But, This IS Sparta!

In my previous post "Skinner Confuses Science with Terminology", I questioned the validity and motives of behaviorists that continue to use the 47% myth from Lovaas' 1987 study to sell ABA services and how very similar methods of marketing deception are used in the biomed industry. More specifically I wrote the following:

It's been my experience that behaviorists are quick to recoil and become defensive with inquiry that challenges their "science". From my observation, behaviorist's reaction to skepticism is very similar to the alternative/biomed advocates. Both groups become very wed to their respective dogma's that they will ignore fundamental questions of ethics if it interferes with the ability of the dogma to prosper and survive.

Because I agree with Interverbal when he states; "Advocacy, no matter how worthy the cause, needs to be factually accurate. No real service is done in its absence." I want to examine the accuracy of the behaviorism and biomed communities.

Both groups cite as evidence studies, anectdotes and faux terminology to support their positions. The behaviorists use Lovaas' 1987 study and his unique 47% indistinguishable criteria (which has never been replicated independent of Lovaas' small group of behaviorists) to sell their "services". Especially Lovaas' students like McEachin and Leaf who have created large multinational corporations citing their own results as proof of their efficacy. However, they conveniently leave out from their marketing materials the fact that the children in that study were never randomized and were subject to physical aversives. Is that honest or is that protecting the dogma of behaviorism? Do scientists leave out very relevant facts (no randomization and the use of physical aversives) in discussing their results with prospective customers? We expect salesman to leave out inconvenient facts. But scientists?

Biomed uses equally worthless and unproven evidence such as "recovered children" as evidence yet these children presented don't seem "recovered" or non autistic at all, they simply appear like older autistic children.

Interverbal states in his latest post "Not Sparta":

This is simply not true. There have been any number ABA autism group studies that were not conducted by Lovaas' immediate students. An even basic review of literature will show this to be the case. Also, Sallows & Graupner (2005) state: "We found that 48% of all children showed rapid learning, achieved average posttreatment scores, and at age 7, were succeeding in regular education classrooms. These results are consistent with those reported by Lovaas and colleagues (Lovaas, 1987; McEachin, Smith, & Lovaas, 1993)."

Furthermore he writes:

One can argue that Sallows & Graupner (2005) also had unresolved threats to the validity of their study (and I would agree) but one can not argue that they produced different results from Lovaas (1987).

Let me address this in a point by point analysis. Firstly, to remind readers, the quote of mine Interverbal addresses is the following: "The behaviorists use Lovaas' 1987 study and his unique 47% indistinguishable criteria HYPERLINK "http://www.autismpartnership.com/test/ibt.htm"(which has never been replicated independent of Lovaas' small group of behaviorists) to sell their "services".""

Point 1

"This is simply not true. There have been any number ABA autism group studies that were not conducted by Lovaas' immediate students. An even basic review of lterature will show this to be the case."

My Rebuttal: I never stated that there hasn't been group studies in which non Lovaas behaviorists have done. What I stated, which is contained in the quote you used was that the 47% myth has "never been replicated independent of Lovaas' small group of behaviorists". And this is still true. Let's take a look at Glenn Sallow's 2005 "replication study". I apologize in advance for the way the below quotes appear on your screen. Copying and Pasting from a PDF document looks like crap in HTML. According to Dr. Sallow:

There have now been several reports of partial replication without using aversives (Anderson, Avery, Di Pietro, Edwards, & Christian, 1987; Birnbrauer & Leach, 1993; Eikeseth, Smith, Jahr, & Eldevik, 2002; Smith, Groen, & Wynn, 2000). Most found, as did Lovaas and his colleagues, that a subset of children showed marked improvement in IQ. Although fewer children reached average levels of functioning, the treatment provided in these studies differed from the UCLA model in several ways (e.g., lower intensity and duration of treatment, different sample characteristics and curriculum, and less training and supervision of staff). See below from Sallow's study. Sorry about the way it appears, copy and paste from a pdf sometimes looks screwed up.

Anderson et al. (1987) provided 15 hours per week for 1 to 2 years (parents provided another 5
hours) and found that 4 of 14 children achieved an IQ over 80 and were in regular classes, but all
needed some support. Birnbrauer and Leach (1993) provided 19 hours per week for 1.5 to 2
years and found that 4 of 9 children achieved an IQ over 80 (classroom placement was not reported),
but all had poor play skills and self-stimulatory behaviors. The authors noted, however, that
their treatment program had not addressed these areas. Smith et al. (2000) provided 25 hours per
week for 33 months and reported that 4 of 15 children achieved an IQ over 85 and were in regular
classes, but one had behavior problems. The authors noted that their sample had an atypically
high number of mute children, 13 of 15, considerably higher than the commonly cited figure of 50% (Smith & Lovaas, 1997), and they hypothesized that this was the reason for the relatively low number of children functioning in the average range following treatment. Eikeseth et al. (2002) provided 28 hours per week for 1 year. In their sample, 7 of 13 children with pretreatment IQ over 50 achieved IQ over 85 and were in regular classes with some support. Data beyond the first year have not yet been reported.
Four groups of investigators discussed results based on behavioral treatment in classroom settings,
which typically include a mix of 1:1 treatment and group activities, so that time in school
may not be comparable to hours reported in home-based studies. Following 4 years of treatment,
Fenske, Zalenski, Krantz, and McClannahan (1985) found that 4 of 9 children were
placed in regular classes. However, neither pre–post treatment test scores nor amount of support
in school were reported. Harris et al. (1991) provided 5.5 hours per day in class and instructed
parents to provide an additional 10 to 15 hours at home (no data were collected on actual hours
parents provided). After 1 year of treatment, 6 of 9 children achieved IQ over 85, but were still in
classes for students with learning disabilities. A later report (Harris & Handleman, 2000) found that
9 of 27 children achieved IQ over 85 and were placed in regular classes (time in treatment was
not reported), but most required some support. Meyer, Taylor, Levin, and Fisher (2001) provided
30 hours of class time per week for at least 2 years and reported that 7 of 26 children were placed in
public schools after 3.5 years of treatment, but 5 required support services. Pre–post IQ was not reported.
Romanczyk, Lockshin, and Matey (2001) provided 30 hours of class time per week for 3.3
years and reported that 15% of the children were discharged to regular classrooms. No information
on posttreatment test scores or the need for supports was provided.

