually make $40,000 plus per client (for now we will ignore the archABAer, JRC’s Israel who makes $400000)…and would have their careers invalided (“awakenings” unthinkable syndrome) if they acknowledged FC works…
some/most, (many/all?) on the spectrum have an innate ability to learn without formal education (institutions recommended for many)…apologies for repeat comment…but they dont get it…perhaps they never will, vincent…not even on a starry nite…
this ability was evidenced in the mid 60s (goodwins talking typewriter, no facilitator)…and current examples like sue rubin, carley, elizabeth, those who now type w/o a facilator, etc…others I have witnessed (including my daughter)…vice researching this ability the publish or perish crew directed their time and questionable intellect at calling FC snake oil…perhaps to protect their livelihood.
what are the positives outcomes (for those on the spectrum, not for the ABAer greed) of the research to discredit FC…what are the positive outcomes of your position FC is snake oil
re my [jason] view is one amply backed up by [biased] research…
as was BBs refrigerator mom view…and the view of Catholic church scholars that the sun revolved around the earth…
my view is based on living with autism for 40 plus years…and knowing more than two FC users…seeing FC improve behavior and quality of life…
jasons view denies the innate ability exist…in essence denies they have the ability to express themselves…treats them like pavlov dogs…my view expresses belief in their ability
oh but jason is too cute (by a half), dowsing rod, heha
stanley seigler
Jason S. wrote to Stanley Seigler:
“The difference is that my view is the one amply backed up by the research, while yours appears to be an assertion based on, what?, your personal impression? You could substitute “Using dowsing rods to find water” for “FC” and your statement would be as meaningful.”
Jason S. previously wrote:
“Dr. James Todd already referenced to the the most important meta-analysis studies. I don’t think there is online public access to Gina Green’s paper, but you can look up Mostert’s easily enough:
http://kslinker.com/facilitated-communicaton-since-1995.pdf ”
Let’s look at Mostert’s 2001 article, which I actually have in my hands. It cites 29 English language peer-reviewed articles on FC published between 1994 to 1998 (a five year period). Do you know how many refute FC – do you think it is 27, 26 or 25? The answer is 19. The number supportive of FC is 10 – over one-third. While more than one-third is less than the majority, it is a respectful minority opinion, hardly just based on the personal impression of Stanley Seigler.
Please note it is now 2010, nearly a decade into the Twenty-First Century. Since this blog entry started in October 2009, and Professor James Todd’s original comment about meta-analysis studies, have any new meta-analysis studies been published? If Jason S. was on the ball, he would have discovered that Mostert did a follow-up study, with an online publication date of 13 January 2010, citation Mostert, Mark (2010) “Facilitated Communication and Its Legitimacy–Twenty-First Century Developments”, Exceptionality, 18: 1. 31-41. After paying $30, I actually have this 2010 article in my hands. From the period covered by this updated article of January 1999 to May 2008, Mostert found just 3 English language peer-reviewed articles on FC. Two out of three were supportive of FC – so even though the number is much smaller, it has rversed to two-thirds supportive.
Most importantly, please note that Mostert excluded peer-reviewed articles not published in English. Guess what – in the past decade numerous (sorry, I cannot read any foreign languages, so I do not know how numerous) peer-reviewed articles supportive of FC have been published in several foreign languages. I am not familiar about the scientific literature supportive of “Using dowsing rods to find water” but I do not think one can find similar results.
So to Jason S, – please check your facts and do not rely on the unreliable biased statements of skeptics.
By the way, as I will try to discuss when I have the time (after I sign a lease so my family continues to have a roof over our heads, including my 38 year-old son Ben -nonverbal autistic who chooses to use FC – not just through FC but through his self-initiated completely independent primary means of communication – GESTURING), I have accepted the challenge from Professor James Todd to again scienitifically test my son’s FC – when I plan to challenge the validity of the so-called scientific tests that Jason S. and all other skeptics rely on for claiming that FC has been invalidated. Good science takes time, so please be patient for the results of this planned case study by Professor James Todd.
Arthur Golden
Please note that on my computer screen a line appears through a phrase in my last message, but there should not be such a line – the phrase should be:
my 38 year-old son Ben – nonverbal autistic who chooses to use FC – not just through FC but through his self-initiated completely independent primary means of communication – GESTURING
Arthur Golden
Mostert’s paper divides the studies up into 3 groups. Those with that try to control for internal validity and alternative explanations of FC one with or more control procedures that show positive results, those that show refuting results, and those with no controls. Among those with good controls, he counts studies as 19 to 6 in favor of refutation. He then goes to the address flaws in drawing a positive conclusion from the supportive studies given their methods. Since you are holding the paper in your hand, should be relatively clear. What that indicates is that sound research design tends preclude validation of communication from the person being facilitated. Unsurprisingly, anecdotal studies with no attempt to control for rival explanations published by people predisposed to supporting FC ended up showing positive results for FC. That you cite this as a boon is telling.
Research in academia has trickled because people don’t take it seriously anymore. I think you’ll find papers related to the mercury poisoning hypothesis of autism are going to vanish too.