CS, I don't think you quite understand the relationship between ABA and the JRC.
Matt Isreal is not a behavior analyst.
Allowing him to present at a conference does not mean in any way that behavior analysts are adopting his methods or that, "Matthew Israel really isn't out of the mainstream of ABA, he's right there in the thick of it."
At FABA, we had a presentation by the Big Cat Rescue Society, in which they talked about how they train thier cats to cooperate with medical care. Does this mean that behavior analysts are going to adopt their methods? By your argument, the "Big Cat Rescue Society really isn't out of the mainstream of ABA, They are right there in the thick of it."
For those of you who are confused how Matt could possibly defend what the JRC is doing, you need take into account that formal education in ABA does not teach about the JRC. Responses to Matt somehow allude he knows exactly what is going on at the JRC. Their website and advertising materials indicate that they are following the process that behavior analysts adhere to. Only use punishment, if everything else failed and the behavior is really severe. Then get rid of the punishment ASAP. If this is what the JRC was doing, then possibly, a behavior analyst would methodologically agree with the use of shock. This does not mean that ethically, they would agree, or would ever administer it.
Stop drawing imaginary lines between ABA and the JRC. They don't exist.
This is my response in a sort of point by point response:
"Matt Isreal is not a behavior analyst. Allowing him to present at a conference does not mean in any way that behavior analysts are adopting his methods"
Really? Do you mean those behaviorists who pay to listen to him speak or those behaviorists that he employs?
"Responses to Matt somehow allude he knows exactly what is going on at the JRC."
No, Matt pretty clearly gave the impression that he knew what was going on. He was provided links and gave his endorsement to these practices.
"Their website and advertising materials indicate that they are following the process that behavior analysts adhere to. Only use punishment, if everything else failed and the behavior is really severe. Then get rid of the punishment ASAP. If this is what the JRC was doing, then possibly, a behavior analyst would methodologically agree with the use of shock. "
Do you mean severe behavior where the "student/client" was entrapped by the behaviorist by purposely taunting the "student/client" just so they could administer Level III aversives (Electric Shock) like this from the the NY State Report:
"GED skin shock and restraint are also used together when the Behavior Rehearsal Lesson (BRL) is practiced on a student. The BRL is used when a student exhibits a high risk, low frequency behavior. As described by a JRC staff person, during a BRL, the student is restrained and GED administered as the student is forcibly challenged to do what the procedure seeks to eliminate. If the student attempts to pull away he receives a GED skin shock; if the student attempts to follow through with the high-risk behavior he receives multiple GED skin shocks at closer intervals."
Shocking for behavior that was purposely instigated by the behaviorist? Where have we heard of the above before? Sounds a lot like the treatment Alex received in a Clockwork Orange wherein he is restrained, his eyes mechanically kept open while he watches violent scenes along with what the behaviorist believes is the antecedent, Beethoven's 9th symphony.
"This does not mean that ethically, they would agree, or would ever administer it."
No, doesn't mean they would but some apparently do, and others seem to accept the propaganda without much thoughtful reflection.
This is a project I am putting together to recreate the circumstances of Vincent Milletich's death. Various state governments have a 30 year unsuccessful track record of shutting down The Judge Rotenberg Center. I intend to use the final video along with written evidence of why I believe international pressure is necessary to shut down JRC. Final film copy along with documented abuses will be submitted to Amnesty International for it's consideration to take on JRC.
I have begun to order materials and props to recreate Vincent's death. The project will be well documented using press accounts and court records showing the last minutes of Vincent's life. If you have any information that you feel is pertinent to this project please contact me. My email is listed in the about section.
Update:
I thought I would post young master Matt Brodhead's defense of the Judge Rotenberg Center. You can find it here. Also, JRC's destroying of probable incriminating evidence in a law enforcement investigation found here.
According to his profile, Matt is a 1st year graduate student studying Behavior Analysis at Western Michigan University.
You may ask why I would link to a blog post that I might find offensive by its very nature (supporting extreme physical aversives against children). I post it because I think Matt's view of JRC is exactly what Matthew Israel's extensive propaganda machine conveys to the public and contradictory information about the ethics and honesty of clinicians working at JRC, which there is ample evidence of here, and here, is not persuasive for a 1st year grad student in Behavior Analysis. Matt's post could easily be confused for a PR release for JRC. I don't think Matt is alone in his views nor necessarily in the minority of behavior analysts.
Interesting discussion over on Michelle Dawson's TMob website. This was recently posted about Matthew Israel.
I mainly read here and seldom write.
My name is Sharon and I'm from Israel.
We had a visit here of Dr Matthew Israel last week. Apparently it was a private visit but the local ABA community here could not resist it and invited Dr Israel to lecture about JRC's methodology. The lecture took place at the Zisnman College for Physical Education & Sports within the Wingate Institute and it was organized by the Center for Behavior Analysis in the college together with the Israeli association for ABA.
The invitation/brochure to the lecture presents JRC as using "full implementation of ABA science" with "direct" and "exact" teaching to "help people in high risk".