In two studies researchers examined the effects of behavioral treatment for children with low
pretreatment IQ. Smith, Eikeseth, Klevstrand, and Lovaas (1997) provided children who had pretreatment
IQ less than 35 (M 5 28) with 30 hours per week for 35 months and reported an increase
in IQ of 8 points (3 of 11 children achieved increases of over 15 points) and 10 of 11 achieved
single-word expressive speech. Eldevik, Eikeseth,Jahr, and Smith (in press) provided children who
had an average pretreatment IQ of 41 with 22 hours per week of 1:1 treatment for 20 months
and reported an increase in IQ of 8 points and an increase in language standard scores of 11 points.
In three studies researchers examined results of behavioral treatment provided by clinicians
working outside university settings in what has been termed parent-managed treatment because parents
implement treatment designed by a workshop consultant, who supervises less frequently (e.g.,
once every 2 to 4 months) than the supervision that occurs in programs supervised by a local autism
treatment center (e.g., twice per week). Sheinkopf and Siegel (1998) reported results for children
who received 19 hours of treatment per week for 16 months supervised by three local providers.
Six of 11 children achieved IQ over 90 and 5 were in regular classes, but still had residual symptoms.
However, these children may not be comparable to high achievers in other studies because intelligence
tests included the Merrill-Palmer, a measure of primarily nonverbal skills, known to yield
scores about 15 points higher than standard intelligence tests that include both verbal and nonverbal
scales. In the second study, Bibby, Eikeseth, Martin, Mudford, and Reeves (2002) described
results for children who received 30 hours of treatment per week (range 5 14 to 40) for 32
months (range 5 17 to 43) supervised by 25 different consultants, who saw the children several
times per year (median 5 4, range 5 0 to 26). Ten of 66 children achieved IQ over 85, and 4
were in regular classes without help. However, as the authors noted, their sample was unlike
UCLA’s in several ways: 15% had a pretreatment IQ under 37, 57% were older than 48 months,
many received fewer than 20 hours per week, 80% of the providers were not UCLA-trained, and no
child received weekly supervision. Weiss (1999) reported the results of a study in which children did
receive high hours: 40 hours of treatment per week for 2 years. She saw each child every 4 to 6
weeks, reviewed videos of their performance every 2 to 3 weeks, and spoke with parents weekly. Following
treatment, 9 of 20 children achieved scores on the Vineland Applied Behavior Composite
(ABC) of over 90, were placed in regular classes, and had scores on the Childhood Autism Rating
Scale in the nonautistic range (under 30). No pre or post treatment IQ data were reported.
Several researchers have described pretreatment variables that seem to predict (are highly
correlated with) later outcome. Although findings have not always been consistent, the most commonly
noted predictors have been IQ (Bibby et al., 2002; Eikeseth et al., 2002; Goldstein, 2002;
Lovaas, 1987; Newsom & Rincover, 1989), presence of imitation ability (Goldstein, 2002; Lovaas
& Smith, 1988; Newsom & Rincover, 1989; Weiss, 1999), language (Lord & Paul, 1997; Venter,
Lord, & Schopler, 1992), younger age at intervention (Bibby et al., 2002; Fenske et al., 1985;
Goldstein, 2002; Harris & Handleman, 2000), severity of symptoms (Venter et al., 1992), and social
responsiveness or ‘‘joint attention’’ (Bono,Daley, & Sigman, 2004; L. Koegel, Koegel, Shoshan,
& McNerney, 1999; Lord & Paul, 1997). Multiple regression has been used to determine
combinations of pretreatment variables with strong relationships with outcome. Goldstein
(2002) reported that verbal imitation plus IQ plus age resulted in an R2 of .78 with acquisition of
spoken language. Rapid learning during the first 3 or 4 months of treatment has also been associated
with positive outcome (Lovaas & Smith, 1988; Newsom & Rincover, 1989; Weiss, 1999). Weiss
reported that rapid acquisition of verbal imitation plus nonverbal imitation plus receptive instructions
resulted in an R2 of .71 with Vineland ABC and .73 with Childhood Autism Rating Scale
scores 2 years later.

Thus, using Interverbal's own self selected reference we can see that there has been no replication of Lovaas' 1987 47% myth according to Sallow,Graupner (2005). Does the above sound a lot like biomed's excuses "Non-Responder", "Didn't chelate properly", "Didn't do enough biomed" ad nauseum. It's all very silly to me.

Point # 2

Also, Sallows & Graupner (2005) state:
"We found that 48% of all children showed rapid learning, achieved average post treatment scores, and at age 7, were succeeding in regular education classrooms. These results are consistent with those reported by Lovaas and colleagues (Lovaas, 1987; McEachin, Smith, & Lovaas, 1993)."

Ok, to remind the reader what my original contention was here it is again:

The behaviorists use Lovaas' 1987 study and his unique 47% indistinguishable criteria (which has never been replicated independent of Lovaas' small group of behaviorists) to sell their "services". Especially Lovaas' students like McEachin and Leaf who have created large multinational corporations citing their own results as proof of their efficacy. However, they conveniently leave out from their marketing materials the fact that the children in that study were never randomized and were subject to physical aversives. Is that honest or is that protecting the dogma of behaviorism? Do scientists leave out very relevant facts (no randomization and the use of physical aversives) in discussing their results with prospective customers? We expect salesman to leave out inconvenient facts. But scientists?

Let's take a look at Glenn Sallows. Dr. Sallows along with Tamlyn Graupner did indeed as Interverbal states replicate Lovaas' 1987 study, even with a 1% besting of Lovaas in the indistinguishable from peers measurement, and he did it WITHOUT aversives. (Sidenote: Sallows, Graupner failed to disclose their commercial interest on their 2005 study, but more on that later) I'm not going to go into the problems and flaws of this study as it isn't in contention that there are flaws [Interverbal: "One can argue that Sallows & Graupner (2005) also had unresolved threats to the validity of their study (and I would agree) but one can not argue that they produced different results from Lovaas (1987).] However, I do want to test my position which is "the 47% myth has never been replicated independent of Lovaa's small group of behaviorists".

Dr. Sallows, PhD and Tamlynn Graupner, M.S. are cofounders of the Wisconsin Early Autism Project a for-profit multinational corporation and reportedly employers of some 800 staff. Based on my background as a commercial banker, I would make an educated guess that 800 employees would translate into about a revenue number of nearly $30 - $ 50 million per year ( I have no proof of this number, but like Interverbal states when he says behaviorists are qualified to discount possible PTSD complications from ABA because behaviorists work with lots of autistics and are qualified to make this determination, I too wish to employ my expert background in commercial banking to assert that revenue number).

Does Dr. Sallows meet the benchmark I set earlier, namely "that no study has been replicated independent of Lovaas' small group of behaviorists?" Apparently not. According to the website owned by the Wisconsin Early Autism Project:

WEAP is Officially Approved by Dr. Lovaas.

After directing an inpatient program for children with autism in Wisconsin for 14 years, Dr. Glen Sallows studied with Dr. Ivar Lovaas at UCLA to obtain advanced training in the intensive behavioral treatment approach (Applied Behavior Analysis) for children with autism. Tamlynn Graupner also studied with Dr. Lovaas to learn effective strategies for evaluating children with autism. In 1995, after completing this intensive training, Dr. Sallows and Ms. Graupner co-founded the Wisconsin Early Autism Project and began offering the treatment to families in Wisconsin and other areas.

Since 1995, WEAP has grown to serve hundreds of families in Wisconsin and other states. The organization has expanded to offer clinical services through Early Autism Projects in Vancouver B.C. , and Malaysia, allowing this research-driven program to reach hundreds of children across several continents.

WEAP is one of several replication research sites approved by Dr. Lovaas, and the first to achieve outcomes that match Lovaas' original study. Dr. Sallows continues to study the effects of ABA treatment and participates in ongoing research as part of a worldwide effort.

Having a Lovaas certification seems to be a marketing ploy to me. Similar to the DAN! certification. I can hear now parents saying "WEAP is approved by Lovaas and you know, Lovaas' methods showed a 47% indistinguishable outcome". "ABA is the only scientifically proven therapy for autism." Yeah, scientifically proven by owners of multinational corporations with a commercial interest in touting the "scienceness" of ABA. However, those outside of the Lovaas Certification circle have failed to replicate his results...hmmm

Am I the only one that sees the striking similarity of the ABA and DAN! industries? No alternative medicine doc worth his weight would serve the "autism community" without a DAN! certification. Afterall, DAN! has scienceness studies too and all produced by DANNITES! Those outside the DAN! money train simply can't produce those "recovered kids". Similarly, researchers outside Lovaas' circle can't produce the 47% figure either, only those "certified" Lovaas replication sites can produce the 47%, oops, I mean the 48% indistinguishable criteria.

