The Misbehaviour of Behaviourists

The Misbehaviour of Behaviourists
The Misbehaviour of Behaviourists - Discussion001-257 | 258-300 | 301-400 | 401-500 | 501-600 | 601-700 | 701-725301-350 | 351-400 | previous | next
John 400 17 May 2004 03:21:01 -0000 Michelle wrote "Do you know about Edward Deci, John? Looks like this guy's been battling behaviourists for a few decades, complete with duelling meta-analyses (sound familiar?)." I only know what has been written on this list. But the dueling meta-analyses sounds very familiar. I will add a few comments on what I've gathered from the discussion (very interesting) and will pull in some of Clare's comments for examples. Clare wrote "That's specifically extrinsic positive reinforcement, though. Intrinsic reinforcements - like the satisfaction of knowing - are a different thing altogether. So I am prepared to buy into the idea of positive reinforcement as long as the theory includes intrinsic and natural reinforcements, which in my experience are often the really crucial ones." Indeed, I think intrinsic reinforcement is absolutely crucial to understanding why folks do what they do. I have (previous to my participation here) spent some time considering its especial value in education. Where you will find discussion of intrinsic motivation most commonly in behaviorism is not the autism field, but in the Organizational Behavior Management (OBM) field. Think behaviorism for behavior in businesses and you will have an idea what is going on. This is one of my big areas of study, although it does put me to sleep quite often (my professors encourage me to learn this). I also think that it is a myth that extrinsic reinforcement can be gradually reduced or faded. I guess that I propose that after a period of occurrence a behavior that was formerly maintained by extrinsic variables may encounter enough natural variables (including satisfaction of knowing) that the behavior may be maintained by that (intrinsic) variable in the absence of initial (extrinsic) variables. This would be a version of the concept of a behavior trap. I do not know if anyone has written about this sort of behavior trap, but if not then I propose it now based on observations. Clare wrote "Which is something I've observed with all the kids I've worked with. No biscuit or praise or whatever could produce a fraction of the motivation that comes from the desire to master a task that they've chosen, make sense of something, or order things properly." Fascinating, I have seen children in DTT sometimes try to play/interact with the teaching stimuli. This is supposed to be a bad practice because the stimuli are only supposed to be paired with the discriminative stimulus. I have often wondered if it would be better practice to allow perhaps a period of interaction with the stimuli based on a correct response. What do you think? Since these are sensory stimuli satiation is less of a factor than the other reinforcers like food. In fact Dr. Rincover found some time ago that sensory reinforcers are superior to food reinforcers. A debate is going on right now whether we should consider sensory reinforcers primary (innate) or secondary (learned). Based on what I have heard on this board my money is on primary (although maybe with some secondary elements). It might well be that the motivating properties Clare mentioned are created by certain perceptive differences. If so then it would be good practice to build with these. A good question though, is how effective are these? I don't think anyone has ever studied this comparatively. One more thing to learn. Clare wrote "Extrinsic reinforcers not needed." Of this I am less sure. Many contingencies are in effect at once. Some of these will certainly be extrinsic. Children and adults must still sleep and perform other activities. Even in the most free-operant situation they must be quick in performing some activities otherwise they risk having one less second with those preferred opportunities. This would be (sorry for technicality) an operant analogous to the avoidance of the loss of the opportunity for reinforcement. This is imperfectly reducible to special sort of negative reinforcement (this is imperfect but is a lot of trouble to explain). Also, one more note. Most of these intrinsic reinforcers will be a bit delayed between the time the behavior starts and the time of completion (reinforcement). It would probably be more accurate to refer to these as analogs to reinforcement rather than actual reinforcement. In other words they involve some sort of cognition. But even full blown professionals blow this all the time. I was told the reinforcement for doing your job was getting a pay check. This is not quite true because of the delay. John 399 17 May 2004 03:20:28 -0000 Hi Michelle, You said "This is the way I consider autonomous adults responsible for their actions. This requires the existence of free will, however difficult it may be to exercise. I also hold political people (for example) responsible this way, as well as those running autism societies, etc. And those running behavioural programs, and promoting them." I am afraid a discussion of free will is looking eminent. Even most distinguished scholars run away from this one. Oh well...... I don't claim to understand what free will is, but if it implies that we should not look for logical and functional causes of behavior in all persons (adults too) then I will doubtlessly contest it. You said "That just means you've been very successful in limiting or eliminating their possibilities." I am not so sure about this. "Prediction", was the wrong word for me to use. I was thinking in terms of when certain behaviors are seen in chain e.g. (some social interactions, some tantruming behaviors etc.) In actuality I am unable to generally predict what an organism will do next. Although, this varies by context and stimuli. Like you, I assume that children (including autistic ones) need things to learn. And I also may have a hard time identifying what exactly that may be for a while. But unlike you I don't always find extended observation will do the trick. This is where preference assessments and functional analyses/assessments are of value. I have not read "Not Even Wrong", but it sounds interesting. David Andrews AppEdPsych 398 16 May 2004 23:11:43 -0000 Clare: "For me, working on language is about communicating through my actions "Here is a tool that gives you control, there's a pattern and an order and a structure to this and you can use it to get the predictable responses you need and ask for the things you need." And making myself available as a communicative partner, as interactive "material" for them to try things out on, and as a supplier of relevant information at the right moments. Extrinsic reinforcers not needed." Ehdottovittumasti! As we are NOW saying a lot in my part of Finland! LoL
A M Baggs 397 16 May 2004 21:01:02 -0000 "I think Michelle's explanation of why she chose to scar herself (hurt herself, not sure how she would describe it) is a good example of the inability of NTs to mind read. Amanda, I think, has said she has been told that she has done it for attention, for manipulation... etc." Yes. Also there is a big problem. People call self-injury a symptom of autism. I self-injure. I am autistic. NOT THE SAME THING. Also there are aspects of it I can't describe. So it's frustrating when I give a description. It's only a partial description. Of partial instances. So then someone comes along and gives another description. Which ALSO fits. But there's more neither of us are saying. THAT is frustrating.
oddizm 396 16 May 2004 20:41:48 -0000 Hi, I think Michelle's explanation of why she chose to scar herself (hurt herself, not sure how she would describe it) is a good example of the inability of NTs to mind read. Amanda, I think, has said she has been told that she has done it for attention, for manipulation... etc. even if a person with great patience sat down to ask Michelle or Amanda or another autistic why they hurt themselves... 1) the autistic might not have the vocabulary to describe it a) maybe the words don't even exist in their language. 2) they may be thoroughly convinced, by experience, that no one will believe them anyway, so they a)don't say a word in answer b) make up a plausible lie to get the person off the topic 3) they might think it was no ones stinkin' business and keep it entirely to themselves 4) they might not know why they did it themselves. Still in any of those case where the autistic doesn't accurate communicate the reason, the NT helper will make an assumption and declare it as the truth or a probable truth. I have seen your scars, and I never would have guessed that they were about communication or accuracy. But I can see that now. It makes perfect sense. My SIB has been very limited to times of extreme anguish and involved hitting myself, didn't even leave bruise, if I remember. Mine was about letting emotional pain have a place in my body. Someone else told me that hers was about extreme frustration. I used to bang my head, just because it felt good. It wasn't hard banging, though. Oddizm
Clare 395 16 May 2004 20:26:17 -0000 Michelle wrote, "I don't know if you or Clare has read the book "Not Even Wrong"." I have. And yes to what you say about it. I think the pianos thing is a good example, and a good example of what I was saying earlier - I may not be able to intuit immediately why someone wants something, but my basic assumption is that they've got some reason, and it's not justifiable to deny someone just because I can't immediately understand what they're after. And in some cases, I find it's not necessarily so much about the specific thing being asked for, but also about exploring communication itself and/or finding out about the situation - is this how words work, will my request be honored, am I allowed to do this, etc. (For example, when I started sessions of one-to-one work with one girl, the first thing she wanted to check was that she could leave and go back to the classroom. Which I thought was utterly reasonable. Once she'd established a couple of times that she wasn't trapped and I wasn't ever going to force her to stay and work with me if she didn't want to, she chose to stay. And in fact started insisting that I bolt the door to keep other people out ...). "Morgan's responses to positive reinforcement are typical of "free-range" autistics: he doesn't care much about praise." That's specifically extrinsic positive reinforcement, though. Intrinsic reinforcements - like the satisfaction of knowing - are a different thing altogether. So I am prepared to buy into the idea of positive reinforcement as long as the theory includes intrinsic and natural reinforcements, which in my experience are often the really crucial ones. Which is something I've observed with all the kids I've worked with. No biscuit or praise or whatever could produce a fraction of the motivation that comes from the desire to master a task that they've chosen, make sense of something, or order things properly. For me, working on language is about communicating through my actions "Here is a tool that gives you control, there's a pattern and an order and a structure to this and you can use it to get the predictable responses you need and ask for the things you need." And making myself available as a communicative partner, as interactive "material" for them to try things out on, and as a supplier of relevant information at the right moments. Extrinsic reinforcers not needed. I've met some kids who like praise as a secondary thing - if they've achieved something and are proud of it, they like to have someone else acknowledge the fact too. And I've also met kids who regard any praise as a nuisance or as aversive or who obviously find it "controlling". So this is why Deci's work is looking pretty interesting and relevant to me right now.
