The Misbehaviour of Behaviourists The Misbehaviour of Behaviourists - Discussion 001-257 | 258-300 | 301-400 | 401-500 | 501-600 | 601-700 | 701-725 501-550 | 551-600 | previous | next Michelle Dawson 550 05-23-2004 05:28 PM Edited by author 05-23-2004 05:39 PM Hi John, Maybe the most distressing thing about Skinner was that he was a utopian. As you've noticed, I'm not utopian at all. I would like people to do less harm, to each other and to other organisms and their habitats. But I don't have the idea that Skinner had, and that Dr Malott has, that if only others could *behave*, the world would be better. In both their cases, by *behave*, they mean "behave like me" or "behave as I'm striving to behave, since this is the right way to behave". It's more subtle than that sometimes, and sometimes it isn't. I don't claim Chomsky destroyed behaviourism. And I'm not a real big Chomsky fan. I do admire his brilliance (genius might be the right word here), complete with his excesses and errors. Chomsky did write a powerful and accurate critique of behaviourist theory at a time when behaviourists were largely unchallenged. This criticism helped create another field of study. I agree this had no effect on behaviourists, except that they got angry, and are still angry, at Chomsky. Dr Mulick, for instance, called him names. But my own in-comparison-paltry criticisms of behaviourist theory and practice have (mostly) generated the same sort of responses from behaviourists. Behaviourists really have been and continue to be impervious to criticisms from outside their field. I expect to be fighting behaviourists for the rest of my life also. I was amused in my early research repeatedly to read that behaviourist theory was totally discredited, and survives only in small and specific forms (connectivism, eg). John, what do you think of Harry Harlow and his work? His work surely altered behaviourist theory. Or did it? He was a behaviourist though, or do you consider he was? The Right to Effective Behavioral Treatment position paper is posted on the ABA site. I don't suffer fools, since I never consider other people, whoever they are, to be fools. I hold them responsible for their statements and actions though, which may result in disappointment on my part. Has Dr Malott ever met a free-range autistic? Clare 549 05-23-2004 05:19 PM John wrote, "Why?" See the comparison studies, see my comments below. "So we actually we have a good idea that the results came from DTT even without the comparison studies. " Nope. You have some evidence that the results came from the teaching, as opposed to, say, something else going on in the child's life at the time. You don't, however, have evidence that the results can be credited to the use of DTT rather than another teaching method. "Unethical and robotic are not the same." I didn't say they were, although I happen to think both terms apply. I certainly think Lovaas's use of aversives in the 60s (and later) was unethical. But what I was referring to in this instance was things like Lovaas's apparent belief then that he had produced "social behaviour" by teaching a child that they would get an electric shock unless they approached an adult. The assumption that as long as the child "goes through the motions" of affection it doesn't matter why does seem to merit the claim that Lovaas was producing "robotic" behaviour. I'm not commenting on the justifiability of this claim in relation to subsequent ABA work, but it seems only fair to point out that at the time, in the 60s, this was not some wicked slur invented by the psychoanalysts. In fact, Lovaas practically invited it. John 548 05-23-2004 03:57 PM Skinner did indeed develop a very rigid routine in the last years of his life. Part of this may be attributed to a head injury due to a fall. His rigid routine allowed him to continue to write and work, even when he was losing verbal ability and was physically failing due to cancer. He was always very organized throughout his life but it is his last years that were wide known for their organization. Very few people support physical aversives (and not me either). Other aversives may be unavoidable. Although, Skinner was highly against aversives. He is favorably quoted by some anti aversive folks that I have heard speak. Children will be taught by many people, all throughout their life. This is as true for the typically developing as it is for autistics. I am not at all convinced that this is a bad thing. The school system has indeed been inhumane at its worst. And at its best, has it been otherwise? I think so. Much discussion has gone on here that concerns what could be done do improve the education of autistics. Some disagreements, some agreements. I don't think Michelle or myself or anyone else who comes here, will say that is a bad thing at all. Pre-school is indeed a contemporary concept. But so is the idea human rights for all persons. I would not say either of these is a bad thing. And we are as a Western society pushing to new levels of academic achievement, the time spent in learning goes up. This may be especially seen in the US due to recent legislation (No Child Left Behind Act). Mainstream and special educators (and behavioral scientists) have repeatedly rejected the well run factory metaphor in education (including pre-school). Camille Wrote "Autistics sometimes need extraordinarily specialized situations to work in...very dark room, soft music, weighted vest, visits from dogs and cats... bright room, loud sounds, hundreds of books, art supplies....You can't expect to put 10 or 5 autistics in the same room, even with 5 adults and expect that they will all be in an optimum situation. Autistics bug each other sometimes." Camille, you were waxing poetic here (which is not a bad thing at all). As always, look at the individual child to find what they need, even when taking into account general presenting realities (autism). Camille wrote "Do you not concede that it's possible that Michelle as an autistic might have an insight, unmeasureable, an instinct, indefinable that tells her that ABA, DTT, etc, is just WRONG for autistic kids? Maybe???" I do and that possibility has led me to conversation with autistics. If I agreed that DTT existed only a coercion for children with DTT, forcing square pegs into round holes, then I would never teach with it again. I like the idea of governmental support. I like the idea of parents spending more time devoted to the unique learning aspects of an autistic child. Kurt Vonnegut once more or less wrote that there should be an amendment added to the US Constitution so that all children with be dutifully and sincerely cared for by parents and society until adulthood. I have no idea how that would actually look, but I have always liked that. I would hope that all persons are able to make some contributions to society, as well as have greater freedom due to their ability to navigate dangerous situations and stressors. And if a child is failing to acquire the information that would let him or her navigate, I do think we have done something wrong somewhere. Do not mock those persons who do work, even if it is only sweeping floors in a barber shop. Often, these people take great pride and speak of their jobs favorably. Other times their reactions seem to me to be similar to others who work a job, some up days, some bad days. I am not simply speaking of autistics here but of many of the Developmental Disabilities. Many persons (me too) would hope that all persons may live up to their potential and fulfill their respective wishes. That may well be sweeping in some cases. I liked Camille's story of the folks in Spain. Let's do a little historical revisionism and dx Einstein with PDD-NOS or whatever and put him in DTT for a 2 years. Do you think he would not have gone on to work on Brownian equations? I still do.... I make no claim to fully understand why autistic adults/children may always feel frustrated or angry, but I often do recognize that they feel this way, and I can appreciate that on some level. I sometimes wonder why I would want to discuss things that seem so intuitive to me, with those who completely disagree. There have been times I too would have liked to have found a nice hard flat surface to bang my head against (this happens to me a lot on the internet). I have yet to perfect Michelle's technique of suffering fools. Having said all that, I remember that I primarily here to learn and to help others do the same. John 547 05-23-2004 03:56 PM Hi Michelle, I usually enjoy when folks cite Chomsky's rejoinder as destroying or being particularly devastating. All these years later Chomsky is still fighting behavior scientists on the same issue. It reminds me of a similar happening in the magazine/journal skeptical inquirer. A certain psychologist wrote on how another psychologist brought low behaviorism with his insights (funny, never heard his name). This was unfortunate because the very next article was written by a well known behavior scientist on a separate subject. You can bet some readers pointed this out in the next issue. You said "Are Dr Malott's ethical and scientific standards part of "an unchangeable, biologically programmed characteristic", since his commensurate behaviour is so clearly intractable, never mind impervious to reality? And please tell us how Dr Malott will react when autistics persist in deploying our maladaptive strengths to improve the lives of ingrates like himself? <exhales>" I don't know what to say to this. Your strength has always been your ability to reason, this is why you stand to win hearts and minds in some of the areas we have discussed. I liked jypsy's quote of "credit", much more than I liked Dr. Malott's on "blame". I have not found the pigeon's head thing but I have been asking and it would not surprise me. You said "And if you share some of my concerns re effectiveness, those concerns should show up in your arguments with Clare. I would also really appreciate having your take on The Right to Effective Behavioral Treatment, the position paper and journal article, in view of the problems with the ethics of "effective"." If those concerns have not, I will make an effort to present them more often in my writings. I can only speak on the journal article about the right to effective treatment, I will review it now, and write on it soon. I am not dodging this, just reviewing it. I will continue cracking away at the cognitive science writings. "Radical", in radical behaviorist, should be treated like a noun, not an adjective. The t-shirts don't stand as relevant for anyone but Dr. Malott in this case. John 546 05-23-2004 03:56 PM Hi Clare, You said "My particular slant on this would be that, in addition to that, the data re: DTT often doesn't even show the special "effectiveness" that's being claimed." Why? You said "I would say that my ethical stance does influence how I look at "effectiveness" data on different things." For me as well. And I don't approve of decreasing the self-stim thing except in the cases we have already addressed. You said "I'm doing ABA? That's news to me (probably news to a lot of other people too)." But does this make sense in the context of what I was responding to? You did write "In other words, if I say I'm "pairing myself with reinforcers in a non-contingent manner" I'm doing ABA; if I do exactly the same thing while giving my preferred description, I'm not." (Referring to problems with my definition on ABA.) Taking into account that you may be doing something analyzable as ABA then what I wrote "No you still are, but I am wary of this because others may claim it just for their own. Also your potential description may put the emphasis on factors that are questionable. This happens more than its fair share for behavioral methods done in medical settings." Will make more sense. I admit there is some overlap and I went to some detail to describe these in previous posts. This problem is by no means limited to just ABA. You said "Ah. So anything that involves responding differently contingent on what someone does is ABA?? I think not." Neither do I, think of the definitions/operations of