I purposely did not refer to Sallows in my previous post, "Skinner Confuses Science with Terminology", because he is just too easy to discredit on circumstantial grounds alone and I wanted to see if Interverbal would reference him as someone that has replicated Lovaas' results from his 1987 study.

Let's take a look at some of the statement's (marketing) Sallows has on his website.

The first thing a visitor (presumably a parent new to autism looking for answers) sees on the home page is "Welcome to Hope". Is this a play on the vulnerable emotions of parents new to an autism diagnosis? I think so. Is this science or marketing? And if it is marketing, is it ethical?

The next thing we see is "30 years ago, 2-4 children in 10,000 born in America would eventually be diagnosed with autism". Wow! Talk about misleading statements. Any mention of expanded criteria? Nope. Is this what a man representing science presents in abstract? I don't think so, but I didn't use Sallows as a credible source supporting the 47% indistinguishable criteria.

Ok, let's move on. The next line we see is "Today that number is a staggering 1 in 150"! Holy cow, its an epidemic, what's going on? Hmmm, where have we seen this number before? Perhaps here? Where did Dr. Sallows pull this figure from? Does he know that the number 1 in 150 includes autistics with Asperger's Syndrome and PDD-NOS, of which the vast majority are in mainstream classrooms? Perhaps that would explain his 48% indistinguishable criteria based on IQ, ADIR and CBC measurements? Perhaps the reference to 1 in 150 is a sign that Sallows cannot distinguish between AS and AD in early development? I know I have a hard time being that my AS looked a lot like my son's AD during the first 36 months of his life according to my family.

Ok, let's take further look at the home page. Sallows claims that "50% of his clients achieve a state of effective normalcy. They have caught up to their peers and have a real chance at a fully integrated life." What parent, new to a diagnosis of autism with all its phoney baggage attached, doesn't want to hear that the chances are better than 50% that their child can be just like little Johnny or Mary down the street? Sallows needs to update his study because apparently he has squeezed out another 2% normal kids from the autistic goo they were trapped in. I like this guy, he knows how to market (tongue firmly planted in cheek).

If one clicks on the process menu, one will learn that "Hope Begins" by contacting WEAP's intake process. I guess those that don't contact WEAP have no hope?

If one clicks on Resources>Books/Videos, good ol' Catherine Maurice pops up again (see "Skinner... for context). What better emotionally laden book to use to scare parents into making sure that they begin the "hope" intake process? I was disappointed though not to find any videos in the book/videos section. It would be better to post some "recovered" kids there doc, that will really hook em'.

Perhaps my favorite scienceness section of Dr. Sallow's site is under Autism Defined. Dr. Sallows makes the following astonishing claim:

Before the 1990's, these children did not receive much help and many of them did not get much better. Now, research shows that about half of even the more severely affected children can improve enough to be like their friends and succeed in school.

Ok, not getting much help I can agree on with him. But, the statement "many of them did not get much better" and "research shows that about half of even the more severely affected children can improve enough to be like their friends and succeed in school" is simply misleading and I will go so far as saying this is a pure outright lie. To say that autistic people don't learn to adapt and become better functiong autistic people throughout their lives is just a lie. To say that he can take half of people with AD and make them indistinguishable from their peers is a lie. Even his own charts found in his study don't support that statement.

Is this what passes for ethics in Behaviorism? Is this what passes for science in Behaviorism? Lies, damn lies and emotive marketing. No different than DAN! and just as scienceness.

Interverbal, I stand by my statement. No replication has ever occurred outside one of Lovaas' inner circle of behaviorists and I disagree with you. This is Sparta!

P.S. Just for kicks, Sallow's newsletter from Winter 2007 has a glowing report on Jenny McCarthy with some picture goodness. More 1 in 150 epidemic talk, standing ovations after Jenny's speech from the crowd of behaviorist seduced parents as well as behaviorists. According to the newsletter, her presentation included a preview of a film she is working on about her experience with autism. "The preview was very well made with original music and high production value. It was quite affecting on the attending audience. After her presentation ended with a standing ovation...." The newsletter touts Jenny McCarthy as a laudable spokesperson for autism. Same as it ever was. The more one looks at this stuff the more it doesn't sound any different than DAN!

Comments

[Do'C]

"The more one looks at this stuff the more it doesn't sound any different than DAN!"

With the current presentations in the autism community, I agree. It will be interesting to see what Interverbal may respond with.

[Sharon]

A very interesting post. The ABA proponents have been working hard to convince the Irish public of the need for ABA schools for children here. The media reports frequently mention the myth that 50% of children receiving 2 years of ABA before age 5 are indistinguishable etc. I wrote about it here:
http://thefamilyvoyage.blogspot.com/2008/02/aba-hyped-in-irish-media.html

The ABA advocates often make much of the science behind their claims. They have many published studies for sure, and favourable write ups from respectable sources. But their studies do not prove what they claim. They are merely non randomised, non controlled case studies etc. And they keep harping back to Lovaas and his 47% paper. It's rather shocking really.

You draw the comparisons to DAN! dangerous quackery very well.

[suzanne]

What behaviorists never want to admit is what Kathy AspieGirl says here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLB8NcOOWZg

"Punishing kids into normalcy" is bound to have lasting negative impact.

[Interverbal]

Hi Sharon,

"But their studies do not prove what they claim. They are merely non randomised, non controlled case studies etc."

If you refer to single case design (which is not unique to behavior analysis) then this is incorrect information. The type of method we use, depends on the type of question we are asking.

A Double-blind study is the best group design for certain questions. However there are other times that a matched-pairs design is a better choice. Ditto for a Solomon 4 group design. At other times some variant of a single-case design is best by far.

Far from being simplistic and uncontrolled. The most scrupulous care goes into the best single case designs. Painstaking measures are taken to account for the potential threats.

There are seven major threats to the internal validity of research:

1 History (cultural occurances, while the research is occuring)
2 Experimental mortality
3 Regression to the mean
4 Maturation
5 Instrumentation
6 Testing bias
7 Selection bias

Good group designs control for these, just as good single case design does (although they apply in different ways).

One question single case design can not answer is: Does ABA = indistinguishable from peers.

Single case design however, could answer the question of whether a given technique result in the acquisition of a new skill. Here in fact, it can answer questions that a group design not.

[Interverbal]

"Punishing kids into normalcy" is bound to have lasting negative impact."

(raises hand) Actually, I have no problem admitting that.

Evidently, another behavior analyst would too:

"Another by-product of punishment is even more unfortunate. Punished behavior is often strong and certain incipient stages are therefore frequently reached. Even though the stimulus thus generate is succesful in preventing a full scale occurance it also evokes reflexes characteristic of fear, anxiety, and other emotions."

-B.F. Skinner, Science and Human Behavior, 1953.

[suzanne]

Apparently, some practitioners think the 'unfortunate by-products' of behavior modification are acceptable. Presumably because autistics are of less value unless they can be manipulated into proper trained pigeons ("indistinguishable from their peers").

[Harold L Doherty]

"'unfortunate by-products' of behavior modification "

Any studies to back that up about non-aversiver ABA - as practiced today?

[CS]

Mr. Doherty,

Your ip address has been blocked. I don't allow trolls on my blog.

[Interverbal]

Skinner's quote is specific to the use of punishment. If modern ABA does not use aversives, then it does not apply.

I think some practioners do think that some by-products are acceptable.

I can't think of anyone even the behavior analysts who I disagree with most who would agree to call students "proper trained pigeons". I do think that the use of certain terminology makes it easier for given parties to ignore and/or ridicule an argument though.