Michelle Dawson 394 16 May 2004 19:12:51 -0000 Hi John, My question to those behaving like Ms Weintraub is, you had two or more choices in this situation, why did you choose this one, not that one or those others? This is the way I consider autonomous adults responsible for their actions. This requires the existence of free will, however difficult it may be to exercise. I also hold political people (for example) responsible this way, as well as those running autism societies, etc. And those running behavioural programs, and promoting them. You’re looking for your logic in the behaviour of people who may or may not follow this logic. I’m not too happy to hear that you can predict what your kids are going to do next. That just means you’ve been very successful in limiting or eliminating their possibilities. I can’t always tell instantly what an autistic needs, but I assume this need exists. It likely has to do with wanting to know something. That’s a fair assumption to make. I figure a little patience will reveal what the person’s after. But usually it’s obvious, so long as many, many possibilities are available. I don’t think you need to have autistic perception, attention, etc, to figure it out, but it helps. I don’t know if you or Clare has read the book “Not Even Wrong”. While there are things I dislike intensely about this book, the description of the autistic boy Morgan is superb. He breaks all the rules of developmental progress, uses all kinds of materials, and persistently follows his interests. His father does figure out that Morgan has this thing for pianos, the insides of pianos. This required that the father realize Morgan was not misbehaving when he repeatedly tried to reach inside pianos and take hold of their innards. The father is eventually seen trying to find books about piano tuning (Morgan having shown his ability to find equivalent notes on a piano), and the construction of pianos. Morgan’s choice of reading materials is pretty interesting too (the Merck Manual, eg). Morgan’s responses to positive reinforcement are typical of “free-range” autistics: he doesn’t care much about praise, he just wants to know, and once he’s sure he knows, he’ll go inform someone of this. Do you know about Edward Deci, John? Looks like this guy’s been battling behaviourists for a few decades, complete with duelling meta-analyses (sound familiar?). I have no judgment on his work, which strays well away from vocabulary I can decipher, and is largely in journals I’m unfamiliar with (except for the Psychological Bulletin). But the ideas are interesting, though I’m not sure how they’d translate into autism. I’m not too surprised Clare ran into him though.
Clare 393 16 May 2004 18:40:30 -0000 think you just managed to explain some of the stuff I've never been able to put into words, even to myself. Thank you, very much indeed.
Michelle Dawson 392 16 May 2004 18:32:51 -0000 Maybe I can add something to Amanda’s description. I was asked in a documentary why I hurt myself. This was some years ago; I was just at the point where I was starting to realize I was not totally appalling because I was autistic. I was in an “environment” where no other conclusion was available. Anyway, what I said when I was asked was that it (hurting myself) was my vocabulary. I have to add at this point that the fact that I hurt myself is obvious, even though I hurt myself in private. I have scars. Then I said that I’d worked hard all my life to learn language. This was very, very difficult and took pretty much all my resources. But I learned, and I learned two languages. Then I found out this language thing didn’t work; I was not good enough at it; I somehow did it wrong. My very accurate words weren’t heard. I was and am frequently told I’ve said things I’ve never said, and haven’t said things I have. I hurt myself to re-establish some form of accuracy. I establish something I’ve absolutely done. This is a way of regaining accuracy. So while it may seem that I’m frustrated, that isn’t the case. Confusion, yes to some degree. But there is an essential need to re-establish, after repeated failed commmunication, the existence of accuracy, or at least the possibility of accuracy, in order to continue to function at all.
John 391 16 May 2004 18:06:42 -0000 Hi Clare, I am still trying not to grin a little about post 388. You said “I tend to drop the “T” because of my deep aversion to the idea of “training” in this context (can you guess that I’m not a fan of “response-cost” either?)” I can appreciate that. You said “It does someone no favours to teach them that that’s their only or their best way of getting them what they need (even though unfortunately that’s often what the environment does teach - and we are logical, and will learn...).” I agree, and most folks are logical in that their behavior happens for a reason. On the walking extinction procedure thing. This is a good point and I see that as well. I am still learning to perfect the technique you described. One of the cool points about DTT is that is gives you a way of consistent and logical interaction. This comes very easy to some folks, not to others. In fact when done by someone really good at it we often see a decrease in some behavior problems right from the get go. Dave, Jim Crawford, and others did some talking about this way back in the first posts on this list. Some of the best teachers and tutors I know are very good at it. You said “What I see a lot of, though, is a sort of pseudo-functional-analysis which invariably concludes “well, s/he is just doing it in order to get attention/escape, so we’ll extinguish it by ignoring and making sure s/he doesn’t get what s/he wants, and/or punishing.” And that, IMHO, is not good education, good behaviourism, good human interaction, or good anything.” Yes, I completely agree(although difficult for many to resist).
Clare 390 16 May 2004 17:25:05 -0000 John wrote, “ Most functional communication training (FCT) involves response-cost (penalty), or extinction on inappropriate behavior. “ I tend to drop the “T” because of my deep aversion to the idea of “training” in this context (can you guess that I’m not a fan of “response-cost” either?). As I’ve said, I don’t think something like SIB or aggression should be reinforced. It does someone no favours to teach them that that’s their only or their best way of getting them what they need (even though unfortunately that’s often what the environment does teach - and we are logical, and will learn ...). I don’t object to “extinction” in the form of not responding to SIB/aggression/whatever - but I think the absolute priority is to make sure that that person has an alternative, more effective way of communicating their needs and wants. Extinction on its own just leaves someone frustrated and unable to communicate at all. Actually, in certain respects I’m a walking extinction procedure: my pain processing is bizarre and often very delayed, which enables me to remain calm and deadpan even when someone’s teeth are sunk in my arm. And this can be helpful when working with kids who’ve learnt aggression as a way of producing a reliable “big” response. But when working with a kid like that, I will then go out of my way to ensure they can get predictable “big” expressive responses from me and others through alternative activities. My involuntary “extinction” is only useful in so far as it creates some breathing space for them to learn some alternatives (it’s also handy with kids who are already in overload and are going to meltdown even further if someone yells or flails around). What I see a lot of, though, is a sort of pseudo-functional-analysis which invariably concludes “well, s/he is just doing it in order to get attention/escape, so we’ll extinguish it by ignoring and making sure s/he doesn’t get what s/he wants, and/or punishing.” And that, IMHO, is not good education, good behaviourism, good human interaction, or good anything.
Clare 389 16 May 2004 16:23:25 -0000 A M Baggs wrote, “Headbanging then means frustration overload. Not directed as communicative. Not directed as manipulative. Not even consciously directed. Just frustrated at inability to communicate. It does communicate something. But not intentionally.” Yes, definitely. Same with me and my experiences of SIB. Definitely not consciously intended as communication (and in my case, usually something that only happens in private). But it could certainly be read as unintentionally communicating something (how distressed or frustrated I am, often). And in many cases, the need for SIB could be prevented by my having an effective way of meeting my needs, so I can avoid getting into that overload spiral to begin with. So I think the idea of looking for a communicative alternative - and making sure that someone’s communications are respected - can be helpful.
Clare 388 John wrote, “I don’t think we could call this total control. It is partial even considerable but not total. We must use the techniques and practices specified by others and we are not with them at home. Doesn’t seem like total would be the optimal word.” However you want to express it, you do have at least “considerable” control over their environment, and you (as adults and staff members) are responsible for their education and welfare. Any school situation is a situation of considerable control: children cannot leave the building (or even the classroom) during school hours, you control their access to materials, and what activities they participate in and when. With that power comes responsibility. This is obviously a very, very different situation from the relations between Michelle and Ms. Weintraub. Michelle is not running a treatment program for Ms. Weintraub (entertaining though that may be to imagine).
John 387 16 May 2004 15:37:21 -0000 Hi Clare, You said “John, it’s odd: we seem to be seeing very different populations of autistic children ..... The ones you work with seem to be constantly besieging you with “irrational” and inexplicable behaviour, demanding things they don’t really want or need (according to you). The ones I work with generally seem pretty reasonable (according to me). Sometimes they’ll want something which would in fact be dangerous or impossible, and I’ll have to set a limit (and give them a reason for it); but otherwise, like anyone else, they tend to ask for what is significant to them.” This doesn’t surprise me so much. Although we both have had the privilege of working with autistic children our training and experiences are somewhat different. This has an effect. I would never dream of describing behavior as inexplicable, and I have said more than once that all behavior is like to have logic. But logic (a reason) is not the same as being reasonable. I have had the opportunity to work with many children of various diagnoses or situations. This included autistics, children with ADHD, auditory, visual, learning, schizophrenia disabilities. And yes, even some who really were criminal. I have seem some behavior that was unusual even very dangerous or aggressive. I seen some behavior that was unreasonable from many sorts of children. I have very rarely seen behavior that was inexplicable. No one bombards me, but many children do pursue what they prefer quite vigorously, (what they want). Indeed, they really do “want”, certain things, but I don’t hesitate to call into question “need.” And the children I work with do seem reasonable quite often to me. It is cases where they do not that I have focused on. I always, always, always give a reason when I set a limit and even then I will listen if they wan to talk more or have ideas (I have changed my mind at least a dozen times based on what a five year old told me). But listening and agreeing is not the same thing. And of course they do ask for what is significant to them. Also, assuming we are both honest and that we both know how to observe physical actions (I do assume both for us) then perhaps another explanation is that our children are somewhat different as individuals. I would put children’s gender as at least as important in deciding their behavior as their autistic attributes. If you told me you had boys who seemed very different from the boys I described, that would not shock or amaze me. When you describe autistic children who behave slightly differently that does surprise me much either. Also I doubt the children I work with truly go into problem behavior more than they would in many other places and probably less. I base this on my observations of other centers.