respondent and particularly operant. You said "Really, you're making this definition of ABA so wide that it does include almost anything short of psychoanalysis. Nind & Hewett, Potter & Whitaker, Greenspan - they'd all fall into the category of "ABA" (and I'm guessing that they'd be rather surprised by this, as would a lot of behaviour analysts). How parents naturally respond to infants - "ABA". Almost any method of teaching I can think of - "ABA"." If you add stimuli, events, or conditions contingent on behavior than that is a danger. But I don't think we are about to lump floor-time into ABA. So I am not about to accept that ABA is expanded beyond all meaning. You said "Certainly. But if someone has no means of communicating with those around them, I'm wondering precisely what, at that point, could conceivably be as important." A number of things off the top of my head, like toileting concerns, some possible feeding concerns, some safety concerns. The things that I Hear that Maslow would put at the base of his hierarchy of needs. You said "Without comparison studies, you have no data showing that these results have been achieved by DTT per se." That is kind of the point of experimental designs (show experimental control). One of the really nice things about single subject design is that you get to see how that data shift across sessions. If we use certain designs than we can even anticipate certain general patterns, if there really is experimental control. So we actually we have a good idea that the results came from DTT even without the comparison studies. Thanks for the correction on Bettelheim's book. It was unintentional is embarrassing considering I have read it. We might definitely reject the methods and research of Lovaas for ethical reasons. But even then their were still other studies from Risley and company and even though these too contained aversives they also dealt with reinforcement. Unethical and robotic are not the same. Ralph Smith 545 05-23-2004 03:44 PM Re egad: "yeek" was unavailable (am trying to limit 'creative' use of langauge). Michelle Dawson 544 05-23-2004 03:18 PM Re /m541, I don't think anyone's used the word "egad" on this comment board before. Ralph Smith 543 05-23-2004 02:47 PM Yup, Oliver Sacks. Who yes illustrates his own 'oddity' whenever possible, as in the interview by Psychology Today, 1995: "I'm eccentric. I don't go out much. I'm on the shy side and don't feel rooted or at home or that I belong anywhere." Michelle Dawson 542 05-23-2004 02:29 PM While I agree with John that Bettelheim's writing was "impenetrable" (whether John meant it or not), it doesn't make much sense to defend Skinner by saying he was not as appalling as Bettelheim or John B. Watson. While Skinner was the subject of a very funny rejoinder (already discussed here), his work was also the target for the *most* famous, most devastating rejoinder written in psychological science, if not in science period. This was Noam Chomsky's review of the book "Verbal Behavior". Chomsky recognized that this book was as good as behaviourist theory got; it represented the best of behaviourism. Then he used a criticism of the book as a way to dismantle behaviourist theory in general. It took him about 50 pages. Ralph Smith 541 05-23-2004 02:23 PM Dave: generous use of 'negative space' in /m528 (not sure about 'effective' >g<). In another sense, oddizm, I agree "Preschool is a bizarre, inhumane modern concept." We didn't have preschool; rather than constant bombardment, I was left to 'be myself': negative space. In the metaphor (egad), Herbert Spencer (nothing to do with autism) wrote, 1904: "The characteristic of barbaric art is that it leaves no space without ornament [...]." ABA is 'artless'? I'd say that's about right. :P Michelle Dawson 540 05-23-2004 02:16 PM Assuming Ralph means Oliver Sacks, he's interesting in his own behaviour. He makes use of maybe my favourite combinatorial stimuli to comfort and engage himself when bored or in difficulty. I heard him explain this on the radio. At some point in this interview, he exclaimed that he didn't go anywhere without this particular item. He promptly whipped out his wallet, extracted a piece of paper, and flourished---a periodic table. I cracked up; I'd never thought of carrying one around with me. Ralph Smith 539 05-23-2004 01:48 PM Edited by author 05-23-2004 01:50 PM Michelle: glad to see this quote re "honest humanity" /m534 Couple years ago I was thinking like this: "I think a kind of patent dissatisfaction is ingrained in our 'modern' culture, derived from the fact we've never been comfortable with being *human*. We've been in denial about our wooly side 'forever' [...]". I'm not sure how Sacks figures in the current equation, but (as with homosexuality) I agree that autism is a constant: "Autism, clearly, is a condition that has always existed, affecting occasional individuals in every period and culture." Clare 538 05-23-2004 10:28 AM John wrote, "It was the psychodynamic folks in particular who got the robot thing going, see Bettelheim's "Impenetrable Fortress", for ideas (talks about operant methods for children with autism). " The book's actually called "The Empty Fortress", btw. And lord knows I am no fan of Bettelheim, who would probably be a strong contender to be considered one of the most evil, destructive figures in the autism field ever. But "The Empty Fortress" was published in 1967. Read the work Lovaas was publishing in the 60s (e.g. Lovaas, O. I., Schaeffer, B., & Simmons, J. Q. (1965). "Building social behavior in autistic children by use of electric shock". Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1, 99-109), and the features about him that were appearing (e.g. the 1965 "Life" feature), and you can see precisely where the "robot" thing came from. It wasn't originated by the psychoanalysts - Lovaas handed it to them on a silver platter. Clare 537 05-23-2004 09:47 AM John wrote, "The communication thing is critical no doubt, but other skills are important as well." Certainly. But if someone has no means of communicating with those around them, I'm wondering precisely what, at that point, could conceivably be as important. John wrote, "I challenge you to produce peer reviewed results equal to what DTT has achieved. " Without comparison studies, you have no data showing that these results have been achieved by DTT per se. Clare 536 05-23-2004 09:34 AM John wrote, "No you still are," I'm doing ABA? That's news to me (probably news to a lot of other people too). (And while I'm happy to say that I do draw some techniques - like incidental teaching - from the behavioural field, in general I am not remotely happy with "ABA" as a description of what I do. Count yourself lucky that I haven't got enough caffeine in my system yet to have the energy to take offense <g>). "let me say that you should look for probable operant/respondent contingencies. " Ah. So anything that involves responding differently contingent on what someone does is ABA?? I think not. Really, you're making this definition of ABA so wide that it does include almost anything short of psychoanalysis. Nind & Hewett, Potter & Whitaker, Greenspan - they'd all fall into the category of "ABA" (and I'm guessing that they'd be rather surprised by this, as would a lot of behaviour analysts). How parents naturally respond to infants - "ABA". Almost any method of teaching I can think of - "ABA". That really strikes me as expanding the definition to the point where it begins to lose all meaning. Clare 535 05-23-2004 09:09 AM A side-note re: the "effectiveness" issue: I'm kind of taking Michelle's points about the ethics of deciding what can be "treated" and what counts as "effective" as read here (since I couldn't express them better). My particular slant on this would be that, in addition to that, the data re: DTT often doesn't even show the special "effectiveness" that's being claimed. I would say that my ethical stance does influence how I look at "effectiveness" data on different things. For example, if data suggests that a particular technique may be helpful in building spontaneous communication, I'm likely to be interested. That's something that can be valuable in giving a child more choices, more room to be who they are. If data shows that a particular technique is effective in suppressing "stimming", I am profoundly uninterested (actually, repelled) - because I think it's something you have no right to be "treating" in the first place. Michelle Dawson 534 05-23-2004 12:58 AM Hi again John, Peer review can really screw up, and not just in cases of fraud like Breuning's. It wasn't standard issue peer review that got homosexuality out of the DSM. The late Dr John Fryer (not the whole story, I know, but talk about courage)is another one of my heroes. Here's what he said to the APA, "We are taking an even bigger risk, however, not accepting fully our own humanity, with all the lessons it has to teach all the other humans around us and ourselves. This is the greatest loss: our honest humanity." That's *some* peer review. And if you share some of my concerns re effectiveness, those concerns should show up in your arguments with Clare. I would also really appreciate having your take on The Right to Effective Behavioral Treatment, the position paper and journal article, in view of the problems with the ethics of "effective". I'm not asking you to collect cognitive data on your kids. I'm just suggesting you read enough of the science to know about the differences in the kids you're teaching. There isn't a huge quantity of cognitive studies in autism. And you can hardly be critical of science you haven't read. We do have data about differences in intelligence. The first data were "accidental", and showed up when another problem was being addressed. This is Dr Mottron's article about IQ matching (JADD, Feb 2004). There was the IMFAR presentation (re peaks of ability). We presented a fraction of the data we have. There is some more work in the wings. So I can't give you much to read yet, but the information I gave in the ABA article re intelligence continues to be supported by our data. One clue that behaviourists are participating in an ideology, rather than in a branch of science, is the use of the descriptor "radical". Smells like ideology to me. Then there's the t-shirts. Michelle Dawson 533 05-23-2004 12:12 AM Edited by author 05-23-2004 12:18 AM Hi John, For clarity, here's Dr Malott's quote re Lovaas: "RWM: I agree with Kent's less charitable interpretation. Unfortunately, Reker left Kyle hanging in no-man's land. Speculations are cheap, but that's all we've got. My interpretation would be this: In spite of Dad's homophobia, the contingencies that generated Kyle's effeminate behavior remained in place, and Kyle did not acquire a sufficiently strong masculine/hetero repertoire and set of values to counteract this. Also, there's no fruit as sweet as the forbidden fruit, etc. "Furthermore, Lovaas bailed out of this research area, right after that study, as I understand it, because of GLBT pressure. If he'd bailed out on autism after his first study, we'd make an analogous conclusion to the one LeVay seems to be making, namely that autism is an unchangeable, biologically programmed characteristic. Fortunately, Lovaas didn't bail out on autism." Lovaas' FBP NIMH grant ran through 1976; and he was one of the authors of a rejoinder to FBP criticisms in 1977. The study "Kyle" (this boy has been given more than one name) was in was published in the science in 1974. But back to Dr Malott's argument. His decisions about what can and should be "treated" have no scientific basis. They are statements of personal bias, as are his treatment goals. Are Dr Malott's ethical and scientific standards part of "an unchangeable, biologically programmed characteristic", since his commensurate behaviour is so clearly intractable, never mind impervious to reality? And please tell us how Dr Malott will react when autistics persist in deploying our maladaptive strengths to improve the lives of ingrates like himself? <exhales> Here's more from Dr Malott: "RWM: Yes, and almost all the autism behaviorists