[Ed]

Interverbal said: "Skinner's quote is specific to the use of punishment. If modern ABA does not use aversives, then it does not apply."

If Lovaas ABA methods are currently being used, would his quotes about how he sees punishment serve as an applicable argument?

[Interverbal]

"If Lovaas ABA methods are currently being used, would his quotes about how he sees punishment serve as an applicable argument?"

Yes, but only if they also use Lovaas style punishment.

However Lovaas made it clear several years ago that he no longer agreed with the aversives he employed in the 80s.

That is not uncommon. Dr. Risely is a famous early behavior analyst who did some punishment research for kids with disabilities in the 60s. He now strongly advocates only non-punishing techniques.

A very dear friend and mentor did the same with non-painful aversives in 80s. He also does not approve of these techniques anymore.

[Michelle Dawson]

"Lovaas made it clear several years ago that he no longer agreed with the aversives he employed"

This doesn't appear to be entirely accurate. I wrote a bit about this and a few of Interverbal's other claims here http://www.quicktopic.com/27/H/vJvhV4fDnBgw7/m8060 (and there's more quotes from Skinner here http://www.quicktopic.com/27/H/vJvhV4fDnBgw7/m8063 ).

Also, Dr Risley died recently. The three ABA pioneers (Baer, Wolf, Risley) are no longer with us.

[Interverbal]

Michelle has evidence to the contrary. I accept Michelle's argument. Changes will be made to the first article.

[Matt Brodhead]

In terms of punishment, you have to look at the nature of the contingency. Are we providing a breif aversive condition (shock, slap to hand), or removing a reinforcing condition (aka a toy, access to the play room). Both are punishment, and both are necessary.

It's impossible to rid the world from aversive control. And if you're ever going to have to get rid of an undesirable behavior, these techniques are often necessary. Obviously, you don't inflict harm (shock) unless it's your very last option ie. the child is gouging his eyes out and no other treatment has worked.

[CS]

Matt,

If a child is gouging his eyes out, then they should be removed from psychologists and psychiatrists and taken to a hospital to find out what is going on, not subjected to more pain. That type of SIB is extremely rare. Its the rarest of the rare and as far as I know, no one has cared enough to find the real reasons behind it with modern medicine (fMRI etc.). I don't buy the argument from the shrinks and some advocates that this form of SIB is related to autism as a manifestation of sensory overload (advocates) or as some sort of attention seeking/defiance behavior. My guess is that this will be solved within a decade and society will look back at using aversives in these situations as medieval.

[Matt Brodhead]

I'm not sure what the hospital is going to do (except drug the child up, look for some genetic pre-disposition as to why the child engages in SIB, make an error of reification and release the child from the hospital without solving the problem). It's difficult to understand that there's sensory reinforcement behind self injurious behavior. If you smack yourself in the head, you'd wonder why in the hell anyone would ever do it.

But it happens, because of it's environmental consequences that slowly (but surely) develop over time. Modern medicine does not have the answer, but modern behavior analysis does.

[CS]

Matt,

"But it happens, because of it's environmental consequences that slowly (but surely) develop over time. Modern medicine does not have the answer, but modern behavior analysis does."

What are your qualifications in neurology and radiology? True, modern medicine does not have the answer, thus why they need to study it. The point of my response was that these issues (gouging eyeballs out is often thrown up by behaviorists as an excuse for physical aversives and it is a canard in autism). One can be autistic and not gouge out eyeballs. Frankly, its tiresome, sort of like the poop smearing that the biomed groups like to throw out there as an excuse to chelate. Where in the DSM is there any mention of such extreme SIB like gouging out eyeballs? This is the same fucking excuse Matthew Israel gives for shocking kids. Mainstream medicine has ignored this for so long and allowed quackery like electric shocks to take hold.

Matt, how many autistics have been guest lecturers at your University? I guess if you have women's studies there, there are women giving lectures correct? If you have religious studies there are religious people giving lectures. If your university has an economics department, there are economists giving lectures there? Are there autistics there giving lectures about what it is to be autistic?

Your response is dogmatic.

[Michelle Dawson]

I'm an autistic who in some contexts has severe self injury. In response to both Christschool and Matt Brodhead, see this post http://autismcrisis.blogspot.com/2006/12/notes-on-self-injury.html . See also the comments, please (not all of them are relevant, but some are).

Also, there was a recent study of "aggressive challenging behaviour" in autistics and other developmentally disabled people, see Tyrer et al. (2008). This RCT showed the rapid, dramatic and sustained reduction of these overt behaviours via use of a placebo pill. The authors point out that it is unlikely that any medication would be able to surpass the effect of the placebo in their trial. This would also be true of any non-medication intervention.

[CS]

Michelle,

Very interesting study and I'm glad you found it. My point to Matt was that gouging one's eyeballs out is often used as a justification for physical aversives and it is thrown about by behaviorists and behaviorism advocates as if it is the "holy grail" answer to critics of behaviorism. It is extremely rare, the rarest of the rare and non invasive procedures such as an MRI would be helpful and should be a first avenue of exploration, but I'm certainly open to becoming more knowledgeable in this area. SIB is not uncommon in autistics, but literally gouging ones eyeballs out is. I've suffered extreme migraines that have made me want to gouge out my eyeballs and put a bullet in my head but I never did. I did have spoken words to be able to tell others about my pain. Turned out I had a brain tumor which showed up in a scan. A placebo pill won't solve the pain from a brain tumor.

[Michelle Dawson]

An adult or child who needs urgent medical attention for a painful brain tumour would not instead be included, after assessement, in an RCT of treatments for "aggressive challenging behaviours." This would be instantly spotted as grossly unethical, never mind anti-scientific.

There are behaviour analysts who consider that accurate diagnosis of neurological conditions gets in the way of successful ABA-based treatment, and indeed discourage parents from seeking accurate neurological diagnoses for their children (e.g., see Lovaas, 1981, 2003).

But outside of behaviour analysis, any clinician who overlooked the possibility of brain tumour or lesion when assessing a person showing symptoms consistent with the presence of one would be regarded as grossly incompetent and unethical.

I punch, hit, and otherwise hurt my eyes and the areas around my eyes, but do not have a brain tumour or lesion. Clinician, including nonmedical ones (neuropsychologists, e.g.), trained and experienced in assessing neurological conditions should have no difficulty spotting the difference, and then ordering further assessment including an urgent MRI if this is indicated.

[Matt Brodhead]

First, let me say that I'm sorry that everyone is so heated up over this debate. I think you're missing my point.

If your behavior is a threat to your life, your well being, and the well being of others around you, and cannot be controlled, aversive therapy should be implemented as a last resort. No one does it for fun, and no one gets a kick out of it. However, I recommend that it continues to be available, and if the laws start to rule against the treatment, the legislators and the uninformed parents, guardians, etc, are doing themselves a disservice.

Eye gouging, or other SIB is more common than you think, and your analysis is simplistic if you feel like you "can't see why anyone would do that, I sure won't."

Behaviorists don't go running around, looking to shock people; instead they are noble in their quest to help people (at their request), and if they don't need the help, then that's their prerogative.

It's a bit dogmatic, yes. However, I'm not sure what my qualifications in neurology and radiology have to do with much (because I've never heard of a neurologists establishing complex skill sets in otherwise terribly functioning non-verbal children, and I'm sure a radiologist couldn't, either), let alone if any "autistics" lecture at my university, but I am proud to admit that some of the most prominent professionals in the study and applications of the principles of behavior dominate my graduate lectures and curriculum :-)

[Keith Hersh]

Another thing that is left out of the conversation is that many of the children who do wind up with some sort of punishment procedure only do so because nothing else has worked.