John 386 16 May 2004 15:36:54 -0000 Hi Clare, You said “You and your fellow staff members are in a situation where you have total control of these children’s environment and are deliberately aiming to shape their behaviour.” I don’t think we could call this total control. It is partial even considerable but not total. We must use the techniques and practices specified by others and we are not with them at home. Doesn’t seem like total would be the optimal word. Also see my reply to Michelle. You said “Actually, it is, to some extent. If you look at educational programs for young typically-developing children, they typically strongly advise making sure you have realistic expectations of their abilities when it comes to sharing and co-operating: you can and should introduce the idea of sharing and set limits (e.g. no grabbing), but in doses which the children can manage.” Realistic expectations are cool, so is building up a skill at manageable levels. But whenever you set a boundary, children may well push against it or have difficulty with it. This is expected and even behaviorally/psychologically healthy. It is when the behavior is often occurring in a manner that is inappropriate and we are not shaping and teaching new skills that we heave a problem. I don’t mind working on teaching new skills provided we really are working on teaching new skills. You said “For example, if one toy is preferred by all the children in a nursery class, you better buy a duplicate toy, because expecting a small child to be able to wait and defer gratification while 8 other children take their turns is not reasonable.” I respectfully disagree. I really sat down and thought about this. I can name all sorts of examples where I have seen children wait their turn (even autistic ones) eventually they will get a chance, even our Play-Doh kid is now sharing effectively without SIB. In some cases they simply will not have choice, even if it was reasonable and we would like to reinforce their request. Maybe a preferred show comes on at 6:00pm but it is 11:30am currently. All the appropriate requests in the world will not reinforce this (real life by the way). The best we can do is say is show them a clock and say “yes, you can watch it at 6:00pm tonight but it is 11:30 right now”, sometimes this still will produce a tantrum and sometimes not, depends on the child and other factors. You said “A child may be able to wait 2 minutes to get something, but not 2 hours.” In many environments sometimes a delay will be for 2 minutes before gratification and sometimes it will be for 2 hours. How reasonable this is depends on the individual context. You said “In the case of a child who’s learning to use speech, it may have taken considerable effort and control for them to make a verbal request in the first place).” This is true, You said “If you make unrealistic demands on a child’s ability to control their own behaviour and defer gratification, you’ll generally end up in a situation where a child isn’t learning anything because they’re in perpetual meltdown. Moderate your demands, present “sharing” “waiting” etc. in bite-sized pieces adjusted to a child’s ability to handle them, and you’re likely to watch said ability steadily increase.” This is reasonable, provided we are actually doing it. Even then a child may struggle for a while, this is understandable. I suspect this is what was going here in my example, in time other situations may arise that would require more delay. You can be sure, we reinforce this. Perhaps some of my skepticism relates to the fact that I have too often seen teachers/tutors (behaviorist and non behaviorist) pass the buck and say “we will work on this later or the child will perform when they are ready neurologically” and yet they never do. I take issue with this. You said “Nobody’s said you should reinforce the SIB. What we’ve said is that you should reinforce the initial verbal communication (or at least, I haven’t heard any good reason so far for not doing so in this case).” Sometimes if it really is an first initial communication then we will really go out of our way to reinforce it. But even then there may be difficulty doing this. You said “But it’s almost invariably what the child (or, in fact, any other semi-rational being) will go for. So if you want a child to speak, not self-injure, you have to make sure speech is more functional.” Verbal or verbal-vocal will be more functional and more adaptive long run. Short term, when a child has very little speech I doubt speech will more functional. So we have a competing contingency. Here we may the “need”, for extinction in learning. You said “If you arrange the environment so that speech isn’t consistently much more You said “effective than the alternatives, don’t expect them to use speech just because it’s more “adaptive” in other people’s eyes.” I do not expect that. Absolutely. But unless you can identify the needs the child is meeting by bullying others - and find some way of meeting those needs - you aren’t going to be able to get the behaviour to go. You can punish it whenever it occurs, you can ensure that a staff member is always in place to protect the victim, you can expel the bully from school - but you may not be able to stop the bully from bullying.” If it really is a need. I would definitely agree on identifying a function though. In this case the problem seemed to decrease based what seems likely to be an abolative operation. His mother was given permanent custody. No more shouting matches and less house tag. Fewer aggression EOs. You said “This is why functional communication approaches evolved in the first place: because people had been working for years and years trying to suppress “challenging behaviours”, using everything from extinction to the most extreme aversives, and couldn’t get rid of them.” Hmmm...A study of JABA would lend some pretty successful studies of the older methods (behavior modification). But I would agree the more effective techniques are found in those techniques that address function. Although I wonder if you mean functional communication training when you say functional communication. Most functional communication training (FCT) involves response-cost (penalty), or extinction on inappropriate behavior. You said “Maybe it wouldn’t be possible to find a perfect functional equivalent for this child’s bullying. But the closer you get to one, and the more functional and effective you can make that alternative, the more likely you are to achieve your goal of stopping the bullying.” This is a start not a finish. You said “Which is why, if you are trying to establish verbal communication, you better reinforce it whenever you can.” Yes, here indeed is the critical word (can). Whenever reasonable absolutely, and even sometimes when it is not. This I can agree with. You said “The outside world will create more than enough situations where a child’s request genuinely can’t be granted, more than enough intermittencies in the reinforcement schedule, without you adding to them.” I refer you to the statement just above this. Also we should consider setting, maybe we are just extinguishing in the presence of one set of stimuli and reinforcing in another. This should be overlooked. You said “Look, you have here something which is so motivating that a child is willing to resort to SIB in order to get it. That gives you a golden opportunity to expand that child’s language, to get them to push a little further - learn colours words, make a two-word sentence, whatever the logical next step for them is. You have the reinforcer that the child will go the extra mile for. That, IMHO, is worth a few cents spent on extra Play-Doh.” This is a very good point.
John 385 16 May 2004 15:36:18 -0000 Hi Michelle, You said “Never mind Ms Weintraub, I’m responsible for those people writing hate letters to me too. And autistics, by our very existence, are responsible for non-autistics calling us a plague and proposing to eradicate us.” Tough answers to a tough question. Clare wrote previously about how some folks have trouble not making personal attacks in their writing (due to a variety of factors). Most folks I know have weathered (and probably made) some personal attacks in their life. I suspect that even I will be criticized in an ad hominem manner at some point in my life. I can accept that. These attacks will still be in response to the things I have written or said. They might be so offensive or disagreeable that folks actually find them aversive to read/hear, let alone go unchallenged. I would not say that I will be responsible for these attacks per se. But I do appreciate that there is a cause and effect relationship here. Things like internet articles and speeches from professors (what I want to be), are part of what ecological model theorist Uri Brofenbrenner (think I got that right) would call part of the Exosystem (social/cultural factors) these are stimuli part of a larger environment. I would be contributing (adding stimuli) to a potion of that environment, and this does have an effect. I do generalize this analysis out to others. You said “In the meantime, like Clare, I don’t see those who’ve thrown tantrums in the wake of stumbling across my work as having no other options. Galloping towards comment number 400, you’re living proof that many other options exist and can be exercised. I do pretty consistently expect adults to be responsible for their own actions.” This is true and is very reasonable. The only thing I might add is that even with adults we should seek logic and function in behavior, even behavior we see as unacceptable from those we have reason to expect better of. You see your kids’ needs as being for preferred objects and preferred activities. You even reduce my examples to these terms. You’re being a good behaviourist, I suppose, but I reject this approach. Most of what most autistics do is about needing to know, about needing information, about needing to learn. I had a behaviorist professor once refer to the various paradigms as “blinders”. Here is a grain of truth. I would find it very reinforcing to believe that my analyses are dead on, or failing that, that I am reasonable enough to always recognize better logic and adjust. I doubt either is true. The best I can do is to consider what is being written or said. This is not a fool proof way to the truth because fools (me included) are so ingenious. Also, because I view behaviorism as holding so much truth, I do tend to be very consistent with it. It is a tool in this regard. You said “Now I have to depart entirely into cognitive land, where kids think, and where autistic kids have differences in perception, attention, memory, learning, and kind of intelligence. Three of these have proof in peer-reviewed science; one was presented for the first time at IMFAR (intelligence); and one has not been studied at all (implicit learning), which is inexcusable, though there is evidence everywhere in the science that we learn (as I wrote) different things in different ways for different reasons with different results.” Kids also think in radical behavioristville. But the analyses are quite different. On your somewhat extended sentence concerning communication. Okay, I am listening. You said “The ways in which we perceive, attend, learn, and remember, as well as the way in which we are intelligent, require that we learn from materials, and we need lots of them, and/or materials with infinite possibilities (combinatorial; example of one I had as a child-you see I’m ancient-slide rules). I’ve made comments to this effect before.” For a lack of more eloquence on my part......interesting. You said “You’ve also responded that you don’t know what it is about any activity that’s preferred, or why some objects are preferrable to others. What’s the kid’s looking for?” I can determine what object and what operant, but no, not the specific aspect. You said “This is something I automatically see, and I know there are non-autistics capable of seeing this also.” I admit, this pushes a skepticism button on me, but I will suppress that for the moment. You said “I have a harder time figuring out what the kid needs when the kid’s been in a behavioural program for a while and developed all kinds of difficult side-effects to not having what he needs. We do insist pretty hard, or at least many of us do, even if the environment is impoverished.” How well do you do with adults who do not verbally describe to you why they do the things they do. Insistence can be a good thing, I am not sure about the where we will go on the impoverished environment thing. An interesting thought related to all this. Jim wrote on this board way back in ancient history that autistic children may have to learn every new person differently because of body language and gestures he says they can learn it but it is hard and maybe stressful. I found this interesting because I can usually tell what a child I have worked with for a while will do next or when they are upset or quite happy, even when others can not. But I do not do this intuitively. I have to go the long way around and pay very careful attention to learn the unique behaviors. Others, maybe could do this right away. I can not. You said “I don’t think your kids are bullies. I don’t think you’re observing them accurately.” If we are talking about the pre-schoolers with autism then I agree about the bully thing. Nor, did I ever say that. Although, I expect that my observations are correct, maybe not the analyses though. You said “needs in order to learn, in order to develop, in order to be secure and generous and courteous-which is what you want, isn’t it?” Yes, some of the things I would want were there education all up to me. Are the needs always, always necessary? You said “These needs are catered to in non-autistics without question.” Sometimes, not always. I have spent to much time in general to not know this is not always the case. I would look at the individual child more in detail. You said “Few non-autistic children need dozens or hundreds of similar objects or materials. Many autistic children do. Few non-autistics break every single rule of order and progress of development re learning and required materials, but autistics do this all the time.” Hmmmmm....lot to consider here. You said “I don’t take your extinction procedures in adults seriously, since the behaviours you describe will shortly spontaneously recover. Those temporarily inconvenienced will resume their behaviours shortly. Non-autistics effortlessly achieve a wide lattitude and acceptance of their behaviours as of right.” This is your right, but typically developing persons do not learn social rules automatically. A process is still involves. I am not sure then is recover is the right word so much as discriminative training. I have also noticed what you have noticed on the criminal/autism comparison. They still hold up sadly.