are taking the same position: Even though we can successfully "normalize" a reasonable percentage of autistic kids, we still maintain our culturally-ingrained preference for blaming it on the gene. My view is that, though successful behavior modification doesn't prove a behavioral etiology, it sure as hell raises that possibility to the forefront, making it something not to be so lightly dismissed." Note the goal of normalization, and Dr Malott's priority of pursuing his theory, while oblivious of the ethics. Re "blaming the gene" and "blame" in general, jypsy once wrote (I hope jypsy doesn't mind me repeating this; it's brilliant) that the question for her, being an autistic parent of autistic kids, is whether she can (genetically or otherwise) take *credit*. I hope I've done that statement justice. Will return with many more remarks shortly...John, did you find that quote about Skinner bragging he could place a pigeon's head at a precise height? I think it is authentic. oddizm 532 05-22-2004 11:42 PM Edited by author 05-23-2004 12:00 AM http://www.geocities.com/autistry/sgoodforem2.html It's my understanding from the little bit that was written on skinner in my psychology textbook, that he had a very rigid routine. He may have been a very loving father. I am a very loving mother and autistic. He apparently didn't say, "There is a qualitative difference between humans and animals." "Do not try these techniques on humans, it is the equivalent of objectifying them" I understand that loving parents use enforcers and aversives.."no ice cream for you if you don't eat your peas" I did exactly that. But it's not the same as me hiring a stranger to come in and train my child to eat peas. It's wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The school system is inhumane. Inhumane. If you think of how humans functioned for thousands of years with very little opportunity for the gathering of more than 10 children of the same age together without lots of adults around. A playground of kids and 4 adults or less is a bizarre modern concept. Preschool is a bizarre, inhumane modern concept. It is a reaction to the economy and society that we work within. I'm not saying burn down the preschools, I'm saying they are a symptom of a bizarre attitude toward children as so many identical widgets that can be cranked through on a conveyor belt. Sans love. Autistics sometimes need extraordinarily specialized situations to work in...very dark room, soft music, weighted vest, visits from dogs and cats... bright room, loud sounds, hundreds of books, art supplies.... You can't expect to put 10 or 5 autistics in the same room, even with 5 adults and expect that they will all be in an optimum situation. Autistics bug each other sometimes. It's the whole, everyone must fit into to industrially designed and managed, round holes. Square pegs will be driven into it or and/or suffer the consequences. Do you not concede that it's possible that Michelle as an autistic might have an insight, unmeasureable, an instinct, indefinable that tells her that ABA, DTT, etc, is just WRONG for autistic kids? Maybe??? The whole world was not made in the image of Rene Descartes, neither was it made without any scientific basis. Science is real, science is good. I love science. But science should not overrule love and the drive to protect children from cooercion that exists only to make adults more comfortable. In an ideal world the government would step in and say to parents, "hey, you got an autistic there. gonna need lots of time and love, here's a huge chunk of cash so you can quit your jobs and give that child what he needs." But no, it's gotta get this kid on the assembly line, gotta get him productive ASAP, gotta get him so he could at least sweep the barber shop and not scare anybody. WHY? My boss was in the Spain during the 1970's. He said that he was visiting this little town and got a room in a place that had a central courtyard. He could see from his upstairs room that there were a couple of people always in the courtyard, an old man and a developmentally disabled man. Everyone kept an eye on them, it was easy. Everyone knew them and they knew everyone around them. I'm sure that if the disabled man could shell beans or whatever to contribute, he would have. That's how humans should be treating each other. I like Michelle's words "free range autistics", why not?? When they do start talking they might talk about wave theory, like Einstein, who attributed his original thinking to the fact that he was so slow to mature. He should have been in a room with someone telling him to look at little cards, not out staring at the waves on a pond! What were his parent's thinking?? Arrrrgh. Skinner stinks. ABA stinks. Sorry if you don't like my bluntness. I think I'll go bang my head on a wall. Camille John 531 05-22-2004 10:57 PM Edited by author 05-22-2004 11:02 PM On Skinner, "All the worlds a box and we are but the white lab rats." That's how the joke goes. Not very complimentary to anyone, but that's how it goes. Skinner is cited by his daughters repeatedly as a "warm and loving man". As well as by his best (only) friend Fred Keller. A better description would be a talented and introverted man. It was the psychodynamic folks in particular who got the robot thing going, see Bettelheim's "Impenetrable Fortress", for ideas (talks about operant methods for children with autism). Skinner never did any work with humans (besides some social inventions) but he has provided a lot of theory, including some just on humans. I am aware of no writings of his on autism at all. As far as I know he never heard of the word. Be that as it may, he certainly made some people's jerk detectors go off. He managed to do this for almost a century (impressive I suppose). He was still feisty presenting to the APA just days before he died. He walked into that presentation to a standing ovation (the eclectic audience being aware he was on his last legs) he walked out with a more subdued applause. At the very least he was responsible for displacing John Broadus Watson and his self described "exaggerations." He was at the theoretical forefront of a science that covers topics as broad as autism, mainstream education, other special education, gun safety, traffic safety, more recently some vitamins and yes.......even meditating...... If autistics will claim Skinner, I will be alright with that, provided he makes it onto an "Autistic, Think different", T-shirt. The average time a typically developing pre-school student will spend in school is 30 hours. If the parents are busy maybe 35. In some cases, I know of pre-schools that take children very early (and keep them late) in the day so their parents can get to work. So they arrive at 6:00am and leave at maybe 3:00pm which would make......45 hours in pre-school a week (not counting Saturdays and Sundays). Those are not the dominant cases, but I see these as well. I have never seen a DTT program in isolation that offered more than 30 hours a week (although we may infer form Lovaas abstract that some still exist). My guess is the shorter hour set up is much more common. John 530 05-22-2004 10:56 PM Hi Clare, You said "But what you seem to be saying is that it's not the nature of a technique itself that makes it "ABA" or not, but the explanation/description of it that's given." Eloquence failed me, so I went for a dead on hint. But yes it is the method of the technique itself. You said "In other words, if I say I'm "pairing myself with reinforcers in a non-contingent manner" I'm doing ABA; if I do exactly the same thing while giving my preferred description, I'm not." No you still are, but I am wary of this because others may claim it just for their own. Also your potential description may put the emphasis on factors that are questionable. This happens more than its fair share for behavioral methods done in medical settings. You said "It's fine if you want to define ABA as a particular approach to studying/describing human behaviour and learning. But you can't then use it as if it referred to a particular set of teaching techniques. "DTT" is a defined teaching technique which can be evaluated; "ABA" isn't." I somewhat agree. You said ""Staying within the bounds of ABA" (your phrase which sparked this particular thread of the discussion) in practice seems to be a question of how a teacher/tutor describes what they do, not what they actually do." Since I made a sloppy statement earlier (the description thing) making this conclusion would be appropriate. But since I will not let that fly, let me say that you should look for probable operant/respondent contingencies. Psychoanalytic techniques still do not look like behavioral ones, same goes for a lot of other techniques. I is very much what they do. You said "Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely functional communication is kind of a priority here?" No need, it is a priority. But there are many things to learn, although functional speech and beyond will certainly be a part of that. You said "Saying, "well, it's worse at developing usable communication and produces higher rates of disruptive behaviour, but we're going to use it anyway because it's so much better at teaching someone to match picture cards ..." just doesn't strike me as very convincing, somehow." The communication thing is critical no doubt, but other skills are important as well. You said "And on a scientific basis, you can't legitimately cite all this "research on DTT" as supporting DTT's alleged superiority unless you have evidence that it is in fact the use of DTT rather than another teaching method which is the crucial variable." True, I am extrapolating (and it is our duty to be skeptical) but I challenge you to produce peer reviewed results equal to what DTT has achieved. You said "That evidence could only be acquired by directly comparing DTT with other defined teaching methods in a controlled manner. And as I pointed out, in every single study that I know of where that's been done, DTT has come out worse." In every language study, the language aspects of the DTT method has come out worse when compared to other language methods. Still ABA though. Hey by the way, Lovaas differed from Skinners verbal analysis in a few ways. I am pretty sure I would end up quoting everything in post /m524 so instead I will make a block answer. You don't need a timer to be non contingent, but If you start to reinforce behavior you have started to be contingent. You definitions were useful but were based on "what", is the happening in those cases, not what those terms mean. I am wondering about your use of the term "should", for adults. I have no doubt that there is a difference, so maybe the term you should be using for what you do is free operant rather than non contingent. Free operant is a condition for reinforcement in the absence of eliciting stimuli (even though there are still some in reality). If we are to infer that a behaviorist description would be in this case "crudity and over-simplification, or missing the point completely", then I disagree quite a bit. Perhaps one of the points is allow language that gives a precise, exact representation of what is going on. Unscientific English may not yield this. Skinner thought so and I definitely agree. And I absolutely agree that there is a difference to the child on the receiving end. John 529 05-22-2004 10:55 PM Hi Michelle, You said "Those with a diagnosis of Rett syndrome seem to be safe from him so far. But he expressed disappointment that Dr Lovaas gave up on those feminine boys. I believe, and maybe John could correct me here, that Dr Malott may under certain conditions recognize homosexuals as actual people. Autistics are out of luck though." The terms Dr. Malott used were (Rekers) "left him in a no mans land". He was invoking the idea that Dr. Rekers neither completely changed his behavior pattern nor did he did help him fit into a reinforcing (homosexual) society. Dr. Malott goes on to reference a plane ticket to San Francisco as the solution (somewhat jokingly). Since Dr. Malott somewhat derisively comments on homophobia in the very same article