When I say nothing, I'm not talking about no other behavioral methods, I'm talking about no other treatment, period. Speech, OT, PT, educational, drug therapy, etc.

I spend a fair amount of time meeting with teams of psychologists, Ot's, Pt's, SLP's, social workers, supervisors, and guardians. Do you know who is always the first to propose punishment contingencies? Not the behavior analysts. In fact, we spend quite a bit of time explaining why not to use punishment contingencies, and coming up with supports and plans to try and encourage people to take positive approaches to difficult behavior.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the claim that all ABA is punishment based and that behavior analysts are punishment gluttons is not only un-true, but it's grossly opposite of the work of the majority of behavior analysts. Making such claims completely disregards the works of Glen Latham, Murray Sidman, and Skinner. All who are staunch opponents of the use of punishment, and have struggled to encourage society to change their ways.

[Ed]

Keith said: "Do you know who is always the first to propose punishment contingencies? Not the behavior analysts."

Taking it off the menu would really be an effective way to discourage people asking for it to be provided.

[Keith Hersh]

Ed: These professionals are choosing to suggest punishment all on their own. There is no education about behavioral methods when I come into a new team. They just want to treat the individuals as they would their own kids.

I think the discussion should also extend to, are there any punishment procedures that are acceptable? For instance, loss of video game privelegas? Loss of access to preferred toy? Is time-out ever acceptable?

I have seen no seperation between:

I despise those who mistreat kids with, shock, pulling hair, yelling at them, etc.
vs.
I despise those that do ABA.

The charges on the HUB sadly remind me of the same sort of profiling that has lead to panic when a Muslim with a head dress is seen in airport. Not all Muslim's are terrorists with a bomb strapped to their chest. Not all ABA practitioners are aversive wielding torture gluttons.

[Michelle Dawson]

Keith Hersh's response above exemplifies how genuine criticism of ABA-based interventions has been responded to.

As in, "If you criticize in any way the science and ethics of ABA-based autism interventions, you must despise those who do ABA."

I've been a much harsher critic of cognitive science and neuroscience in autism (the fields I work in) than I have of ABA-based autism inteventions. Does this mean I despise my colleagues?

I'd like Dr Hersh to show me where I've written that "all ABA practitioners are aversive wielding torture gluttons," or anything similar. I don't use words like "torture," "abuse," "cruel," etc., in relation to ABA-based autism interventions. But I have repeatedly been falsely accused (including by behaviour analysts) of characterizing ABA this way.

Generally, my (sourced and referenced) criticism of ABA-based interventions have been responded to by behaviour analysts and other promoters of ABA with personal attacks, irrational outbursts, and a great deal of defamation (e.g., accusations that I am a criminal and fraud who promotes child neglect or otherwise destroys children). The exceptions to this have been few, and I have been attacked in this way by an organization (ASAT) consisting largely of behaviour analysts and claiming to be about science.

Dr Hersh has stated that my blog (which is in the Hub, and on which I criticize ABA-based autism interventions, mostly by resorting to accurate reporting from primary sources) is rife with prejudices at the level of "the same sort of profiling that has lead to panic when a Muslim with a head dress is seen in airport."

I strongly suggest that Dr Hersh provide evidence for this extreme accusation on his part. Also, I would genuinely like to know what exactly on my blog Dr Hersh is objecting to. If I have made any factual errors (as I've often repeated), I would be happy to correct them.

[Interverbal]

Hi Michelle,

I am going to have to disagree with you. You are dumfounded I am sure.

“Keith Hersh's response above exemplifies how genuine criticism of ABA-based interventions has been responded to. As in, "If you criticize in any way the science and ethics of ABA-based autism interventions, you must despise those who do ABA."”

Really?

“Apparently, some practitioners think the 'unfortunate by-products' of behavior modification are acceptable. Presumably because autistics are of less value unless they can be manipulated into proper trained pigeons ("indistinguishable from their peers").”

“The ABA advocates often make much of the science behind their claims. They have many published studies for sure, and favourable write ups from respectable sources. But their studies do not prove what they claim. They are merely non randomised, non controlled case studies etc.”

Sure, looks like some very personal attacks to me. That makes Keith’s statement appropriate.

“I've been a much harsher critic of cognitive science and neuroscience in autism (the fields I work in) than I have of ABA-based autism inteventions. Does this mean I despise my colleagues?”

Of course not, but that wasn’t the point. Your words were not the problem.

“Generally, my (sourced and referenced) criticism of ABA-based interventions have been responded to by behaviour analysts and other promoters of ABA with personal attacks, irrational outbursts, and a great deal of defamation (e.g., accusations that I am a criminal and fraud who promotes child neglect or otherwise destroys children).”

Which you know very well that I disagree with. Nor, will I say that anyone on the hub with the exception of Amanda has had the sort of negativity thrown at them that you have. However, we’ve all been through the spanking machine. Mark Blaxill has said some remarkably rude things about me personally and that is just the start of it.

So, I see the defamation tossed at you and I will raise you a vacuous accusation of autistic cyber bullying.

[Michelle Dawson]

Interverbal wrote: "Really?"

I was quoting Dr Hersh.

Interverbal wrote, "Your words were not the problem."

This is what Dr Hersh wrote: "The charges on the HUB sadly remind me of the same sort of profiling that has lead to panic when a Muslim with a head dress is seen in airport. Not all Muslim's are terrorists with a bomb strapped to their chest. Not all ABA practitioners are aversive wielding torture gluttons."

My blog is part of the Autism Hub, and I criticize ABA-based autism interventions. If Dr Hersh meant two statements posted on this blog, I'm sure he would have said so.

But it's useful to be reminded that, by behaviour analytic standards, Dr Hersh's comments here are considered "appropriate." For sure, when someone questions (however imperfectly) how ABA-based autism interventions have been justified and promoted in some instances, this of course should be regarded as "very personal attacks" on all behaviour analysts and equated with the prejudice that all Muslims are terrorists. A bit more of this, and I might get the hang of it.

[Interverbal]

Hi Michelle,

“My blog is part of the Autism Hub, and I criticize ABA-based autism interventions. If Dr Hersh meant two statements posted on this blog, I'm sure he would have said so.”

Well, I am also a member of the Hub and I too have been critical of ABA based autism intervention when I believe it is merited. I didn’t feel Keith mischaracterized us; there are certainly lousy criticisms on the Hub. Of course there are also excellent criticisms, so it is really a mix of both.

“But it's useful to be reminded that, by behaviour analytic standards, Dr Hersh's comments here are considered "appropriate."”

Say rather, “by Interverbal’s standards”. And yes, criticism of an incorrect critique is appropriate.

“For sure, when someone questions (however imperfectly) how ABA-based autism interventions have been justified and promoted in some instances”

If it is a lousy criticism then it is lousy. The subject is irrelevant. Unless of course you are about to unfurl some hitherto unknown form of accuracy and ethics.

“this of course should be regarded as "very personal attacks" on all behaviour analysts”

An accusation of lying is a personal attack. An accusation that those who do behavior mod want people to act like “proper trained pigeons” is a personal attack.

“and equated with the prejudice that all Muslims are terrorists. A bit more of this, and I might get the hang of it.””

All Muslims are not terrorists. All behavior analysts do not use physical aversives.