A M Baggs 384 16 May 2004 15:12:59 -0000 > And that seems to be precisely what we're seeing here: a > child resorts to SIB when his verbal communication > (apparently the form that NTs want) is rejected. We are > rational beings - often more purely logical than NTs, in > my experience. We do things for reasons. You tell us to > use speech, we try to use speech, you ignore the speech. > Is it any wonder that that seems confusing and > "crazy-making"? Other thing is, at least for me. When that situation happens to me. Headbanging then means frustration overload. Not directed as communicative. Not directed as manipulative. Not even consciously directed. Just frustrated at inability to communicate. It does communicate something. But not intentionally.
Clare 383 16 May 2004 14:02:27 -0000 Michelle wrote, “ In contrast, the parents of autistic children expressed hopelessness and self-pity in much greater quantities, and had nothing good to say about their children.” There are a good few exceptions, though. And I’m coming to think that, for many parents, it’s not necessarily that they’re incapable of thinking of their children in any other way - it’s that this is the only way many of them have been offered. The first time I got asked to speak to a parent group, I figured I’d do it once and then nobody would ever, ever ask me to do so again - because as well as talking about my experiences growing up, I talked about how my autistic traits are an intrinsic part of who I am, why I hate the idea of “fighting” or “overcoming” autism, why I don’t think autism is a “tragedy” or something I “suffer” from, why I’m passionate about autistic people’s ability to learn and develop new skills but the idea of a “cure” that would stop me being who I am terrifies me, etc. etc. etc. And much to my surprise, people keep on inviting me back to talk, and parent audiences seem to keep giving positive feedback. The last time I talked, the organizer said that she thought it was a relief for many parents to hear a positive view of autism after all the negative messages they normally get. It’s like giving them permission to enjoy their children as they are, to know that they’re not “suffering” horribly from being autistic - letting them know that autism is not this terrifying alien thing that has invaded their lives but a natural part of who their children are. And for many of them, that’s a huge relief. I think part of it may be that I’m in the UK, where the autism-ABA industry hasn’t yet reached the same heights as in the US or Canada. But there are definitely parents who are open to hearing what we have to say.
Clare 382 16 May 2004 00:08:03 -0000 Michelle wrote, “I don’t think “functional communication”, about which I have reservations once it’s been interpreted as it usually is, complete with faulty analyses denying the functionality of the real, accurate, honest,repeatedly-ignored communication every single autistic indulges in...” For me, what is valuable in the “functional communication” stuff (and as I’ve probably made clear, I don’t necessarily interpret or apply it in the standard ways) is that it illuminates the fact that much “challenging”/”problem” behaviour is what people are driven to when they can’t communicate their needs - or when their communications are ignored. And that seems to be precisely what we’re seeing here: a child resorts to SIB when his verbal communication (apparently the form that NTs want) is rejected. We are rational beings - often more purely logical than NTs, in my experience. We do things for reasons. You tell us to use speech, we try to use speech, you ignore the speech. Is it any wonder that that seems confusing and “crazy-making”? Maybe this is just something to do with how I view human communication, but .... the way I see it, if a child makes a reasonable request, you should grant it (unless you have a damn good reason not to). Unlike Michelle, I can’t always initially see why someone wants or needs something, but I generally assume that they’re in a better position to judge that than I am. And I generally find that they are in fact best able to choose what will motivate and interest them, and thus what they can learn from. Wanting a particular colour of PlayDoh strikes me as an eminently reasonable request. And if you are working on communication, then reinforcing and encouraging a child who can make verbal requests would seem like an obviously good thing to be doing - well worth the very small cost of buying more PlayDoh so that you can avoid anyone’s being deprived. I just don’t see the point of continuing to deprive people just so that you can teach “sharing” (and this isn’t actual “sharing”, by the way - this is “putting up with adult-imposed removal of the objects you feel you need”; I doubt that it does anything towards developing any actual sense of “sharing” between the children). John, it’s odd: we seem to be seeing very different populations of autistic children ..... The ones you work with seem to be constantly besieging you with “irrational” and inexplicable behaviour, demanding things they don’t really want or need (according to you). The ones I work with generally seem pretty reasonable (according to me). Sometimes they’ll want something which would in fact be dangerous or impossible, and I’ll have to set a limit (and give them a reason for it); but otherwise, like anyone else, they tend to ask for what is significant to them. Since I presume we’re not in fact seeing different populations at all, we do seem to be perceiving and interpreting their behaviour in very different ways.
Ralph Smith 381 15 May 2004 23:26:07 -0000 Bugger; got locked out of editing my last: “His humour and wit were unaffected.” So hearing him on the phone gives no clue about his actual limitations. Likewise for those of us who are judged not autistic.
Ralph Smith 380 15 May 2004 23:07:29 -0000 [Lucas] I didn’t start talking in understandable langauge until I was six(still got an AS DX?. [Amanda] Some diagnosticians are strange. I have heard of this happening a lot-complete disregard for the actual crteria. I’ve seen this happen five in a row: I was referred to a string of five psychiatrists (some called ‘experts’ in autism), none of whom asked about childhood behaviour. If they should have been following the DSM, they weren’t. A personal letter from a well known authority in autism was my first clue: The only way that autism can be diagnosed is obtaining an accurate description of your behaviour when you were age three. By definition autism and Asperger’s show up in a young child. Autism can not be diagnosed by listening to the way you speak now. When a person with autism improves many autistic traits disappear. Since a lot of parents and professionals seem unable to understand how we can talk and still be autistic, I’ve been wondering how to illustrate how some traits disappear and others remain. I remember a family friend named John who partially recovered from a stroke (no, I don’t mean to equate autism and stroke). John was eventually able to walk again (his right leg regained limited function) but other parts remained non functional. His humour and wit were unaffected.
Michelle Dawson 379 15 May 2004 21:15:17 -0000 Hi John, Never mind Ms Weintraub, I’m responsible for those people writing hate letters to me too. And autistics, by our very existence, are responsible for non-autistics calling us a plague and proposing to eradicate us. It’s always tempting to tell those adults who tirelessly promote ABA for all autistics of whatever age to enroll themselves in a program so they too can reap the benefits (LIBI? Later Intensive...). In the meantime, like Clare, I don’t see those who’ve thrown tantrums in the wake of stumbling across my work as having no other options. Galloping towards comment number 400, you’re living proof that many other options exist and can be exercised. I do pretty consistently expect adults to be responsible for their own actions. You see your kids’ needs as being for preferred objects and preferred activities. You even reduce my examples to these terms. You’re being a good behaviourist, I suppose, but I reject this approach. Most of what most autistics do is about needing to know, about needing information, about needing to learn. Now I have to depart entirely into cognitive land, where kids think, and where autistic kids have differences in perception, attention, memory, learning, and kind of intelligence. Three of these have proof in peer-reviewed science; one was presented for the first time at IMFAR (intelligence); and one has not been studied at all (implicit learning), which is inexcusable, though there is evidence everywhere in the science that we learn (as I wrote) different things in different ways for different reasons with different results. I don’t think “functional communication”, about which I have reservations once it’s been interpreted as it usually is, complete with faulty analyses denying the functionality of the real, accurate, honest,repeatedly-ignored communication every single autistic indulges in...<exhales> <inhales>...is useful in a situation where none of the above differences is noticed except as “wrong” (avoiding the maladaptive/non-functional trap for now) behaviour. The ways in which we perceive, attend, learn, and remember, as well as the way in which we are intelligent, require that we learn from materials, and we need lots of them, and/or materials with infinite possibilities (combinatorial; example of one I had as a child-you see I’m ancient-slide rules). I’ve made comments to this effect before. You’ve also responded that you don’t know what it is about any activity that’s preferred, or why some objects are preferrable to others. What’s the kid’s looking for? This is something I automatically see, and I know there are non-autistics capable of seeing this also. I have a harder time figuring out what the kid needs when the kid’s been in a behavioural program for a while and developed all kinds of difficult side-effects to not having what he needs. We do insist pretty hard, or at least many of us do, even if the environment is impoverished. I don’t think your kids are bullies. I don’t think you’re observing them accurately. Re “needs”: needs in order to learn, in order to develop, in order to be secure and generous and courteous-which is what you want, isn’t it? These needs are catered to in non-autistics without question. In autistics, the needs are different. Few non-autistic children need dozens or hundreds of similar objects or materials. Many autistic children do. Few non-autistics break every single rule of order and progress of development re learning and required materials, but autistics do this all the time. When I was at IMFAR, I met a person I’ve spoken with on the phone, and she mentioned her autistic brother had just started to speak. Her brother is in his forties. Late forties. The kinds of materials available where autistic kids live is a real issue. The list of materials available to me when I was young, just because these materials were in the house (no one had to buy them for me), would go on and on. I was also left sufficiently alone (and was maybe as a result sufficiently quiet) to be able to take in lots of information alone, much of it “wrong” for my developmental level. I remember trying to work hard to want things other kids wanted, in imitation of them, and often failing. As for the ABA parents consistently reporting predictable autistic behaviour, these are behaviourist parents, getting what they expect, reinforcing each other’s behaviour. There are other parents who get rather different results. You’re working with the classic self-selected sample. I don’t take your extinction procedures in adults seriously, since the behaviours you describe will shortly spontaneously recover. Those temporarily inconvenienced will resume their behaviours shortly. Non-autistics effortlessly achieve a wide lattitude and acceptance of their behaviours as of right. I’m not sure why, but a long time ago, in the throes of despair, I catalogued the contrast between how parents publicly described their autistic children versus how parents publicly described their criminal children (I made sure I picked only very seriously criminal children, those who assaulted or killed others). I found that the parents of the criminal children were much more positive about their children, much more supportive, and more certain their children were good and valuable children. In contrast, the parents of autistic children expressed hopelessness and self-pity in much greater quantities, and had nothing good to say about their children. The autistic children were always described as much more a disaster than the criminal children, who were frequently described in sympathetic terms. Then I stopped looking at this problem. I guess this was a self-imposed extinction procedure. I haven’t checked to see if these comparisons still hold up.