http://homepages.wmich.edu/~malott/malott/malott18.doc and that he elsewhere writes on the acceptability of homosexuality (albeit as a learned behavior) and that he has been very good to homosexual grad students (some of whom I have met) it would be fair to assume that he considers them actual people all he time. The crucial difference with him is recognizing that he does not believe in the concept of a nature at all (or maybe a highly amended belief). Since the discussion here is about five years ahead of its time (if you believe in such a concept) I wonder how he will react when more and more psychologists begin to push the autism things being talked about here, I think I already know. You said "Errors arising from the unexamined insistence (via training compliance with social reinforcers, among others) on social conformity was addressed in the criticisms of the FBP." As there should be in the DTT field as well, so we agree on this point, although we might run into trouble on the details. You said "What do behaviourists do about these situations? Your science doesn't work without *someone* deciding which behaviours should be removed or imposed." This is where peer review comes in, as well as social validity. This is partly why I do support your work, we are clearly in need of some feedback from persons who are directly affected by the field. We will never have total consensus, but if we can pass some sort if general review, then we are colder to having a generalized social validity. On the "dubious", thing. I will not disregard any areas of science just because I am skeptical. Being scientific requires me to consider a lot of data. It also means that I can (and should) be a critical consumer of what I read and hear. I also can almost always find some fault in any research I read, very few people are going to produce research so tight that I will fail to notice a failing of internal or external validity or general design (and that goes double for behavioral research because I know more about it.) I have never seen the perfect experiment. So while I dismiss no research (and especially fields) off hand, I have the responsibility to be a little skeptical and when it comes to making extrapolations or generalizations, that definitely goes double. You said "You don't know anything about how autistics ideally learn, since those of us who progressed without ABA or other treatments have not been studied. You don't know anything about intelligence in autism. And so on." Like you I am waiting for the data for all this. You said "I'm afraid if you're interested in implicit learning in autism, you're stuck with perception again. If you're going to talk about intelligence, you're going to be stuck with perception again. And so on..." So I've noticed. I don't mind studying these things. You said "And so long as you're practicing on actual autistic people, I can't really see the ethics of leaving a study of your kids' cognition for some other time. It isn't a question of agreeing or disagreeing." Maybe not, but doing a study requires a lot of set up so as not to do it poorly. It will be at least a year before I could get through the review process and pull anything off. You said "I've experienced a variety of perceptual differences, and the importance of those involved in autism by far exceed the others. That's subjective; but I'm not quite sure why you're so dimissive of the science. Could you justify this on the basis of the science itself, please? What do you reject in which studies? The methodology, the results, the interpretation?" Maybe all of them or maybe non. I won't know till I get through them. I am dismissive of very few fields of science (usually not really science at all) but skeptical towards all. The importance of perception has crossed my mind more than once and I am not prepared to rank it. You said "I've never heard anyone describe herself as a "cognitivist"; these scientists are described by their field of study (cognition), not their adherence to an ideology. Maybe your assigning an ideology where none exists helps to explain why that behaviourist horse is parched?" Okay, behaviorist might be an arcane term. But some folks in the field refer to themselves as behavior scientists. Doesn't seem too far from cognitive scientists, which is what I usually hear. Your reference to an ideology is definitely not my construction though. I don't; know if would call behavioral science (I am a quick study) a ideology. You said "I forgot to mention you seem to have dodged, in your responses to Clare and me, the problem of what effectiveness means which I stated in my previous post." No problem I will pick it up now. You said ""I'm not going to be able to improve on Clare's arguments re effectiveness of DTT; my own (chosen) area is the definition of "effective", and the ethics of "effective", and the ethics of how "effective" is achieved, and the consequences (big picture) of "effective"."" I have taken note. You and I have some general agreement in this sub area and I was not inclined to revisit that which we already have spent some time on, other than to nod my head (nods head). Clare's ideas are a different story in this regard. And if she wants more clarification to the answers I made, I have great faith that she will ask. You said "Also re the dinosaurs, autistics are concerned with quantities and arrangements of information. The quantities and arrangements may seem at all times totally unreasonable (exuberant, I've called them) and meaningless to you. Their importance is invisible to you, the same way you can't see what your calendar calculator sees." Your right, this does seem unreasonable, (recognizing my own subjectivity in this regard). And while the importance may be invisible, I can certainly (even scientifically) recognize what a child prefers and can infer that if given this it may support/facilitate an area of their education. I do question how much time to spend on this at school though. David Andrews AppEdPsych 528 05-22-2004 10:15 PM No oddizm you can't that bit's mine.... all mine... totally all mine.... just mine.... and nae bugger else's..... [...] unless anybody objects....... [...] or just wants to keep this thread alive..... [...] whatever.... [...] i dun mind............................ [...] ah - bugger it.... [...] who wants to talk next? oddizm 527 05-22-2004 06:59 PM oddizm raises partially from her seat and waves one arm around wildly...ME ME me me ME! I want the last word! can I huh? Can I have it huh? Not now of course, maybe after another 400 posts I have a web log, blog, and I realized that while sitting down to write a book would be an impossibility I am creating a bulk of writing that could be easily enough copied and pasted and edited into something like a book. Not that it is as important as this discussion at all. I had to go get some "advising" done to help me make the transition from Art History major to psychology major. The young man asked me which degree I was going for, AB or BS. AB. What are you interested in? oh, that's easy, Autism, autism and autism. Well, are you planning to go on to graduate school? "ummmm. I don't know. I'm winging it." For me, I wouldn't be picking classes that will start next October except that they demand that I do it. I never look more than a couple of days in the future because the future is just so unpredictable. I have issues around tracking time, maybe all autistics do, so time is way to fuzzy to manage. You know, it speeds up, slows down, dissapears entirely. Still don't know what I wanna be when I grow up, except Michelle Dawson. And I can't literally be Michelle Dawson when I grow up, so I have to pick something else... Michelle Dawson's social secretary?? oddizm Michelle Dawson 526 05-22-2004 02:52 PM Hi Philip, I'm especially bad at planning something that may happen in the future, regardless of how good the idea is. There is a small consensus in this group (NAA) that plans are counterproductive. Though you might want to talk to the boss (that Ralph guy) who is capable of discussing logistics accurately... In the meantime, I don't really make plans any farther ahead than a day or two, though sometimes, like right now, there are events approaching that will require plans (the Supreme Court case). Maybe the most startling and informative ongoing outcome of this discussion is that such a discussion is possible; it can be accomplished in a (mostly) civil way; and it may actually be useful. I mean, John would *still* be hunting for the elusive 63%... My other response would be, this discussion is going to *end*?! <appalled expression> This would require someone to have the last word. Hard to imagine. Philip 525 05-22-2004 11:17 AM Edited by author 05-22-2004 11:36 AM Hi, Michelle The following idea may be crazy, impractical and a non-starter,and is suggested shyly and tentatively; but when the discussion on this topic comes to an end, how about publishing an edited version as a book? There's a lot of really good learned,interesting stuff here, which should be made more widely available, such as to people who would not visit this site.Also published work has an academic authority not possessed by an online discussion. Of course, everyone who posts here would have the right to decide which of their messages they would want included, and you,as the site's author,would have final editorial control. Clare 524 05-22-2004 06:33 AM John wrote, "You see I disagree, about which is the more precise and informative. I know exactly what non-contingent and reinforcers are. I can not say the same of "safe", or "overwhelming", or "threatening." I might guess and probably be pretty close, but maybe I will end up not really understanding at all." If I handed out M&Ms at random intervals determined by a computerized timer, I could legitimately say I was "pairing myself with reinforcers in a non-contingent manner". My preferred description for what I often do (e.g. "For the first few sessions, I'm just going to focus on ensuring that I come across as safe, not overwhelming or threatening, but an interesting and entertaining person to have around.") contains considerably more information about what I actually do and why. For example, if pushed, I'd probably start to define "safe and not overwhelming" in terms of reading the other person's cues, respecting their signals, and backing off any time I think they might be feeling overloaded or intruded upon. "Interesting" might involve trying a number of interactive gambits to find which ones intrigue a child in a positive way - for example, I know one boy who loves it when I imitate his vocalizations; I know other kids who'd hate it. Etc. etc. etc. Yes, much of that information may be harder to define neatly, and may require further description on my part, but as grown-ups, we should be able to handle a little complexity - especially when the alternative is crudity and over-simplification, or missing the point completely. To me, it seems thoroughly imprecise and uninformative to use a description which cannot distinguish between me doing what I do and the person handing out M&Ms when prompted by a timer. Because, trust me, there is a difference. And a difference that is extremely clear to the kid on the receiving end. Clare 523 05-22-2004 06:17 AM John wrote, "We need to note that those research projects concerned mostly language. " Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely functional communication is kind of a priority here? Saying, "well, it's worse at developing usable communication and produces higher rates of disruptive behaviour, but we're going to use it anyway because it's so much better at teaching someone to match picture cards ..." just doesn't strike me as very convincing, somehow. And on a scientific basis, you can't legitimately cite all this "research on DTT" as supporting DTT's alleged superiority unless you have evidence that it is in fact the use of DTT rather than another teaching method which is the crucial variable. That evidence could only be acquired by directly comparing DTT with other defined teaching methods in a controlled manner. And as I pointed out, in every