….Check…. That is a factual comparison. And while behavior analysts do not necessarily face the adversity and hardship of Muslims living in Western countries the comparison is factually correct.

I believe in good criticism. We need good criticism. And not just behavior analysts, but the whole of the Hub. I believe you have provided good criticism on many issues concerning behavior analysis and autism science in general. However, I don’t think your last paragraph constitutes anything like good criticism. Not in ethics, not in science, and not in accuracy.

[Michelle Dawson]

Interverbal wrote, "criticism of an incorrect critique is appropriate."

The two "incorrect critiques" you've cited are:

“Apparently, some practitioners think the 'unfortunate by-products' of behavior modification are acceptable. Presumably because autistics are of less value unless they can be manipulated into proper trained pigeons ("indistinguishable from their peers").”

And:

“The ABA advocates often make much of the science behind their claims. They have many published studies for sure, and favourable write ups from respectable sources. But their studies do not prove what they claim. They are merely non randomised, non controlled case studies etc.”

In your view, it is appropriate for behaviour analysts to respond to these criticisms with this statement:

"The charges on the HUB sadly remind me of the same sort of profiling that has lead to panic when a Muslim with a head dress is seen in airport. Not all Muslim's are terrorists with a bomb strapped to their chest. Not all ABA practitioners are aversive wielding torture gluttons."

I disagree with your view (where in the two "incorrect critiques" are "all ABA practitioners" referred to as "aversive wielding torture gluttons"?), including that the two "incorrect critiques" are "very personal attacks," but your views are certainly informative.

Interverbal wrote: "All behavior analysts do not use physical aversives."

Where in the two statements you are calling "very peronal attacks" is it stated that "all behavior analysts" "use physical aversives"?

The use of aversive procedures is within the behaviour analytic mainstream, as evidenced by the published work of major behaviour analysts (see the work of Richard Foxx, e.g.), by the recommendation of aversive procedures (including electric shock) in the current edition of the major ABA textbook (Cooper et al., 2007), by what is published in the behaviour analytic literature and presented by behaviour analysts at conferences, by the continued citing by those promoting ABA of Lovaas (1987) and other studies using aversive procedures as evidence for the effectiveness of ABA-based autism interventions, etc.

You may regard the above statement, or any statement that those promoting ABA-based autism interventions have made unfounded claims (I've made many such statements), as "very personal attacks" (possibly, revealing prejudices equivalent to calling all Muslims terrorists) -- and certainly, there's evidence that in this, you have a lot of company. But I'm going to disagree with you again.

And you've again reminded to be grateful that I can criticize my colleagues, and the fields I work in, much more harshly than I could ever criticize ABA-based autism interventions -- and not be considered to be making "very personal attacks" or to be harbouring prejudices equivalent to regarding all Muslims as terrorists.

[Interverbal]

Michelle,

“In your view, it is appropriate for behaviour analysts to respond to these criticisms with this statement:”

Yes, you adequately summarize my position. Would you however, argue that is unacceptable to make a factual comparison when debunking inaccurate statements? Is logic forbidden in discussions about behavior analysis would you say?

“I disagree with your view (where in the two "incorrect critiques" are "all ABA practitioners" referred to as "aversive wielding torture gluttons"?)”

The “torture gluttons” was an obvious overstatement, it was obvious sarcasm. As to the “all” portion one of those writing the critique wrote:

“The ABA advocates”

That is called a strong induction Michelle. It just takes one counter example and I can prove it false. It is that easy.

“Including that the two "incorrect critiques" are "very personal attacks," but your views are certainly informative.”

I am glad you can acquire knowledge about my views, both the good and the bad Michelle. Because if I am wrong about something, I want to be corrected. And if I am right, I want that opinion propagated. However, I recognize at the same time, communication is a two-way street. Your views are also very informative. For example, I have learned that an accusation of lying is not necessarily a very personal attack and that the accusation that some behaviorists view autistics as of less worth unless they can be manipulated into proper trained pigeons.

I would be curious if the author also believes that the typically developing peers are likewise “proper trained pigeons”.

“You may regard the above statement, or any statement that those promoting ABA-based autism interventions have made unfounded claims (I've made many such statements), as "very personal attacks" (possibly, revealing prejudices equivalent to calling all Muslims terrorists) -- and certainly, there's evidence that in this, you have a lot of company. But I'm going to disagree with you again.”

I have made some very similar criticisms as well. I doubt I am about to be accused of hating behavior analysts. But then my criticisms were specific to individuals and were concerning misunderstandings of science, not implying an entire group of people make much of case studies.

As to the punishment bit, I do not deny that punishment is still talked about in behavior analysis. It still exists in public schools in the US South as well. It is not gone from our educational culture. It is a broader problem than behavior analysis. I say this not to deflect ethical criticism from behavior analysts (we can and should be criticized here), but to frame what I suspect to be one of the larger maintaining variables of the problem.

“And you've again reminded to be grateful that I can criticize my colleagues, and the fields I work in, much more harshly than I could ever criticize ABA-based autism interventions -- and not be considered to be making "very personal attacks" or to be harbouring prejudices equivalent to regarding all Muslims as terrorists.”

The problem isn’t the delivery of harsh criticism; it is the delivery of inaccurate criticism. And if anyone is delivering harsh criticism that also contains personal attacks, they probably could stand to do a self-ethics check. And there is some criticism so lousy, it in itself, deserves to be harshly criticized.

Keith’s example is a logical comparison. It does not mean that those who criticize ABA in autism harbor prejudices equivalent to regarding all Muslims as terrorists. When termed so, I can no longer see a resemblance to what Keith actually wrote.

[Michelle Dawson]

Hi Interverbal,

Neither of the "incorrect critiques" you cite mentions aversive procedures or punishment. Neither of the statements mentions all behaviour analysts or names a specific individual against whom "very personal attacks" are then made.

Neither of the "incorrect critiques" is a statement I'd make. I'd be critical (including very critical) of some aspects of both, while seeing some accuracy in some aspects of both.

I see that in your view, behaviour analysts should not respond to criticism at this level.

Instead, behaviour analysts should be sarcastic and should make grossly exaggerated claims in responding to statements that were not actually made (isn't there a name for this kind of illogic?), should accuse others of "very personal attacks" when none has been made (is Richard Malott's writing about scientists in non-ABA fields a "very personal attack" on me?), and should compare criticism of the field of ABA-based autism interventions and of how these interventions have been promoted (including my criticisms in this area; me being on the "HUB") to the prejudice that all Muslims are terrorists.

I also find your position re aversive procedures very informative. Thank you.

[CS]

"As to the punishment bit, I do not deny that punishment is still talked about in behavior analysis. It still exists in public schools in the US South as well."

It, punishment, exists in schools throughout the country, not only in the US South. In fact, the most extreme punishments have taken place outside the US South (Canton, Mass. and UCLA). But also, behaviorists are responsible in some public schools of inflicting serious harm on students, see here:

http://autisticnation.typepad.com/thinking_in_metaphors/2008/06/abuse-in-st-luc.html

There is much more to that story I haven't published yet, including lying by the behaviorist on official documents submitted to the school system ( I have undeniable proof of this).

Just a rogue behaviorist? I don't think so. Lots of stuff has been sent to me, and it comes from all over the US. BCBA's ethics enforcement seems to have no real "teeth".

If you and Keith really wanted to show your concern for autistic dignity, you would be spending less time defending your dogma and more time holding your profession to higher ethical standards. What have either of you done to oppose JRC's methods? Both of you seem to support JRC's right to use extreme aversives under certain circumstances.