A M Baggs 378 15 May 2004 20:29:26 -0000 Lucas wrote: > Shit, this brings back a fucking horrible memory: > I didn't start talking in understandable langauge until I > was six(still got an AS DX?. Some diagnosticians are strange. I have heard of this happening a lot -- complete disregard for the actual crteria. > I was in this guy's office and my mom left to go shopping. > He and the practice nurse didn't know I could understand > langauge; I hadn't said anything and didn't even when they > asked me questions; I didn't know how to answer. > They began discussing 'treatments' right in front of me, > it got round to one of them saying "if this was in another > country, electro-shock might work..." > I ran out screaming and crying. That’s awful. And it reminds me of similar things: Treatments and prognoses being discussed in front of me, like I wasn’t there. Hearing I was worthless. Hearing I was irrevocably damaged. Hearing there was no point wasting time on me. Hearing where people wanted to put me. Hearing what I deserved (bad stuff) and didn’t deserve (good stuff) and who deserved good stuff more than I did. Hearing people complain or even cuss about me to others in my presence. Hearing people cuss at me figuring I didn’t understand. Having people do a lot of things figuring I didn’t understand. Hearing people debate which of two bad options was best for me. Hearing people discuss what labels to put on me next, and argue about them. They say that you’re not supposed to discuss these things in front of someone in a coma, because a coma is a state of specific kinds of unresponsiveness, not always a state of not understanding. But they don’t realize that saying these things in front of an autistic may be understood, or may be stored in memory for later understanding. And of course some of the things are simply better not said. It worries me that so many autistic children are growing up in lives where people say or do inconsiderate things in front of them with the presumption that they don’t understand (or sometimes with the presumption that what they’re doing isn’t inconsiderate, since the so-called “Theory of Mind” gap does actually work both ways).
Clare 377 John wrote, “Here’s the thing, I don’t think I can solve one problem by initially reinforcing the SIB (as I would have to stop the initial tantrum and to give the child a way of communicating immediately right?), then by creating another problem (never teaching them to accept sharing).” Nobody’s said you should reinforce the SIB. What we’ve said is that you should reinforce the initial verbal communication (or at least, I haven’t heard any good reason so far for not doing so in this case). “I am not sure always going for more “functional”, is the best way to go.” But it’s almost invariably what the the child (or, in fact, any other semi-rational being) will go for. So if you want a child to speak, not self-injure, you have to make sure speech is more functional. If you arrange the environment so that speech isn’t consistently much more effective than the alternatives, don’t expect them to use speech just because it’s more “adaptive” in other people’s eyes. “It is also a question of ethics. I would not now tolerate that behavior if I saw it. I would happily work on replacing it with other options, that produce the same reinforcing outcomes, but the behavior has to go because, as far as I can tell it violated the rights of others.” Absolutely. But unless you can identify the needs the child is meeting by bullying others - and find some way of meeting those needs - you aren’t going to be able to get the behaviour to go. You can punish it whenever it occurs, you can ensure that a staff member is always in place to protect the victim, you can expel the bully from school - but you may not be able to stop the bully from bullying. This is why functional communication approaches evolved in the first place: because people had been working for years and years trying to suppress “challenging behaviours”, using everything from extinction to the most extreme aversives, and couldn’t get rid of them. Maybe it wouldn’t be possible to find a perfect functional equivalent for this child’s bullying. But the closer you get to one, and the more functional and effective you can make that alternative, the more likely you are to achieve your goal of stopping the bullying. Back to the Play-Doh: Yes, there are plenty of times when it’s not going to be possible, practical, ethical or safe to grant a child’s request. A child who wants to run into a busy road, eat broken glass, or bite another child cannot be allowed to, however well they communicate their wish. A child who wants to go to the supermarket in the middle of the night or buy objects their parents can’t afford isn’t going to get their wish either. Which is why, if you are trying to establish verbal communication, you better reinforce it whenever you can. The outside world will create more than enough situations where a child’s request genuinely can’t be granted, more than enough intermittencies in the reinforcement schedule, without you adding to them. “Provided the class has that money or the teachers are willing to dip into there own pockets.” Look, you have here something which is so motivating that a child is willing to resort to SIB in order to get it. That gives you a golden opportunity to expand that child’s language, to get them to push a little further - learn colours words, make a two-word sentence, whatever the logical next step for them is. You have the reinforcer that the child will go the extra mile for. That, IMHO, is worth a few cents spent on extra Play-Doh.
Clare 376 15 May 2004 17:18:42 -0000 John wrote, “Exactly, and this is why teaching it begins quite early. But this not reason to delay teaching it.” Actually, it is, to some extent. If you look at educational programs for young typically-developing children, they typically strongly advise making sure you have realistic expectations of their abilities when it comes to sharing and co-operating: you can and should introduce the idea of sharing and set limits (e.g. no grabbing), but in doses which the children can manage. For example, if one toy is preferred by all the children in a nursery class, you better buy a duplicate toy, because expecting a small child to be able to wait and defer gratification while 8 other children take their turns is not reasonable. A child may be able to wait 2 minutes to get something, but not 2 hours. (And this may be especially true in the case of autistic children, who are likely to have especial difficulties mastering group interaction skills or not getting what they expect). If you make unrealistic demands on a child’s ability to control their own behaviour and defer gratification, you’ll generally end up in a situation where a child isn’t learning anything because they’re in perpetual meltdown. Moderate your demands, present “sharing” “waiting” etc. in bite-sized pieces adjusted to a child’s ability to handle them, and you’re likely to watch said ability steadily increase.
Clare 375 15 May 2004 16:36:12 -0000 “Now here’s my question, my set up and actions are indeed responsible for the behavior of the children I work with (cause and effect right?) But are you responsible for the textual behavior of Mrs. Weintraub (cause and effect again right)? Should we hold you entirely responsible? “ You and your fellow staff members are in a situation where you have total control of these children’s environment and are deliberately aiming to shape their behaviour. You are the adults in charge, and you have the power (whether you like it or not). So yes, that makes you responsible for the behaviours you cause. Michelle is not controlling Mrs Weintraub’s environment, nor running a treatment program for her. Nor is she responsible for her well-being and education. Mrs. Weintraub is allegedly a mature, “normal” adult, and presumably believes that her decisions and actions are her own and that she should be held responsible for them.
John 374 15 May 2004 16:13:52 -0000 Hi Michelle, I will laugh like heck when this board breaks four hundred posts. My money is on sometime next Wednesday. You said “”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.”” I admit that I am confused by this. The class I am thinking of has a great amount of toys and materials. The children even has access to the Play-Doh in free-time which they get a fair amount of. The problems tend to arise when one child sees another child with a toy or material that the first child did not originally select but now goes for. Perhaps they are actually acting like many children would in a classroom (social environment). This seems similar to many pre-schools for typically developing children. I believe answers to your other questions can be found in my reply to Clare. You said “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.” Rationing or sharing? I have also seen heard of cases of running to a preferred activity. You said “I consider witholding materials needed for autistics to learn to be unethical.” What is needed? How do you determine this child to child? You said “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.” I also hold me and my set up as responsible although I couldn’t claim “entirely”, as children (and adults too) react to different things differently. Here’s the thing, I don’t think I can solve one problem by initially reinforcing the SIB (as I would have to stop the initial tantrum and to give the child a way of communicating immediately right?), then by creating another problem (never teaching them to accept sharing). Now here’s my question, my set up and actions are indeed responsible for the behavior of the children I work with (cause and effect right?) But are you responsible for the textual behavior of Mrs. Weintraub (cause and effect again right)? Should we hold you entirely responsible? You said” 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 am listening, but again please tell me what “need”, means. You said “”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.” The analysis is behavioral, but parents often describe living in a cycle (at the mercy of) problem behaviors. I refer you to most parent run ABA sites and even some non ABA sites. This is only an example analysis (albeit, one that seems common), there is always more to know, so if I have responsibilities they do extend beyond a example analysis. I can provide examples of extinction but I barely know how to start because there are so many: A man is talking to his friend about how cool his family reunion was, the other man begins to look away. A university student tells another student about his participation on a non acceptable website (to that student) the student gets quiet and walks away. A young man is speaking to a young women in the library, who hunches over and frowns while staring at her computer screen. If you want more general examples that could happen to many adults: John presses his internet explorer icon, the darn thing takes a year to pop up and then says “No Network Connection”. A women walks into a bank and is denied a lone application. I hope this suffices for the moment. There are even more examples if we talk about school aged typically developing children. You said “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.” Neither do I. Clearly, I need to learn how to better express my analyses without allowing others to walk away thinking I have implied anyone is a freak or deluded. It is not always obvious to me when I write something contentious (yes even when I sit back and think about it) how you put up with this I don’t claim to understand. You said “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.” You did, but we have not discussed this by name. You said “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...” Beeps two times at 10 Megahertz in answer.