single study that I know of where that's been done, DTT has come out worse. Clare 522 05-22-2004 05:47 AM John wrote, " Look for an explanation that is clearly operant or respondent and that is described more or less as such." But what you seem to be saying is that it's not the nature of a technique itself that makes it "ABA" or not, but the explanation/description of it that's given. In other words, if I say I'm "pairing myself with reinforcers in a non-contingent manner" I'm doing ABA; if I do exactly the same thing while giving my preferred description, I'm not. It's fine if you want to define ABA as a particular approach to studying/describing human behaviour and learning. But you can't then use it as if it referred to a particular set of teaching techniques. "DTT" is a defined teaching technique which can be evaluated; "ABA" isn't. "Staying within the bounds of ABA" (your phrase which sparked this particular thread of the discussion) in practice seems to be a question of how a teacher/tutor describes what they do, not what they actually do. Michelle Dawson 521 05-22-2004 01:18 AM Edited by author 05-22-2004 01:19 AM Hi again John, I forgot to mention you seem to have dodged, in your responses to Clare and me, the problem of what effectiveness means which I stated in my previous post. Uh, /m512 ... now I'm scared I did that wrong. Anyway, here's the quote: "I'm not going to be able to improve on Clare's arguments re effectiveness of DTT; my own (chosen) area is the definition of "effective", and the ethics of "effective", and the ethics of how "effective" is achieved, and the consequences (big picture) of "effective"." Also re the dinosaurs, autistics are concerned with quantities and arrangements of information. The quantities and arrangements may seem at all times totally unreasonable (exuberant, I've called them) and meaningless to you. Their importance is invisible to you, the same way you can't see what your calendar calculator sees. Michelle Dawson 520 05-22-2004 01:01 AM Hi John, Errors arising from the unexamined insistence (via training compliance with social reinforcers, among others) on social conformity was addressed in the criticisms of the FBP. There was some musing on "treating" feminist behaviour through behavioural means, and the consequences of this. I can't limit the problem to social reinforcers. Most people have responded to my requests for autistics to be accorded minimal human rights with very stong attempts to alter my own behaviour. What do behaviourists do about these situations? Your science doesn't work without *someone* deciding which behaviours should be removed or imposed. If you continue to regard as dubious entire areas if not fields of published peer-reviewed data-based science, then you may some day wake up looking ridiculous. I would look like the wrong end of the horse if I wrote a big criticism of ABA without reading the science and speaking with the scientists. There are enough horse's derrieres parading around autism without adding to the spectacle. I agree you may be able to tell which autistics will be able to handle DTT in your program within months of starting that program. Scientists who are known in this area state that four months may be enough to predict how well a child will do in their ABA program, though one added that some children who start well do not maintain this progress. And all of this has nothing to do with how well the autistic "functions". You have a ton of confounds. You don't know anything about how autistics ideally learn, since those of us who progressed without ABA or other treatments have not been studied. You don't know anything about intelligence in autism. And so on. I'm afraid if you're interested in implicit learning in autism, you're stuck with perception again. If you're going to talk about intelligence, you're going to be stuck with perception again. And so on... And so long as you're practicing on actual autistic people, I can't really see the ethics of leaving a study of your kids' cognition for some other time. It isn't a question of agreeing or disagreeing. You can disagree that I'm (among other things) an amblyope, which is a neurological perception problem that alters my behaviour. Disagreeing won't change me, and failing to take account of this difference because you don't want to read about what an amblyope perceives will not do me any good. If you assign me to do something requiring stereoscopic vision or left peripheral vision I'll flunk every time no matter which reinforcers you throw at me. I've experienced a variety of perceptual differences, and the importance of those involved in autism by far exceed the others. That's subjective; but I'm not quite sure why you're so dimissive of the science. Could you justify this on the basis of the science itself, please? What do you reject in which studies? The methodology, the results, the interpretation? I've never heard anyone describe herself as a "cognitivist"; these scientists are described by their field of study (cognition), not their adherence to an ideology. Maybe your assigning an ideology where none exists helps to explain why that behaviourist horse is parched? Michelle Dawson 519 05-21-2004 11:36 PM When Rett syndrome occurs in boys, which happens, it is often fatal. Girls with Rett syndrome have differences in brain structure, size, and development. These are very different from the differences in autistic brains. Both are different from typical brains. Brain development as measured by change in head size in infancy and childhood is a diagnostic criteria for Rett syndrome. Motor problems arise from neurological causes. Rett syndrome also may involve seizures, which are neurological; as well as autonomic (eg, breathing) problems implicating the brain stem. Michelle Dawson 518 05-21-2004 11:25 PM For clarity, I haven't met Dr Malott except virtually. I did run into him practically in every area I studied before I wrote the ABA article. "Oh, *him* again." Those with a diagnosis of Rett syndrome seem to be safe from him so far. But he expressed disappointment that Dr Lovaas gave up on those feminine boys. I believe, and maybe John could correct me here, that Dr Malott may under certain conditions recognize homosexuals as actual people. Autistics are out of luck though. Oh, and if anyone's wondering, I don't bite. oddizm 517 05-21-2004 10:04 PM Hi Michelle, I expect that Dr. Mallot had more reason to not like you than he did to not like the little boy who smiled at him. We create negative reactions in most NTs because we can't manage charming all the time. Your autism probably set off his 'lack of social skills detector' booting-up his 'why is she rejecting me?' program which then ingites his "jerkiness emitting device". If he has never been bit, maybe I could do it. Depending on how clean he seems to be, of course. Where does this guy live? Some of us find a lack of eye contact perfectly charming, which is why I found it easy to talk to you. :-) Most people get offended by it. I bet. A comment on the choice of vocabulary... Clare said: "I can say, "For the first few sessions, I'm just going to focus on ensuring that I come across as safe, not overwhelming or threatening, but an interesting and entertaining person to have around."" ... Claire rephrases it as: "For the first few sessions, I'll be pairing myself with reinforcers in an non-contingent manner." The first statement is plain old human speech. Not entirely different from what a mom or grandmother or neighbor would say about any kid. It's humane. The speaker is just reporting seeing a child and seeing herself as a person who will relate to the child in a natural way. The second statement sounds like it comes from a robot heart. From a scientist who is looking at a behavior emitter above all else, from person who is being paid to stay logical and non-feeling and produce "work". It makes me ill to think someone would look at another person as if through a microscope. Skinner was unfeeling in his approach. He reduced people to emitters. How much time did skinner spend thinking about things that can't be quanitified? NONE. The man was a measuring machine. I'll concede that he could have been on the spectrum, he lived a very rigid little laboratory life, most of the time. Would skinner or a skinnerite use DTT to teach a kid to pray ? Meditate? NO, you can't measure it. Will they make sure that the kids innate jerk detector isn't being over-ridden or broken? NO, you can't measure it. 40 stinking hours a week with a Looovas? Give me a break, that's entirely demoralizing. They worry about breaking the spirit of a horse, does anybody worry about breaking the spirit of a child? Maybe, so long as the child is normal. But autistic kids don't have spirits, so you don't worry about breaking anything. We are monkeys, dogs, amoebas and, oh yes, white lab rats with tiny pink eyes in Skinner boxes and the cold blooded scientific language betrays that fact. http://iws2.ccccd.edu/lipscomb/16_week_cou...ges/Skinner_Box.jpg oddizm John 516 05-21-2004 09:17 PM Hi Michelle, You said "I have no trouble thinking of Skinner as "prolific", but "genius"? I wouldn't use that word for that guy. Showing my biases again." After all of our discussions I would be disappointed if you said anything less (smiling). You said "Dr Lovaas said in 1994 that it would have been terrible if Van Gogh (certainly the most-variously-diagnosed dead guy) had been trained to respond to social reinforcers." The folks at a certain community based on behaviorism (Los Horcones) are beginning to say the same about training a neutral attitude towards social reinforcers. In terms of famous figures outright contempt (encouraging neutrality or hostility towards social reinforcers) we find a vast list. Mark Twain, Voltaire, Kurt Vonnegeut et al. It will be interesting to watch where this goes. You said "The behaviour you are "modeling", if any, is really the acknowledgement of different needs and abilities in different people." I think you said it better the first time. I can think of some pretty clear examples of modeling as I defined it. Also I have great respect for the "ridiculous", this why I can tolerate an Ivar Lovaas as well as a Simon Baron-Cohen, and not forgetting a Michelle Dawson. Now dubious, that is a different story. I am willing and happy to learn, but I remain very dubious of certain ideas. These things will have to be put to the test one day. I like the idea of studying implicit learning and intrinsic reinforcers, lets see where it will go. Frankly, you have your work cut out for you, come to think of it, so do I. On the HFA/LFA. Borrowing your telescope, I look back at the first message I posted 500 or so posts ago. I more or less said that I can tell who is going to do well. You challenged this, citing your own clinical experience. That was fair and correct. But to better explain what I meant was, I referred to how fast a child learns certain skills, especially the ones that are considered pre (academic) learning. I can often tell how well a child can do based on these. I admit that I still get surprised every now and then, but I can often tell within a month or two how far a child will go when they are with us in DTT, and also how fast. I maintain this as accurate and others I have spoken to have noticed this. You said "Of course, you'll attribute any observed improvement (however you define it) to the treatment; ergo, the treatment is proven. I'll continue to disagree with this until you or any other behaviourists accounts for the phenomenon described above, or for autistics who have never had DTT or even ABA developing language at 8, 9, 11 years old, or older. It would also help, if you want to be scientific, to somehow account for our spectacular ability to develop in the "wrong" order." I am more interested in understanding this, than I am desirous of proving anything wrong. I think some of the things I have learned here may help me on the road to studying this one day. I have also wondered about some of the things we have spoken of and in some ways, I like what I have heard (particularly about implicit learning and intrinsic reinforcers). How