[Interverbal]

Hi Michelle,

“Neither of the "incorrect critiques" you cite mentions aversive procedures or punishment.”

One of the comments is in response to my quote of Skinner which was about punishment.

“Neither of the statements mentions all behaviour analysts”

“The ABA advocates”, Michelle. Not some, not part, not most “The ABA advocates”.

“I see that in your view, behaviour analysts should not respond to criticism at this level.”

That would be up to the individual behavior analyst. I believe you can go up the thread and read how I responded to one of the posts. There are times a good potential argument is buried under errors of logic and science. Sometimes an honest and frank rebuttal allows a person to correct the errors and offer a real argument. But I have no ideas what this might be in this case. Moreover, burden of correction falls on the argument maker, not the recipient.

“Instead, behaviour analysts should be sarcastic and should make grossly exaggerated claims in responding to statements that were not actually made (isn't there a name for this kind of illogic?)”

Not should be…. can be, there are other options. This is not the way I would have pursued the issue.

All sarcasm is by default a type of straw argument. However, the deliberately “wrong” portion in the sarcasm is implied to be wrong. The argument maker operates under the assumption that the reader understands that it is wrong. By simplifying the argument, the author can show the inherent absurdity in it. However not all sarcasm matches the comments it was intended to. I leave it to you to decide if Keith’s statement does not match the above comments enough.

And Michelle, if you are prepared to argue that sarcasm is never appropriate in any academic debate, then I will be disappointed if I see you let someone else’s sarcasm slip, including your own.

“should accuse others of "very personal attacks" when none has been made”

You take a statement of mine that is specific and generalize it to the point where it exceeds the original argument? Is this sarcasm Michelle? The only time an accusation of very personal attack should be made is when one actually is made. That is not specific to behavior analysis. That is true of any field of science.

Perhaps you would argue that the author’s point was merely misinformed. Case studies =/= well controlled single case design. I am assuming of course that given her comments, that the author has an elementary understanding of research design. That might be an incorrect assumption. She never clarified. However, if that is the case, I respectfully withdraw my comment. She was merely misinformed. Unfortunately, she was likely to remain ignorant for some time. None of the people who do know better corrected her either.

“(is Richard Malott's writing about scientists in non-ABA fields a "very personal attack" on me?)”

You know very well that I disagree with Dr. Malott on this issue. And if he accuses you of lying about your (collective) effort, then yes, this is a personal attack. So, does he lie, employ a hermetic fallacy, or is he merely critical about the quality of proof in your field?

“I also find your position re aversive procedures very informative.”

Do you? What exactly do you mean by this? Do, you mean that you find my comments excellent and persuasive? Do you mean that my comments were thought provoking and that you wish to take some time to consider them? Do you mean that while the information was interesting you have no opinion and what was offered? Or do you mean that you see ethical, logical, or scientific problems in what I wrote?

I believe Michelle, that you are indicating something beyond merely that my argument contained information. I believe I deserve a bit more. You can choose sarcasm of course. I promise if you do so that I won’t accuse cognitive scientist of believing that it is universally acceptable to respond to a serious argument with sarcasm.

Failing that though, you might just want to give me an upfront rebuttal.

[Interverbal]

Hi CS,

“It, punishment, exists in schools throughout the country, not only in the US South. In fact, the most extreme punishments have taken place outside the US South (Canton, Mass. and UCLA). But also, behaviorists are responsible in some public schools of inflicting serious harm on students, see here”

That is all true, although most of the problem exists in the South. I had a professor who was a teacher in Louisiana. She had a large number of very unfortunate stories.

“There is much more to that story I haven't published yet, including lying by the behaviorist on official documents submitted to the school system ( I have undeniable proof of this).”

I have read this before and I believe you.

“Just a rogue behaviorist? I don't think so. Lots of stuff has been sent to me, and it comes from all over the US. BCBA's ethics enforcement seems to have no real "teeth".”

If a behavior analyst breaks laws or policies then “rogue” would be the right word. I am entering my 9th year of higher education this year. I have never once been trained in the use of physically hurtful techniques in behavior analysis classes. I believe you when you say that things have been sent to you from across the US, but I see no evidence that the rates of rogues are worse than in the general special educator population.

“If you and Keith really wanted to show your concern for autistic dignity, you would be spending less time defending your dogma and more time holding your profession to higher ethical standards.”

CS, if you really cared about autistic dignity why don’t you:
-Graph CDDS quarterly autism rates
-Write review articles about new autism epidemiology articles
-Create a video series on the feedback loop of science and ethics
-Gain a precise knowledge of biomed science, in order to author precise critiques
-Study basic logic formats in order to police critiques for quality
-Study basic behavior analysis in order to avoid elementary terminology errors

I rather imagine CS that you don’t do all these things because; you only have a limited amount of time. And that you and no one else will choose how you spend that time. You make excellent videos reflecting your high regard for autistic rights and your talent/interest in this area. I do exactly the same. There will always be something else that merits our time and effort. We choose what we address for many reasons.

“What have either of you done to oppose JRC's methods?”

Stated for the record that I disagree with it. And what have you done CS?

“Both of you seem to support JRC's right to use extreme aversives under certain circumstances.”

Not exactly. I support the use of aversives only if I think someone’s life is in immediate danger and if everything else has failed. The loss of a life is a greater evil, than the administration of aversives in my ethical analysis. I do not support the JRC being the one’s to administer such aversives though, even if needed.

They claim that everything else has already been tried and that is why the person found themselves at the JRC in the first place. They also do not necessarily use functional analysis before advocating shocks.

[Michelle Dawson]

Hi Interverbal,

I'm going to repeat that "Neither of the "incorrect critiques" you cite mentions aversive procedures or punishment." This is accurate. The person who posted the comment you refer to removed the mention of punishment in her allusion to the quote from Skinner.

I'll also repeat that Sharon made no mention of "all behaviour analysts," and that the context of her post was clearly the area of autism.

You wrote: "Not should be…. can be, there are other options. This is not the way I would have pursued the issue."

You described Dr Hersh's statements as "appropriate."

I'm now confused as to whether you continue to regard the two "inaccurate critiques" as "very personal attacks." My comment was made on the basis of your original assertion in this regard.

I find it interesting that it is considered a "very personal attack" (so far as I can tell) to state or imply that ABA single subject designs in the area of autism are not necessarily well controlled.

I did not write anywhere that "sarcasm is never appropriate in any academic debate." Also, I have no views as to whether Dr Hersh was in fact being sarcastic. I was responding to your statements in this regard.

Interverbal wrote: "What exactly do you mean by this?"

Exactly what I said. While others may be here to win the debate (or whatever) for some presumed side (or whatever), I'm here to learn, and I thank you (again) for being informative.

[Interverbal]

Hi Michelle,

“I'm going to repeat that "Neither of the "incorrect critiques" you cite mentions aversive procedures or punishment." This is accurate. The person who posted the comment you refer to removed the mention of punishment in her allusion to the quote from Skinner.”

Okay, let’s say I accept your argument on this.

“I'll also repeat that Sharon made no mention of "all behaviour analysts," and that the context of her post was clearly the area of autism.”

Not an inch on this one. Behavior analysts by definition fall into the category of “The ABA advocates”. They don’t make up all of it, but they do make up part of it.

Here is a question: Is it possible for me both to find Keith’s arguments to be appropriate and yet still say that I would have pursued the matter differently? Or are these mutually exclusive?

“I'm now confused as to whether you continue to regard the two "inaccurate critiques" as "very personal attacks." My comment was made on the basis of your original assertion in this regard.”