John 373 15 May 2004 16:13:21 -0000 Hi Clare, You said “OK, I correct my terminology: forget “adaptive”, you were ensuring that speech was not functional for him. A functional equivalence approach to challenging behaviour cannot work unless the behaviour you’re trying to present as a positive alternative is actually consistently more functional.” I was indeed insuring that speech was not more functional in one specific situation under a set of very specific stimuli. As I have for many typically developing children as well. I am not sure always going for more “functional”, is the best way to go. I see very few adaptive behaviors being as functional as certain maladaptive behaviors in some circumstances. Like I said before, a tantrum may be much more likely to convince many parents, teachers, and tutors (even the most logical of us) to grant whatever was requested. This is true even if the request is not reasonable. By a certain logic, this makes sense as the best option. But is this really best, maybe not. Maybe a more dramatic example with a non autistic will be of benefit here. I still remember an unpopular (but non autistic) boy at the school that I attended as a High School student. I was sitting near him in a study hall. He was being mocked by a set of boys in a horrific way. One boy was quietly pointing at him and whispering “die, die, damn it, its not working”, why his friends laughed quietly. The boy ignored them, but when he left I saw that he was crying. Because I don’t attach people and behavior as synonymous, I find that I can talk reasonably well with anyone. I am not easily horrified by peoples’ behavior and even then I remind myself it is the behavior that is of question not the person. Incidentally, this is a side benefit of behaviorism. But there have been a few times that I actually have been “horrified”, by behavior. This is one of them. Looking back now with my behavioral world view as a tool, this bullying more sense. This is not a senseless behavior that is functionless. It has logic and purpose. Incidentally, I consider no behavior as such. The boy came from what I have heard non behavioral psychologist call a broken home/dysfunctional family. Reflecting on some of his talks with his other friends I gather that he got into fights with his father regularly. His father may have been screaming at him before coming to school. That would certainly be an EO for aggression. Or maybe he was supposed to go to his mom’s house that weekend, and that was cancelled (extinction) this also could be an aggression EO. And most likely of all, he was reinforced for mocking others, by the attention of his peers. Maybe this attention was a need. I doubt we could give him functional equivalence in this regard. All the replacement behaviors I can think of would mean delaying or reducing the reinforcing properties of the attention. He certainly could have tried out for a school play. That would have brought a lot of attention (but at certain times and not necessarily when the EO’s were in fullest effect). We could indeed have gotten him attention, but not perfect functional equivalence. This is a somewhat dramatic example of when function should be displaced by adaptiveness. I am very much guessing on this analysis but this is certainly logical. It is also a question of ethics. I would not now tolerate that behavior if I saw it. I would happily work on replacing it with other options, that produce the same reinforcing outcomes, but the behavior has to go because, as far as I can tell it violated the rights of others. For another example this time with an autistic, I still remember the case where a teenager would tantrum if his mother ate her food with a fork. This is okay for rice, peas, and such, this becomes a bit awkward with steak. Two parts were used in this intervention. The boy was allowed to ask his mom “mom, play my way”, but his mother was allowed to answer “not right now.” Part verbal communication training, but part teaching of acceptance, which is a teachable skill. You said “Indeed. Which is why, if you want to establish an alternative behaviour, you actually have to ensure that it’s much more effective than ‘tantrumming’. This does not mean “ensuring that it’s equally ineffective”!” Certainly there is great room for creativity and I am always happy to learn new ideas and techniques, but I doubt we will always find a way that is both more functional and more adaptive to replace maladaptive behavior. You said “The last I heard, Play-Doh was not expensive. What “logic” actually says to me is “buy more Play-Doh of that colour”. It’s what any sensible nursery school or class would do.” Provided the class has that money or the teachers are willing to dip into there own pockets. Even I have done this, which is a bit unusual considering I am not paid for the work I do. But how about this, perhaps their parents should buy them the color Play-Doh they want at home. They would certainly have access and exposure to it there. This would meet a potential need, right? And if your answer is no, I would like to hear your definition of need. Lets then say the child has access to it at home, and they still do SIB and tantruming at school when they are asked to share. This begins to seem less what I (admittedly hazily) see as a “need”, and the concept of reinforcement. This is not to say the behavior is functionless or simply an excess (I reject that logic) but maybe in this particular case it would be preferable to talk about reinforcement values rather than needs. You said “If you were trying to teach a group of children to request juice at break time, would you ensure that there wasn’t enough juice to go round?” Nope, but since I have run snack-time, I know that some days we run out and some students have to go with water. The juice is by far the more popular choice. Now both water and juice fulfill a certain need (thirst) and does so equally, so that should not be an issue. Although I sure you could argue for a sensory need from the taste of the juice. Sadly, sometimes the best I can do is to warn the students ahead of time that not everyone is getting juice that day and to try to distribute it as evenly as possible. Eventually some one will ask for juice when it is all gone. I will say “there is no more”, and show them the container. Sometimes the students accept this, and sometimes we see SIB and tantrums. Here’s another example. Do you know that the vast majority of times I have been hit/bit/scratched by pre-schoolers with autism is when I was trying to get between one child about to hit/bite/scratch another child. Remember I am not restraining or making contact with them but moving in their path. The vast majority of these times are precipitated by a disagreement over a toy. Play-Doh I could buy, mini cars and Thomas the Train toys I can buy. Over sized bouncy balls begin to run a little expensive. Sooner or later I am out of cash and wondering if I did the right thing. I have met an interest, I am not sure about a need, oh... and I have done so without ever bothering to teach sharing which takes a lot of practice to learn. Often enough one child is playing with something and sees another child playing with a toy that they had access to but selected another toy instead. They dash over and take it. This of course is interesting because they could have picked it just a few minutes ago and had it right away. As long as the child has some extended access (which we provided and which I do not think should be just whenever they select) to the toys in question I think we meet the needs while also promoting some other skills as well. You said “OK. So trying to teach a sophisticated social rule about “sharing” is much more important at this stage than reinforcing basic communication? I think not.” But this would depend on the level of the child and even typically developing pre-school children (who according to some are supposed to be good at this) tend to spend a great deal of time and energy learning this. It doesn’t follow that we should delay teaching respect for the rights of others, although this is a more advanced skill. To reverse an old saying we should be preaching what we want practiced (sharing). You said “Developmental studies, incidentally, tells us that sharing preferred objects is a skill which is not developed by NT children until a huge amount of development and learning has already taken place. It’s an advanced, highly demanding skill even for NT children.” Exactly, and this is why teaching it begins quite early. But this not reason to delay teaching it. More than one sort of learning may happen simultaneously. Also, I do no think we should wait to teach sharing until later. This skill takes an impressive amount of time and energy to master. It doesn’t follow that this should be delayed, to when a student is older (more entrenched in an inflexible routine) to try to teach this skill. Even part of logic is acceptance. Nor do think that children are more neurologically ready to learn this later and I have rejected similar ideas as well. You said “Consider your priorities. For a child at the sort of stage you are describing, establishing verbal communication instead of SIB is a major priority. Social graces and following complex rules like “sharing” are not. They can be taught sometime down the line, when the child reaches a stage which makes it appropriate, and when their communication is well enough established that they are not going to give up in despair when one of their requests is not met. But right now, that’s clearly not the case.” I agree that verbal communication instead of SIB is a good goal (when caused by it). I do not agree we should always reinforce every example of verbal behavior, simply to reinforce every instance of it. You said “What you are currently doing is extinguishing speech. In my humble opinion, you need to have a helluva reason for doing that.” Even if I thought that were true I might still respond by saying in this case I am protecting the rights of other students, and using partial reinforcement. But this is simplistic so it is not true. I am extinguishing in the presence of one set of stimuli and reinforcing in the presence of another set. This would actually be discrimination or identification training. And as I said before by only reinforcing the behavior sometimes I actually make it more resistant to extinction. So this seems more like a fixed schedule than extinction. Also, for extinction to be extinction the behavior can never be reinforced in any context, otherwise we will see a recovery. If extinction is (to quote a manual I helped work on) to work, we must “do it right, do it all the way, or not do it at all”. So this is not effective extinction because we are not doing it “right, or all the way”. You said “What you seem to be describing is a situation where ideology (“children shouldn’t always get what they want”) is driving out science (behavioural science included).” I really think anyone could convince me to change a policy or practice of mine with a good enough argument. A five old could do this (and indeed has). I have no special connection to children not getting what they want. This is not the most important thing to me and indeed I like seeing children be happy and get what they request. Instead this reflects a practice of mine that seems to me to be based on logic rather than ideology. Convince me otherwise if you can, this is always possible.