we use this and test this will be the real trick. Our young calendar calculator gained access to calendars, (I assume) at home. But he certainly was interested in them at school as well. During breaks or other times when he did not have something scheduled he could have access to the calendars to his hearts content. He was could calculate dates (by number of days) within one years time when he left our program at just under five years of age. I have heard his ability is more sophisticated now (two years later) but I do not know this for sure. He may have even had this greater sophistication but lacked (due to phonological problems) the ability to get out larger words which might be required for more complexity. Thanks for the info on savants/splinter skills. You said "it's behavioural because you've reduced to same. That, again, is your and your kids' loss." The "blinders", thing again. It is only their loss if I fail to teach them effectively or fail to facilitate for them in the acquisition of more skills. You said "Data-based studies of perception (also memory, to complete the basic three) in autism are everywhere. Looks like you can lead a behaviourist to cognitive processes, but you can't make him read." Come on now, I have only begun to start on the cognitive readings, don't get me going on the agreeing part. You can lead a horse to water, maybe you can make him drink, but if you get him to float on his back, then you are all set. You can lead a behaviorist to cognitive processes, maybe you can make him read, but if you get him to agree, then you are all set. You said "Re Dr Malott, I wonder if he's been bitten. My jerk detector went off full blast..." I can attest he has never been bitten (so he is doing better than me in that regard), one of the two students he has done DTT with even smiled when he would come in. The other one was a tough sell on some days, even for me (someone he would laugh and roughhouse with from time to time). John 515 05-21-2004 09:16 PM Hi again Clare, You said "Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, the only times DTT has been directly compared to specific other teaching formats (not Eikeseth's vague "eclectic") in a controlled manner, it's come out worse." We need to note that those research projects concerned mostly language. DTT is broader in the skills it teachers. There is no formal scientific comparison beyond Eikseth's vague eclectic special education. But we should note, that DTT has the most research in terms of any method and we repeatedly see the highest raise in adaptive and intellinegnce test scores as well as other abilities. The only other comparable method in terms of skills beyond language was TEACCH. And even then the best results were not comparable to DTT's best results even minus aversives. You said "In addition, various specific elements of traditional DTT - teacher choice of all activities, reinforcement only of responses meeting a certain previously-selected standard of "correctness" when it comes to shaping, artificial rather than natural reinforcers, massed rather than varied trials, etc. etc. etc. - have been studied individually and shown to produce poorer results than alternatives." Where, by whom, and with what population? Specifically measuring these in the context of DTT or are we to extrapolate? You said "You're saying we don't have enough data to "disregard" DTT; I'm saying you guys don't have any data to claim that DTT is superior in the first place, and in fact you have to deal with a whole lot of data that says it isn't." I especially disagree on this particular issue, since I know a fair bit about it. I don't mind improving techniques and disregarding what can be replaced with better understanding provided we see that. You see, there is actually quite a bit of data on DTT (more than any other field in autism education) and often this seems to produce the best results. Like you I have spent some time reviewing the methods/treatments, and my work has been incorporated into an undergrad class on autism and DTT and now also into a grad class (even though I am an undergrad). So we may infer that if DTT produces the best results in terms of standardized tests (as well as other skills) then it is like to be high on the best practices list for some children. The data that say it isn't, is actually regulated to the verbal behavior sector and it also stops there. You should note this when referring to "a whole lot of data that says it isn't". John 514 05-21-2004 09:16 PM Hi Clare, You said "You don't get to go, "Well, I'm teaching this way, and if the child can't learn from that, it's their problem."" Your right, but I do not simplify learning into just one way or type. There is also such a thing as teaching/encouraging multiple ways of acquiring information. You said "No. You're the teacher (tutor, whatever), it's your problem (and your responsibility). It's your job to teach in whatever way they are best able to learn (and in a one-to-one situation, you have the freedom to do that)." It is my problem, but it is also my student's if I fail to help them acquire information they may need or find useful in their later education This is especially true because I am teaching more than one thing. This is certainly things like sharing, which based on my observations of mainstream Kindergartens is a definite skill that is practiced/expected. This is also one of the criteria that gets typically developing Kindergartners recommended to repeat Kindergarten or to enter Kindergarten a year late. So you see, it is quite important if your goal is to get your child into a mainstream Kindergarten and it often is for parents and even for the students themselves. You said "Indeed, but as I pointed out by citing the recommendations for teaching NT kids, introducing ideas like "sharing" in a small, manageable way is very different from expecting children to cope with deprivation of the things that feel most necessary and precious to them." I like the idea of teaching children the idea of sharing in small manageable steps. But I also have a responsibility to insist on some sharing when an item is popular and when we lack at that exact moment for whatever reason more materials. This does not make the children irrational, or the materials unnecessary for their education in my view. It means they are simply very young persons which a great deal of motivation to maintain immediate possession/attention of/to the materials. This is just as expected with typically developing (and probably most other sorts) as well. Let me provide another real example with a different child. This young guy (four years old) spends much of his time playing with dinosaurs. In our class we have many, many dinosaurs (more than all the children in the class could hold at once). We keep them in several small baskets. In free time, he often plays with them, but so do two other children. If they come over and select several dinosaurs he is not using he still used to cry and even tantrum. He has more than he can manipulate or hold at once. In fact when we bought some more dinosaurs he did the same thing on the very fist day when someone took one to play with. Even more than the Play-Doh example this is an example of a case where I strain to see the "need", here. I let the other students take the extra dinosaurs he had kept in the basket. Tantruming to maintain possession of all the dinosaurs would probably not fly in Kindergarten. It also took away from the other children's right to enjoy/learn from, the dinosaurs as well. I do explain why, I do the things I do to the children I work with. I will also listen if they have something to say. I will also change my position if the children give me a better reason. But I will also expect certain things (and will be actively teaching them) like sharing. You said "(And as Michelle's pointed out so accurately, if you want to teach sharing, flexibility, etc., it's usually necessary to start by displaying it yourself)." Certainly, and we often do. But interestingly, this involves extrinsic reinforcers. You said "You seem to keep saying that children "should" be able to cope with sharing, or being redirected, or whatever, and so you'll expect them to do that - whether they can or not." There are times with any child we will hit a boundary and a disagreement will result. Sometimes it is just a matter of reinforcing the best and ignoring the rest, and building skills through that. Other times we have to be more firm. It is expected tat children will not always agree/understand. This is expected and even a very behaviorally healthy. But there are something's like some level of sharing that we must insist upon to respect the rights of all students. This is behavior that will be expected in a child's life and it is our responsibility to insist on it to some degree and to actively teach it through various means. You said "There's a big difference between actually enabling someone to learn something, and "expecting someone to be able to do it whether they can learn it or not at that point"." While we teach, maybe through indirect methods, we must also still insist on certain things in actual practice. This is still part of teaching and learning across environments. You said "One thing I've found with some kids is that as they develop more language and a working relationship with me, they may then become more open to redirection some of the time. It's as if they have more of a framework for processing an external lead, or they've decided that I'm sufficiently "familiar" and follow their lead enough that there's a chance that a new activity I suggest may be interesting and process-able, so they can mediate the attention shift. But that's something that evolves without any attempt on my part to "teach" redirectability." I very much agree with the top part of this. I have alluded to the importance of "familiarity", previously. Question, what are the things that make you familiar to a child? I wonder if part of that familiarity is examples of previous redirection in this case. You said "More than that - as I've pointed out before, "ABA" defined so widely that it covers techniques ranging from strictest DTT to incidental teaching is so "diverse" as to be almost meaningless." We differ a bit here. Look for an explanation that is clearly operant or respondent and that is described more or less as such. ABA seems so different from other techniques to me. I had a discussion yesterday with a social worker who was working with a young 16 year old with mild mental impairment and Kleinfelters syndrome. He said that this young man had a "loose grasp of reality", and that "his associative process was impaired", he went on to say the only thing that would help him is medication. The medication option is not part of the behaviorist model unless you really push the EO thing (and some do). If REBT had been used and had been shown to work, then maybe you could push it as behavioral but it may not pass what is jokingly called the sleeze test because it fits more naturally in the cognitive model. I am not even going to touch the "loose grasp on reality thing." For a side note, other groups have claimed certain behavioral techniques as actually a part of their model rather than behaviorism (even thought the techniques came from behaviorist and were explained in behavioral terms. Ecological paradigm folks have claimed Functional Assessment as actually being better suited to their model. I have heard that some cognitive folks have claimed certain systematic desensitization techniques and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (still behavioral) as better suited to their paradigms. The medical model folks have laid some claims on some very unique behavioral research using vitamin supplements as an abolitive operation for pica (in JABA no less). They have also claimed (or at least explained in medical terms) why shaping with reinforcement is so effective in increasing food intake/retention for "failure to thrive infants). Behaviorists being the only ones who seem to have found a solution to this, save though more drastic medical interventions (feeding