Let’s say that I withdraw my arguments that they are personally insulting. However, I continue to have significant ethical and scientific problems with both of them.

“I find it interesting that it is considered a "very personal attack" (so far as I can tell) to state or imply that ABA single subject designs in the area of autism are not necessarily well controlled.”

I find it interesting as well, especially because it is not what I argued.

“I did not write anywhere that "sarcasm is never appropriate in any academic debate.”

Yes, which is why my comment has an “if”.

“While others may be here to win the debate (or whatever) for some presumed side (or whatever), I'm here to learn, and I thank you (again) for being informative.”

You are welcome Michelle. For my part I really don’t care who is right, I care about what is right.

[Michelle Dawson]

Hi Interverbal,

You wrote, "Behavior analysts by definition fall into the category of “The ABA advocates”."

That's also very informative, thank you. I realize some scientists are advocates (though possibly not for their own specific fields), but was not aware that for behaviour analysts, "ABA advocacy" in specific areas, like autism -- autism being what Sharon wrote about -- was mandatory for all.

But I remain confused as to your position. You will not allow "an inch on this one" but you (maybe) "withdraw [your] arguments" that the "incorrect critiques," including this one, are "very personal attacks."

You wrote: "Is it possible for me both to find Keith’s arguments to be appropriate and yet still say that I would have pursued the matter differently? Or are these mutually exclusive?"

My stated concern was about Dr Hersh's response (see up-thread). The fact that another behaviour analyst defends Dr Hersh's response as "appropriate" (that is, it would be "appropriate" for any behaviour analyst or BCBA to respond this way) is interesting to me.

You wrote: "I find it interesting as well, especially because it is not what I argued."

Your original position (this may have now changed) was that Sharon's message was a "very personal attack." You singled out Sharon's use of the term "non randomised, non controlled case studies" as possibly being the major problem (so far as I can tell). Your suggested replacement for this term was "well controlled single case design." This is what resulted in my comment:

"I find it interesting that it is considered a "very personal attack" (so far as I can tell) to state or imply that ABA single subject designs in the area of autism are not necessarily well controlled."

Now it possible this is not longer considered a "very personal attack" but is now considered to entail "significant ethical and scientific problems."

[Interverbal]

Hi Michelle,

This will be my last post. More deadlines hit tonight and I once again find myself out of time. I will wait for your response and I thank you for your time.

“That's also very informative, thank you. I realize some scientists are advocates (though possibly not for their own specific fields), but was not aware that for behaviour analysts, "ABA advocacy" in specific areas, like autism -- autism being what Sharon wrote about -- was mandatory for all.”

To me being an advocate means merely supporting the idea. Behavior analysts tend to support ideas that have an evidence base. There are of course exceptions and true believers in any field including behavior analysis. I do not work in the field of PTSD, but I support certain behavior analytic research and techniques that have an evidence base in that field. I do not work with phobias, but I support evidence based practice in that field. I would argue that the same is true for most behavior analysts.

“But I remain confused as to your position. You will not allow "an inch on this one" but you (maybe) "withdraw [your] arguments" that the "incorrect critiques," including this one, are "very personal attacks."”

The not allow an inch bit concerns “The ABA advocates”. I continue assert that it is a strong induction as written.

I am willing to withdraw my argument because of my uncertainty. I am not convinced I really should however. We have been on such an interesting adventure with verbal exploration that I am no longer certain that the comments are insulting or not. For example:

“Apparently, some practitioners think the 'unfortunate by-products' of behavior modification are acceptable. Presumably because autistics are of less value unless they can be manipulated into proper trained pigeons ("indistinguishable from their peers").”

I have no idea who “some” is. I have no idea why a quote that I offered specific to punishment is now being applied to the much broader idea of behavior modification.

“Your original position (this may have now changed) was that Sharon's message was a "very personal attack." You singled out Sharon's use of the term "non randomised, non controlled case studies" as possibly being the major problem (so far as I can tell). Your suggested replacement for this term was "well controlled single case design." This is what resulted in my comment:
I find it interesting that it is considered a "very personal attack" (so far as I can tell) to state or imply that ABA single subject designs in the area of autism are not necessarily well controlled.””

There are significant differences between my statement and your summary. To criticize someone for saying that we make much of case studies; is to state that we take case studies and lie about them or at least significantly misrepresent them.

Your statement does not accurately reflect what I wrote, because the problem doesn’t concern single case design not being well controlled, after all there are single case designs that are not well controlled.

[Michelle Dawson]

Hi Interverbal,

You wrote, "Behavior analysts tend to support ideas that have an evidence base."

So do numerous scientists who aren't behaviour analysts, though using strikingly different (that is, very much higher) standards than those promoted by "ABA advocates" in the area of autism. Also, behaviour analysts (including BCBAs) don't agree with each other about what forms of ABA are evidence-based, and also disagree as to whether some forms of ABA are behaviour analytic.

Re single subject designs, I was responding to your own stated views about what Sharon wrote.

Also, I disagree that the ways in which behaviour analysts and/or "ABA advocates" use the ABA single subject designs as evidence (or proof) of the effectiveness of early intensive ABA-based autism interventions should be above criticism. In my view, a great deal more criticism is necessary--in fact, essential. If I weren't so busy doing other things, I'd emit a lot more myself. Saying that much has been made is accurate, but not nearly enough.

[Keith Hersh]

I only have 1 thing to say, which is where my original response came from.

CS: "Matthew Israel really isn't out of the mainstream of ABA, he's right there in the thick of it."

Websters definition of Mainstream,
"a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence"

This statement implies very very very clearly, that the prevailing direction and activity of ABA is use of the GED (shock), heavy restraint, and punishment.

If that doesn't characterize ABA practitioners as aversive wielding torture gluttons, what does?

[Michelle Dawson]

Arriving late, sorry. In response to Keith Hersh's latest, I suggest reading his actual messages (there were two, before the one above), including the bit about the "HUB," etc.

To say that values or standards are within the mainstream of ABA (or anything else) is not the same as saying that they compose the entire mainstream (of ABA or anything else).

In a message above, I wrote about how aversive procedures, including (but not at all limited to) the use of electric shock, are within the behaviour analytic mainstream, according to the ABA literature, including the latest edition of the major ABA textbook.

A few small examples that can be verified: the use of the GED (and other aversive procedures) at the JRC has passed peer review in a well-established journal edited by a major behaviour analyst (Oorsouw et al., in press). Dr Israel is one of the authors; the senior author is on the same journal's editorial board. I'm not sure if using the GED with older children and adults would be considered better or worse than using the SIBIS with a 3yr old child, as in Salvy et al. (2004); this paper was also published in a journal edited by a major behaviour analyst.

Not long ago, I spent a lot of time speaking with a PhD behaviour analyst who is in practice and was presenting at a very mainstream autism conference. She sees nonaversive (or "all-positive") ABA programs as a myth. Her presentation largely consisted of instructions in how to apply aversive procedures to autistic individuals. Some educators (not behaviour analysts) I know who attended were stunned; they had not been aware of what the ABA mainstream encompasses.

Yes, there are behaviour analysts who now reject the use of punishment and/or aversive procedures (you can find them hanging out at the JPBI, e.g.). But it is also accurate to say that the use of punishment and aversive procedures, including electric shock, is within the ABA mainstream.

To point this out (or to criticize the science and ethics of ABA-based autism interventions) is not to characterize all "ABA practitioners as aversive wielding torture gluttons," etc. Nor does it represent prejudices equivalent to claims that all Muslims are terrorists.