Philip 372 15 May 2004 15:36:22 -0000 Hello,I am a British autistic (self-diagnosed Aspie. I have been following the comments on this message board with great interest, in so far as I can understand them, as I have little knowledge of pyschology. I want to comment on the Sumlin Program.When I read it qiuckly for the first time, I was appalled and nauseated by the total lack of understanding, empathy and compassion shown by the Sumlins to the natural behaviours of their autistic son. I have been thinking about it a great deal, which is why I downloaded relevant pages of that verbose, hectoring and repetitive document, so that I can comment on it in some detail.I know I must write this, and I do so with anger, indignation and love.it is why I wrote this comment out in long hand last night and I am now posting it. It seems to me that the Sumlins regarded their autistic son as prisoner or opponnent who had “ escape behaviors that must be eradicated”, whose “behaviors are extremely subtle.” Interrupting his hesitancy and not allowing him time to must have caused him painful anxiety, and forbidding him to stim,a beneficial, pleasurable and harmless activity would have caused him considerable distress. When I read that “everyone kills autism in different ways”, as an autistic person I feel deeply hurt to the depth of my being. Autism is not something so bad, so dreadful that it must be killed. But it never will be without killing autistics. “(P)urposely mess(ing)with his stuff”, is just one of many examples of gratuitious cruelty and total lack of consideration of his feelings. He was not allowed to enjoy silence outside the house:”both of you(must be)talking at all times.”Natural, harmless, pleasurable activities such as “hand flapping when walking/running,weird skipping while talking, strange ways of standing,walking” and stimming were ridiculed, and walking around the edges of a room was forbidden.He must not be himself ,”we cannot...let him be distinguishable from the other kids.” More escape behaviour:”He’s capable of giving you the slip.Another example of petty cruelty and inconsiderateness: not allowing him to put objects where he needs to put them. When I read that “many of his old behaviors are returning big time (hand flapping, visual stims, finger picking, leg kicking etc)”, I cheered, he’s resisting his oppressors, sorry I mean refusing to cooperate with his loving, understanding(sarcasm in use here) parents. Even his physical integrity was violated when behaviours such lip picking, grimacing, not answering were punished, sorry I mean corrected, by physical intervention. The Sumlins regard autism as something so bad, so terrible that it must not be mentioned. When a teacher at their son’s school asked them if he was autistic, they “told him no way” and that he just had a receptive/expressive language problem. Their insistence that their son “must give full, total and sustained eye contact” and that if he doesn’t his face must be straightened, shows a total lack of understanding of his autism and of empathy, and is another example of gratuitious cruelty. More examples of causing him distress: Being deliberately provoked into having a tantrum when the TV was turned off because he refused to stop stimming in his pillow when watching the TV, he was repeatedly prevented from turning it on again; not allowing his hands to touch, “it’s the beginning of stimming. The Sumlins’ instruction that their son is to be told that TV characters are “all friends because no one is acting weird” shows intolerance and a shallow view of friendship.Because autistics are weird they don’t have friends.(sarcasm). More examples of gratuitious cruelty:”frequently call(ing)his name and requiring eye contact while he is wrapped up in an activity “;taking away an item on which he’s stimming and continually replacing it with other items. His desire and need to be solitary must be prevented. “He can never be left alone.” Even his play is rigidly controlled, with no more than 1 toy in each hand allowed and other meaningless, pointless regulations. In all this chilling,frightening document there is no mention of love, kindness, compassion, empathy, understanding.It is an exercise of power, control, conformity, status-seeking and intolerance. The Sumlins were determined to make their autistic son ‘normal’, no matter what misery they caused him in the process. The ideology informing their Program is that autistic people do not deserve to exist as autistics.It would be bad enough if the Program had inflicted suffering on one autistic child,but the Sumlins advocate that other parents of autistic children should follow it.How many other autistic children have therefore been subject to misery and forced to reject their essential autistic nature and became someone they’re not. But I know that autism is not something bad, something to be ashamed of, that autistic people are not damaged or diseased, but the equal of autistic people, with value,dignity and unique strengths, capable of goodness, love, kindness, empathy, compassion, understanding and all the human virtues; that they are beautiful and precious. Autism is not something to be cured,to be recovered from, to be treated. I feel great solidarity with and love for autistics. When the Sumlins told their son that he used to be autistic and explained in details what it means, I’m sure they didn’t tell him what autism really is, about the value , strenghs, humanity and goodness of autistic people. I thank you Michelle for your work in exposing the “Misbehavour of Behaviourists” and for fighting for true equality and inclusion for autistics. I thank you Clare for bringing the Sumlin Report to our attention. I thank everyone who has had the patience to read this rather long message.
Clare 371 15 May 2004 11:19:43 -0000 Michelle wrote, “If he’s setting up this tightrope between motivation through rewards on one side, and the negative effects of control on the other-and I’m not sure he is-is this opposition altogether necessary?” Good question - I’ll keep that in mind as I read further. My impression so far is that he’s not setting up an opposition per se: his argument is that being able to achieve predictable outcomes through one’s actions (and he makes it clear that a rewarding outcome can be something like a sense of mastery of an intellectual task) is an important part of motivation, but that this doesn’t mean externally-imposed rewards - and in fact those may have the opposite effect, by undermining someone’s sense of control.
Lucas 370 15 May 2004 10:30:49 -0000 Shit, this brings back a fucking horrible memory: I didn’t start talking in understandable langauge until I was six(still got an AS DX?. My mom thought there was something wrong with me, possibly attention deficit and took me to a Pychiatrist. I was in this guy’s office and my mom left to go shopping. He and the practice nurse didn’t know I could understand langauge; I hadn’t said anything and didn’t even when they asked me questions; I didn’t know how to answer. They began discussing ‘treatments’ right in front of me, it got round to one of them saying “if this was in another country, electro-shock might work...” I ran out screaming and crying.
A M Baggs 369 15 May 2004 09:21:40 -0000 Leif Ekblad wrote: > It is clear to me that she has learned that she cannot > speak to NTs, and that she cannot understand them. She > responds to this by becoming defensive and silent, where > others, like our son, would become aggressive and violent. I had a friend in special ed who was classified as nonverbal, noncommunicative, violent, other garbage. Special ed school was a nightmare. Knew she understood a lot more than they thought she did. (They said insulting things like "mind of a 3-year-old child".) Met her outside of there once. She talked in full sentences. Clearly unusual relationship to language, but clearly communication. She did all kinds of things besides talking to make her meaning clear. I do not think speech is the only way. But I do think that people discouraging or demeaning a form of communication are wrong. Very wrong. With very serious consequences and labels.
Leif Ekblad 368 15 May 2004 08:25:45 -0000 I think Clare has a good point regarding verbal communications being more important than learning complex social rules. The outcomes of “extincting” verbal communications in autistics can be problematic as well as long-term. Our daugther was at Kindergarten several years, and during the last year she never spoke to anybody there. As soon as she left this horrible place, she talked. She always talked at home, and when we were around. Unfortunately, she obviously felt like school was a continuation of Kindergarten, and decided to continue to not to speak to teachers, and only occassionally to other children. This behavior must have been the consequence of NT ideas of “behavior modification” at Kindergarten, and not only was it a total flop, it also had long-lasting negative consequences. It is clear to me that she has learned that she cannot speak to NTs, and that she cannot understand them. She responds to this by becoming defensive and silent, where others, like our son, would become aggressive and violent.
A M Baggs 367 15 May 2004 03:44:48 -0000 > Sure, but she's not autistic so I guess that just makes > her a ... well, insensitive. She also seems to believe > that *her* children are incapable of being insulted by > her opinions because they are so "low functioning." This > may turn out to be incorrect. I’ll never forget reading something by a woman who’d had that presumption made about her. She had to put up with things like hearing, in her presence, about her, “If it was a dog, you’d kill it, wouldn’t you?” I’ve had my awareness both overestimated and underestimated by outsiders. I firmly believe it’s not possible to tell (especially by an NT) by looking what an autistic person understands. And not understanding doesn’t mean not being affected, or making it less “bad” if whatever’s going on is wrong. (See my last post.)
A M Baggs 366 15 May 2004 03:41:18 -0000 Michelle wrote: > The assumptions that we (a) are not alert to the views of > those around us; and that (b) even if we were alert, > we're not bright enough to comprehend; and that (c) even > if we were capable of some basic comprehension, so what, > because we have no emotions anyway--I think are pretty > common. Someone else’s commentary on this matter (much better than my own-seriously go read this): http://www.ualberta.ca/htbin/lwgate/ICAD/archives/ICAD.1999-01/S ubject/article-3.html My own commentary on this matter: Even if it were true (as Weintraub asserts) that we were not able to comprehend the concept of “discrimination” (which is such a complex concept that I doubt many NTs comprehend it either), we still have to live with-and feel (yes, feel) -- its effects. Whether we understand it or not (which more of us do than it looks like, and comprehension CANNOT BE MEASURED in a person who can’t give the usual signals of comprehension and incomprehension), it still affects us in horrible ways. An NT child does not have to know the word “abuse” or “sex” to be traumatized by sexual abuse. When I, as an autistic child, was abused in this manner, the perpetrator (years later) told me about times he did things that I hadn’t even noticed because I didn’t understand their significance. I told him that, and he was, if anything, more disturbed by what he’d done. The fact that he’d done these things to someone who didn’t understand their significance made it a worse act in his eyes, not a better one. [Before anything gets read into this, I’m not asking for sympathy, I’m making a point. This is all well in the past for me.] I would think that discrimination against people who didn’t understand what discrimination was would be worse as well. Among other things, there would be no way of understanding what was happening and no way of defending oneself against the effects. I can count a number of times in my life when I’ve been discriminated against without understanding, and I still see the fundamental problem being the discrimination, not whether I could understand it or not. People who can’t understand it are harmed at least as much by it, if not more, as people who can. Another interesting idea is the concept that disabled people aren’t discriminated against the way gays and people of color are. I have to wonder at this. Given that (among many other things) the US and Canada still routinely engage in compulsory segregation of numerous categories of disabled people and that there is a prevailing attitude that this is natural, I find it hard to believe we’re not discriminated against. There is every evidence that we are, in both personal and systemic ways. And for the zillionth time, nobody’s saying “Don’t teach your child.”
Michelle Dawson 365 14 May 2004 22:08:46 -0000 An autism expert (PhD psychologist) recommended by Autism Society Canada and its Quebec member and affiliates informed my employer that autistics have no emotions. One person at this meeting (which was about me, and in which no autistics were allowed) replied, puzzled, “But even dogs have emotions...”. The assumptions that we (a) are not alert to the views of those around us; and that (b) even if we were alert, we're not bright enough to comprehend; and that (c) even if we were capable of some basic comprehension, so what, because we have no emotions anyway--I think are pretty common.