tubes).And yet again with concerns like enuresis, encopresis, and colic all of which have been somewhat claimed by the medical model. I also seem to remember hearing that some psychoanalytic techniques have been reclaimed by cognitivists (I don't know actual veracity of that though). Seems like this is a problem beyond just saying ABA could be anything that increases a behavior. You said "For example, I noted several studies in JABA on the evaluation of "non-contingent reinforcement" (a.k.a. "being generally nice to them") as a technique for reducing "challenging behaviours"." Environmental enrichment? This is a favorite target for some behaviorists. There are some good things to be said about non contingent reinforcement, particularly when we talk about making the teacher a reinforcer. I actually encourage this sort of set-up in the first days of a DTT program, because it allows for a low demand free-operant situation and for a rapport to be built with the tutor. By the way, you can not simplify place non contingent into "a.k.a. "being generally nice to them")" because that is not what it is. By definition non contingent reinforcement means "delivery of a reinforcer not based on a pre-set behavior or time schedule". If a child asked "can I have some more milk", and I said "sure, let me get you some, big guy", I am definitely being nice but I am also using contingent reinforcement. Hey, by the way, what is the assessed effectiveness of non contingent reinforcers in those JABA articles. You said "What it seems to boil down to a lot of the time is whether or not something can be re-described in behaviourist jargon." The jargon is often quite precise and well defined. I still remember the definitions for many of the basic and intermediate behaviorist concepts. This jargon is also closely tied into behaviorist logic. The logic and terms are considered quite precise and actually I break many rules to facilitate easier communication here rather than write a page to explain what I said. You said "I can say, "For the first few sessions, I'm just going to focus on ensuring that I come across as safe, not overwhelming or threatening, but an interesting and entertaining person to have around."" Amen, this (excluding the mentalistic translation) was actually the point of the presentation I gave at the undergrad conference. You said "Or, if it makes you happier, I can say with equal honesty, "For the first few sessions, I'll be pairing myself with reinforcers in an non-contingent manner."" This is a simple version of what I did say. You said "I just happen to think that the former description is more precise, more informative, and does not involve grievous abuse of the English language." Would it still be a grievous abuse if I translated the ideas to the Spanish language? You see I disagree, about which is the more precise and informative. I know exactly what non-contingent and reinforcers are. I can not say the same of "safe", or "overwhelming", or "threatening." I might guess and probably be pretty close, but maybe I will end up not really understanding at all. Ettina 513 05-21-2004 04:23 PM Rett's isn't really what I'd call severe. I've done lots of study on neurological disorders and what I call severe disorders are those that are deadly(such as Tay-Sachs and anencephaly) and borderline severe if they cause profound developmental delay/mental retardation/slowed learning. And new studies have shown that most girls with Rett's are neurotypical but motor and sensory problems cause them to have a severe physical disability, instead of a severe neurological one. Michelle Dawson 512 05-21-2004 02:45 PM Hi John, I have no trouble thinking of Skinner as "prolific", but "genius"? I wouldn't use that word for that guy. Showing my biases again. Dr Lovaas said in 1994 that it would have been terrible if Van Gogh (certainly the most-variously-diagnosed dead guy) had been trained to respond to social reinforcers. Modeling and imitation are not good terms of reference for the kind of sharing and generosity I'm looking for. It's not a question of "do what I do" where the actions are mirrored, since treating others fairly requires one to notice if their needs are significantly different than one's own. So, you would have to acknowledge the differences in your autistic kids by, eg, noticing they learn most efficiently in ways that you're not too good at yourself, or that might seem dubious or ridiculous to you. You might notice how many rules they break, given the chance, in order, speed, and progress of learning and development. The behaviour you are "modeling", if any, is really the acknowledgement of different needs and abilities in different people. It does not help us to learn that others find our very pressing, necessity-level needs to be frivolous or mere obstacles to the lesson/technique at hand. I'm not going to be able to improve on Clare's arguments re effectiveness of DTT; my own (chosen) area is the definition of "effective", and the ethics of "effective", and the ethics of how "effective" is achieved, and the consequences (big picture) of "effective". It would really, really help to know how your "low-functioning" kids are assessed that way. That is, what tests are used. The work we've done so far suggests problems with the designation of "low-functioning". And as I wrote back there <adjusts telescope> in the article, distinguishing "HFA" from "LFA" at age four (or even five, in our--the clinic where I work--experience, many autistics arrive at "HFA" status, with or without treatment, between ages 4 and 6) is not consistently possible. Of course, you'll attribute any observed improvement (however you define it) to the treatment; ergo, the treatment is proven. I'll continue to disagree with this until you or any other behaviourists accounts for the phenomenon described above, or for autistics who have never had DTT or even ABA developing language at 8, 9, 11 years old, or older. It would also help, if you want to be scientific, to somehow account for our spectacular ability to develop in the "wrong" order. By the way, one in ten autistics have savant abilities. Many more have splinter skills. Since savant abilities are dependent on autistic peaks of ability, combined with overtraining with specific materials, it is fair to conjecture that all autistics have the potential for savant abilities. Whether we develop this depends on our experiences. Do we encounter the materials we need, and are we permitted to go to town on them? Some of this is guessing and some of this isn't. I would like to know when/how your very young calendar calculator came across calendars, and what his range is. Attention is a basic cognitive process; it is what governs the direction and extent of perception (sloppy short definition). Attention has been extensively studied in autism. Some of these studies have had serious flaws. Your version of attention is what you consider to be observed manifestations of attention. In this case, it's behavioural because you've reduced to same. That, again, is your and your kids' loss. Data-based studies of perception (also memory, to complete the basic three) in autism are everywhere. Looks like you can lead a behaviourist to cognitive processes, but you can't make him read. Re Dr Malott, I wonder if he's been bitten. My jerk detector went off full blast... Philip 511 05-21-2004 02:24 PM Hi,Michelle It's really awful and horrible that you've been harassed and bullied by officials and threatened with being beaten up by people on the street. oddizm 510 05-21-2004 02:03 PM I have this professor now, about whom I have openly kvetched in different fora. He has tenure and tell us all at every opportunity that that is why he can be so bold in what he says. He's bizarre, trying to teach, for sure, but uses humiliation as a way to reinforce his teaching... I adopted this sort of position, not exactly planned, that he was more funny than anything. Although he offends me for being a bully to me, and for bullying others in the class, I usually conceal the offense, I think. I just smile at him like I would smile while watching a very interesting zoo exhibit. I never avoid eye contact with him, I guess I can do it in the case of someone trying to bully me. People tend to be afraid of me because of my height, I think. I'm tall for those of you who don't know. In some situations I am very easily frightened, and avoid human contact as often as possible, walking around a block to avoid a group of them, that sort of thing. I think that Philip's experience was with little creeps who just are bored as well as boring. They stand around and say, let's see how many times we can get him to respond. There are people who get their internalized positive reinforcement by psychologically "pulling wings off flies". Perhaps they are drawn into certain professions...certain professions that shall remain nameless. oddizm Michelle Dawson 509 05-21-2004 01:42 PM Hi Philip, Well, I'd call what those people were doing lousy behaviour no matter what their diagnosis. I've been in some similar situations and usually I tell the person(s) that they're being very boring. As in, "That's really boring, isn't it." And I walk away. I don't get harassed like this much, because even though I'm small and female and obviously odd, people tend to be scared of me. The harassment and bullying I have experienced has mostly been by officials of various kinds. I don't know exactly why the average bully-on-the-street either leaves me alone, or backs off when I talk back. I wish I did so I could be more helpful. I have been threatened (with being beaten up) by people on the street and found I got angry and impatient, rather than scared. My failure to display fear seemed to disconcert those threatening me. Maybe this is part of it, but I'm really not sure at all. Philip 508 05-21-2004 01:23 PM This message is about strange NT behaviour. When I was walking home late last Wednesday evening, while it was still light,and a short way from my house,I was approached by a young woman in her mid teens, who was hanging around with her mates. She asked me if I had "got the time".I told her the time and then she told me I was a liar, and asked me again for the time, which I told her. She said I was a liar and asked me again for the time. I walked away from her and she followed me repeating the same things for about a minute, while I ignored her. She then returned to her mates. I couldn't see if she was wearing a wrist-watch. I assumed she wanted to know the time, but if she did why did she tell me that I was a liar? Also at least one of her mates would most likely have had a watch, even if she hadn't. She has approached me before with the same question. Usually she's with a young man of about the same age, and sometimes he also asks me for the time.It may be him or another young man (he or they were wearing hoods) who on several dark winter evenings earlier this year asked me if I had "got a light". I assumed he wanted a light for his cigarette. When I told him that I hadn't, he asked me why not. I told him that I don't smoke. I think he asked me why not. He then persistently asked me the same questions, while I ignored him, until I had reached my front door. I don't know why he asked me for a light, if he didn't need one. I believe it was to annoy me. Sometimes he's with another young man,and/or with his mates. I believe that these young people harass me in this way because I look different with my rather odd way of walking, my general nervous demeanour and being slightly built and therefore an easy target. I don't know if they have harassed other people in the same area. Otherwise their behaviour is completely inexplicable, asking me questions to which they don't need or want answers. Clare 507 05-21-2004 10:30 AM John wrote, "If we say we should focus on only the purest sort of intrinsic reinforcers to the point where we must disregard DTT then I fail to agree and note that we don't have the data for such a decision." Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, the only times DTT has been directly compared to specific other teaching formats (not Eikeseth's vague "eclectic") in a controlled manner, it's come out worse. In addition, various specific elements of traditional DTT - teacher choice of all activities, reinforcement only of responses meeting a certain previously-selected standard of "correctness" when it comes to shaping, artificial rather than natural reinforcers, massed rather than varied trials, etc. etc. etc. - have been studied individually and shown to produce poorer results than alternatives. You're saying we don't have enough data to "disregard" DTT; I'm saying you guys don't have any data to claim that DTT is superior in the first place, and in fact you have to deal with a whole lot of data that says it isn't. Leif Ekblad 506 05-21-2004 10:14 AM Oh my. So autistics are similar to chimpanzees when responding to "human" cues? That will make good proof for the Neanderthal Theory (http://www.rdos.net) ;-)) In fact, this stupidity of NTs always assuming any other species are inferior to them if they don't behave like their innate norms, is making me sick. Talk about inflexiblity, which I thought was claimed to be an Aspie quality? Clare 505 05-21-2004 09:09 AM John wrote, "But still within the bounds of good ABA, which as we know is quite diverse." More than that - as I've pointed out before, "ABA" defined so widely that it covers techniques ranging from strictest DTT to incidental teaching is so "diverse" as to be almost meaningless. In fact, in technique terms, logically anything which could be shown empirically to increase the likelihood of desired behaviours (or decrease the likelihood of undesired behaviours) could qualify as "ABA". For example, I noted several studies in JABA on the evaluation of "non-contingent reinforcement" (a.k.a. "being generally nice to them") as a technique for reducing "challenging behaviours". What it seems to boil down to a lot of the time is whether or not something can be re-described in behaviourist jargon. I can say, "For the first few sessions, I'm just going to focus on ensuring that I come across as safe, not overwhelming or threatening, but an interesting and entertaining person to have around." Or, if it makes you happier, I can say with equal honesty, "For the first few sessions, I'll be pairing myself with reinforcers in an non-contingent manner." I just happen to think that the former description is more precise, more informative, and does not involve grievous abuse of the English language. Clare 504 05-21-2004 08:50 AM John wrote, "Hmmmm...this may still be the child's problem as well." No. You're the teacher (tutor, whatever), it's your problem (and your responsibility). It's your job to teach in whatever way they are best able to learn (and in a one-to-one situation, you have the freedom to do that). You don't get to go, "Well, I'm teaching this way, and if the child can't learn from that, it's their problem." "No, but I would be sure to begin to teach things like sharing if the occasion arose." Indeed, but as I pointed out by citing the recommendations for teaching NT kids, introducing ideas like "sharing" in a small, manageable way is very different from expecting children to cope with deprivation of the things that feel most necessary and precious to them. (And as Michelle's pointed out so accurately, if you want to teach sharing, flexibility, etc., it's usually necessary to start by displaying it yourself). You seem to keep saying that children "should" be able to cope with sharing, or being redirected, or whatever, and so you'll expect them to do that - whether they can or not. There's a big difference between actually enabling someone to learn something, and "expecting someone to be able to do it whether they can learn it or not at that point". One thing I've found with some kids is that as they develop more language and a working relationship with me, they may then become more open to redirection some of the time. It's as if they have more of a framework for processing an external lead, or they've decided that I'm sufficiently "familiar" and follow their lead enough that there's a chance that a new activity I suggest may be interesting and process-able, so they can mediate the attention shift. But that's something that evolves without any attempt on my part to "teach" redirectability. Clare 503 05-21-2004 08:48 AM A M Baggs wrote, "I loved the thing about the kid biting Lovaas on sight." I also like to use this story to test "autism experts" by seeing whether they appreciate it or not <g>. John 502 05-20-2004 09:08 PM Hi Mchelle, You said "I've witnessed genius and I certainly have worked and continue to work with geniuses. What do behaviourists do with genius? I'm glad the term is functional. Now, tell us what it is in behaviourville." I have heard the word invoked by behaviorists (not in formal writings though), but there is no behaviorist definition. All the same if you ask most behaviorists if Skinner, Michelangelo, or Mozart was a genius and I am sure they would say yes. It sounds like one of those things that is functional (seems like a good word to use as a descriptor) but is unquantified. So I can't make an answer for behaviorists. I will work on a loose definition of genius later after I really think about it. You said "The best way to teach sharing and generosity to autistics is to demonstrate it yourself. This may require you to notice that materials play a different role in the education of autistics. You may find a lot more willingness to share, and actual generosity, when you demonstrate to your kids through your actions that you "get" their different way of learning, and are prepared to adjust yourself somewhat." This sounds like modeling and imitation reinforcers. If I remember correctly modeling has been defined as "The form of the behavior of the imitator is controlled by similar behavior of the model." And imitative reinforcers as "Stimuli arising from the match between the behavior of the imitator and the behavior of the model, that function as reinforcers." So yes I look at this as very important but in context. It requires a developed rapport with that student as well as some imitative skills as a prerequisite. You said "I'm not going on about (extrinsic) reinforcement here, but about how autistics learn." If we are to conclude that intrinsic reinforcers are important to autistics and should be building tool, then I agree. If we say we should focus on only the purest sort of intrinsic reinforcers to the point where we must disregard DTT then I fail to agree and note that we don't have the data for such a decision. You said "We differ here (understating the case...), but autistics who've never crossed the path of a behaviour analyst learn anyway, and that has to be explained. We also learn in ways which seem to be impossible or very difficult for non-autistics to learn. This is observational, sure; but the observations are in the science, and they can be and are quantified." Granted, but some children in DTT do develop a splinter-skill on which we had many interesting discussions. I have repeatedly read that roughly one in ten autistics will develop a splinter skill (correct me if I am wrong). I remember a few savants in the 30 or so kids that I remember from DTT. Maybe two more developed a skill after leaving DTT when they were in Kindergarten. This seems roughly proportionate. Autistics, like all people continue to learn both through intrinsics and extrinsics (from what I can tell) all throughout their life. This is very much regardless of behaviorists or any other teacher/psychologist. The real question to me is, "Is DTT or a modified version of it the optimal choice for some autistic children for some of their early education?" my answer remains "yes". Another good question is "How many of the low functioning autistics leave their DTT pre-school education with enough skills to cope and continue to learn most effectively in kindergarten and beyond?" How does this match up to other educational techniques? You said "What's the difference between mixing cognition in when necessary to maintain behaviourist theory, and acknowledging cognitive science as a field which must equally be studied? Because you're talking about thoughts and maybe beliefs, which is fine, but some time back you wrote about autistics being interested in the perceptual properties of objects--or as you put it, finding these properties reinforcing. Yes. But to work this out, you need to know about perception in autism, and what your autistics see that you can't. Clare's mention of attention, in which you've shown interest, is also in cognition. Isn't there a sort of obligation to study this without breaking it up into behaviourist-digestible pieces? Just wondering." I have never made sweeping statements about the cognitive science field as a whole and I happy to consider data from anyone who will present it. Rule governance is a firm part of radical behaviorist theory so I do not view it as "mixing cognition in", so much as a theorization to further explain behavior in humans. Skinner himself said that "if we are to tell the whole story we must deal with private events in our science." I doubt many behaviorists have much interest in perception and they may even say it is not necessary to understand this to teach the children. I am rapidly reconsidering my position on this. To find out about this, I do in fact have to spend some time studying the cognitive literature. The same goes with attention. Although I might add, attention still seems better allocated to the behavioral rather cognitive field. What tools the researcher use to interpret and study these things are up to them. I feel no problem using the tools I am familiar with if they logically help in interpretation. If not, then it is time to reconsider. Or maybe it is time to add a concept instead. You said "I didn't drop Dr Malott off the autism/radical behaviourist list because of his remarkable talent for trendiness, but because he has no credible knowledge of autism, regardless of how much noise he's making. Can you explain to me his distaste for data? Or is he just kidding?" Where to start. I have a greater knowledge of our favorite poster child than most behaviorists. His knowledge of autism is slowly growing because it is not his primary interest (or has only very recently become so). Most of the stuff I think is really cool comes from his students not him. This is also true of most of the really cool stuff that he actually does know. He is a little slippery when it comes to data. He likes data and wants his students to be scientist-practitioners but not researchers. He wants more people working in the field than researching. This is not a popular position in behaviorism by the way. So this seems kind of untrendy. He is also a very large smart alec, so it is entirely possible that he is kidding when it comes to the data thing you refer to. John 501 05-20-2004 08:57 PM Since the jerk detector seems to be the theme of the moment I can't resist relating a similar story. There was a brand new masters student who joined a DTT program I served as a undergrad supervisor for, a couple of years ago. She was working on her first day with a four year old boy. The boy began to holler when she asked him to put his toys away. She smiled and said "You are going to have to do better than that to bother me." Now I don't mind a reasonable request like asking a child to put away their toys to move on to another scheduled activity (in this case getting on the bus to go home) provided this is explained (and it was in this case). I also don't mind that tutors have some resistance to inappropriate behavior (provided they are working on teaching a near functionally equivalent behavior). However this tutor seemed to have crossed the line and even been inviting more behavior of this sort. We may infer, that this was not the best idea this tutor ever had. In any case, upon hearing this statement the boy paused, looked up at the tutor, and then smacked her very audibly. The boy got in trouble with me for that, but I felt a little proud all the same. Oh well, I will tell him when he is older. 501-550 | 551-600 | previous | next |
|
|
| Top
| Comments | E-mail |