Lucas 364 14 May 2004 21:42:54 -0000 Oh dear. "Never blame Malice for what can Aptly be Blamed on Ignorance."
jypsy 363 14 May 2004 21:24:14 -0000 >Hi Anne... > >"Sure, but she's not autistic so I guess that just makes her a >... well, insensitive." > >Yes, given that she is the one writing first to people like >Frank, Michelle and myself, to "rebutt" our writings (which - >for Weintraub - means a serious ad hominem diatribe with no real >evidence of having read and having tried to understand what we >write). > >"She also seems to believe that her children are incapable of >being insulted by her opinions because they are so "low >functioning." > >And THAT is a bloody good and interesting point! I hadn't >thought about that one. Good that you bring it into play here. > >"This may turn out to be incorrect." > >Absolutely. Sadly, it may turn out that this is how many parents like Kit think. I was recently told the following by a parent when I was pointing out how many autistics are offended by the language used these days in the autism community – the epidemic/pandemic, scourge, comparing autism to cancer, aids, 9/11 etc etc etc “I thought autistic tendencies led people to not understand emotion correctly, there for when people talk about autism in a degrading way, people with autism wouldn’t understand, or care...” sigh.... jypsy
Michelle Dawson 362 14 May 2004 20:32:01 -0000 Okay, I promised an argument. Yes, I’ve read a ton of studies. But I don’t have access to many books. Clare’s read all the books I know about and can’t get hold of (or have fallen asleep reading in various libraries). But I’m much more attracted to the studies. That’s my bias... That’s very interesting re Deci. I was only aware of the experiment you mentioned about rewarding jigsaw puzzle performance. The rest looks pretty sophisticated. I wonder... (thinking as I go) if he allows for self-determination very independent of social context, which to me is true autonomy. If he’s setting up this tightrope between motivation through rewards on one side, and the negative effects of control on the other-and I’m not sure he is-is this opposition altogether necessary? Just talking through my hat here.
Clare 361 14 May 2004 20:07:30 -0000 I’m actually still in the middle of Deci-reading at the moment - I’ve just finished his more “pop psychology” book, “Why We Do What We Do: understanding self-motivation” and am about to embark in the near future on the denser academic tome, “Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination”, which he co-wrote with Richard Ryan, and which is the one that cites all the empirical research in detail and gets into the technical nitty-gritty, research controversies, and so on. I got onto his work via references in Alfie Kohn, Edward Zigler, and so forth. So this is a very provisional summary, based only on what I understand of his work so far, and is probably doing him all sorts of injustices. And I am unlikely to be able to answer any incisive questions about it. He’s very much from the empirical psychology tradition, very keen on controlled, replicable, blinded studies, etc. etc. But what he comes up with is very interesting. OK, the short version: Basically, he began with a series of experiments which showed that in certain contexts, rewarding people for engaging in a task could actually erode their intrinsic motivation to engage in that task. E.g., students who were paid to complete an interesting jigsaw puzzle were less likely to continue working in it for its own sake during a coffee break. On the basis of decades of further research sparked off by this, he argues that the key issue is one of control/autonomy: human beings have a fundamental need to feel a sense of personal causation, of autonomy, to be the origin of their own actions. Therefore, just as people will “give up” when their actions don’t produce any rewards (external or internal) - he doesn’t reject behaviourism completely - they may also resist or become demotivated when rewards are administered in a way which is experienced as an external control. He comes up with a whole analysis of the way in which various things, such as praise or limit-setting, may or may not be “autonomy-supportive”, and a theory of self-determination as a basic need. “ Social contexts that are extremely inconsistent or chaotic, that make it impossible for people to figure out what is expected of them and how to behave competently so as to achieve intrinsic or extrinsic outcomes, will [...] leave people with little or no motivation ... without appropriate instrumentalities, there will not be productive, motivated behavior; but [...] instrumentalities are a double-edged sword - they are the basis for facilitating motivation, but they are also the means through which control can have its profoundly negative effects.” See why this is striking me as potentially relevant to discussions of behaviourism? <g> So I’d be very interested to know what other people make of him. (And actually, I think Michelle may be better-read than me - she’s certainly read many studies that I haven’t).
David Andrews ApEdPsych 360 14 May 2004 19:20:59 -0000 Hi Anne... “Sure, but she’s not autistic so I guess that just makes her a .... well, insensitive.” Yes, given that she is the one writing first to people like Frank, Michelle and myself, to “rebutt” our writings (which - for Weintraub - means a serious ad hominem diatribe with no real evidence of having read and having tried to understand what we write). “She also seems to believe that her children are incapable of being insulted by her opinions because they are so “low functioning.” And THAT is a bloody good and interesting point! I hadn’t thought about that one. Good that you bring it into play here. “This may turn out to be incorrect.” Absolutely.
Anne 359 14 May 2004 19:10:18 -0000 David wrote: “Whatever one thinks about our appreciation of her feelings about our opinions, there is a definite lack of concern on her part about how her opinions might make us feel.” Sure, but she’s not autistic so I guess that just makes her a .... well, insensitive. She also seems to believe that her children are incapable of being insulted by her opinions because they are so “low functioning.” This may turn out to be incorrect.
Clare 358 14 May 2004 18:59:01 -0000 David - what book?? (My thesis, right? For a moment there, I was racking my brains trying to recall if I wrote a second book without realizing it..... <g>)
David Andrews ApEdPsych 357 14 May 2004 18:49:10 -0000 I have been officially cited as well-read by my supervisor, but I'm not half as well-read as Clare is. I saw a seriously good book that she wrote (not the Martian one... ) but which hasn't yet been published (unfortunately, to my mind). *Bows down towards North London, chanting "we're not worthy, we're not worthy"*
Michelle Dawson 356 14 May 2004 18:38:12 -0000 Clare, can you fill us in on Edward Deci? I think you’re unofficially the best-read person on this comment board (again I stand to be corrected, but you’ll have to argue with me...). Anyway, I for one would appreciate and enjoy hearing your take on his work.
David Andrews ApEdPsych 355 14 May 2004 18:26:44 -0000 Hi Michelle.... “As a side note, Ms Weintraub emailed me her ASAT article. So I CC’d her the response I sent to ASAT, to which neither she nor ASAT has not yet responded. What Ms Weintraub continues to write about me continues to be false and defamatory, even though accurate information is available.” Why am I not surprised?! It seems that the accurate information is more likely to be ignored in favour of the errant stuff, since the errant is easier to use as justification for ad hominem attacks. “The argument with Ms Weintraub reminds me of how many non-autistics have characterized my position re Autism Society Canada (ASC). That is, I want to destroy ABA, and I want to destroy ASC.” Yes..... “To my own logic, that is saying that any standards but those currently considered appropriate for autistics are out of the question.” Absolutely, and my question is that of - when much in medical treatment has to pass the requirements of things like the FDA in the US and the CSM in the UK - why should the behaviourists be exempt from that quality control?! “That is, applying ethical standards which protect all other kinds of people to ABA-based EIBI in autism is out of the question. And, applying the funding criteria that all groups involving non-autistics must comply with to ASC is out of the question.” Hmmm..... something not really quite right in their thinking, isn’t there?! “This amounts to saying that the rules don’t apply in autism. Somehow, autistic people are not like all other people when it comes to basic human rights and ethical consideration. And decisions have been and will contiunue to be made on this basis. This is the problem I located and wrote about.” And I think it was handled very well. It is a genuine area of concern, and was highlighted in a book by Dr Glenys Jones, my supervisor at university. She didn’t go into it as deeply as you did, but some of the questions she raised follow on from what you wrote about.
David Andrews ApEdPsych 354 14 May 2004 18:14:43 -0000 >I think they believe that, because they did not literally say that she does not love her kids, she should not interpret their opinions to imply that. I think they are autistic. *And I think that this is a basic courtesy, really... not to end up misinterpreting what we say: but Weintraub has this thing about writing to autistics with whom she disagrees, and then being oppositional to the point of being offensive, and then projecting that onto us. She did it to Frank Klein (I saw the e-mail he sent her, in reply to her initial mail... which she conveniently forgot to mention in her e-mail to me). Whatever one thinks about our appreciation of her feelings about our opinions, there is a definite lack of concern on her part about how her opinions might make us feel. And, as Frank has said elsewhere, if she can’t respect us as people who have grown up from being at least somewhat like her kids, then how can she expect us to believe that she really respects her own?
Michelle Dawson 353 14 May 2004 18:13:51 -0000 As a side note, Ms Weintraub emailed me her ASAT article. So I CC’d her the response I sent to ASAT, to which neither she nor ASAT has not yet responded. What Ms Weintraub continues to write about me continues to be false and defamatory, even though accurate information is available. The argument with Ms Weintraub reminds me of how many non-autistics have characterized my position re Autism Society Canada (ASC). That is, I want to destroy ABA, and I want to destroy ASC. To my own logic, that is saying that any standards but those currently considered appropriate for autistics are out of the question. That is, applying ethical standards which protect all other kinds of people to ABA-based EIBI in autism is out of the question. And, applying the funding criteria that all groups involving non-autistics must comply with to ASC is out of the question. This amounts to saying that the rules don’t apply in autism. Somehow, autistic people are not like all other people when it comes to basic human rights and ethical consideration. And decisions have been and will contiunue to be made on this basis. This is the problem I located and wrote about.
Anne 352 14 May 2004 18:01:36 -0000 Kit Weintraub said: “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 think those people have failed to take Kit Weintraub’s perspective into account. I think they have not considered how she would feel about their opinions. I think they believe that, because they did not literally say that she does not love her kids, she should not interpret their opinions to imply that. I think they are autistic. What people like Kit Weintraub are missing is the opportunity to connect with the minds of autistic people who have the ability to report on their thoughts and feelings. She is giving up the chance to find out what the rhetoric of the parent groups, and the various techniques that parents use, feel like. I think it is a mistake for a person who has autistic chldren to turn away from an opportunity to have this information because it is expressed in an autistic way. The people whom Kit Wintraub has un-diagnosed are not examples of what her children are not. They are examples of what autistic people can be when they grow up.
David Andrews ApEdPsych 351 14 May 2004 16:52:23 -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 ...” I know what you mean, but I see intellectual as covering more than just that which is covered by intelligence tests.... which is the way we test for learning dificulties..... I wasn’t using it mainly as an insult (although I was hoping that it would be useful to piss the woman off, given the many ways we can think about intellectual ability). fact is that she gave me a frigging migraine. :(

301-350 | 351-400 | previous | next

Top | Comments | E-mail