About Dr Israel it is said that he has "deep knowledge of the ethical, clinical and legal aspects of the issue in North America".
The lecture and the way Dr Israel was presented in front of educators etc. here in Israel are now the subject of letters exchange and criticism here.
Prior to this, the secretary of the local behaviorists association here in Israel, Mr. Michael Ben-Zvi, has been scheduled to take part in the first conference to be held here in Israel by the Israeli autistic selp-advocacy group.
Because Dr. Israel's lecture has been coordinated by the local behaviorists association and after Mr. Ben-Zvi did not express any rejection of JRC's methods and after a letter from Dr Eitan Eldar (head of the ABA program in the Zisman College) failed to do the same thing the Israeli selp-advocacy organization ACI informed Mr. Ben-Zvi that his participation is ACI's (Autistic Community of Israel) symposium (to be held at July the 23rd in Raanana ) is canceled.
Prior to Dr. Israel's lecture (in the Zisman College) the Israeli web site "Special Place" which advertised the lecture in its on-line board decided to take it off after it received information regarding JRC's methodologies.
The Israeli national autism society, Alut, still has not responded to a letter concerning the publication of Dr. Israel's lecture by its family support center (Bet-Loren).
Matthew Israel really isn't out of the mainstream of ABA, he's right there in the thick of it.
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 preâpost 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. Preâpost 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
UCLAâs 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 ââjoint attentionââ (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!
I get a kick out of watching folks from the Judge Rotenberg Center spend their time searching the web for any blog that might mention their dungeon. I guess in between applying shocks for such behavior as flapping and rocking, Matthew Israel finds time to surf the web at taxpayer expense. Perhaps the next behavior conference he attends some of the conference attendees can ask him why he wastes his time doing this. Knowing that the old sadist is out there viewing my site, he can sure dispute Skinner's connection to the methods that killed Vincent Millitech.
Glad though that he clicked out on my link to posautive.org. Maybe a little bit of that rancid heart of his will soften a bit when he sees the hundreds of positive videos made about and by autistic people there.
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.
If you challenge the biomed/recovery groups, many will respond by saying "your attacking parents", your "too high functioning", "your a pharma shill", "you want to hurt kids", and "science has proven mercury causes autism". All this is dogmatic.
If challenged, both groups simply recoil like a viper ready to strike rather than acknowledging that perhaps they could be wrong. This isn't how science works. In science, nothing is considered a certainty, its only our best educated conclusion given the knowledge we have now. For instance, and I don't mean to pick on Interverbal here, but when I stated that ABA has caused PTSD in autistics (based on information supplied to me by 2 autistics who had been diagnosed with PTSD as a result of undergoing ABA as children) and that there aren't any studies that have been done to look into possible complications from ABA such as PTSD, his response wasn't what I would expect from a curious and science based person.
Me:
"The field hasn't done any studies that I know of that look at PTSD in those that went through ABA"
Interverbal:
"Nor should they. There is no real suggestion of an ABA-PTSD connection. The suggestion there could be, was made and continues to be echoed mostly by those in the pyschodynamic paradigm. There are lots of genuinely good criticisms of behavior analysis and ABA in autism specifically. A possible PTSD connection isn't one of them. This is the type of comment that behavior analysts laugh off and correctly so."
Based on Interverbal's representation of behaviorist's views, there is no need to accumulate empirical data in order to draw a scientific conclusion. We can actually draw a conclusion without studying a hypothesis (ABA in very young children can cause PTSD) at all. That's not scientific, that's a dogmatic response. Behaviorists as he stated would simply laugh off the possibility that being subjected to thousands of hours of very structured ABA in children as young as 2 years old would have no negative emotional residue which could possibly cause PTSD. No need to study because it cannot possibly occur. One would think that those interested in human behavior would be curious about how their "therapy" might affect the emotional well being of autistics?
And like the biomed/recovered kids videos, behaviorists also have their dishonest videos such as Lovaas' promotional video from 1988 entitled "Behavior Treatment of Autistic Children" that "documented" his 1987 study. Below is a video I made criticizing the promotional video "Behavior Treatment of Autistic Children".
The video includes two subjects, Ricky and Pamela. Ricky and Pamela's stories are presented as case studies in what can happen to a child when ABA is cut off during the 2 years of recommended "therapy". Ricky and Pamela are shown as children who started off as relatively non-verbal, constant tantruming, self stimulatory and unresponsive but rapidly respond to Lovaas' 40 hour a week "therapy" of intensive ABA. When ABA was cut off, they "regressed" back into their autism. What the video failed to reveal is that in order to elicit the responses appearing in the video, both Ricky and Pamela were subjected to slaps on the face and electrified floors. The video makers knew that this portion of Ricky and Pamela's story would not "sale" very well to the general audience for this video and thus they conveniently left it out. I consider the act of omission of important facts dishonest. During this same time period, Lovaas was building his ABA "empire" to provide and charge for "services" in hopes that desperate parents wouldn't bother to check the facts. While no proof of motivation and certainly circumstantial, I do find it deliciously suspicious that Dr. Lovaas opened his business shortly after his 1993 follow-up publication and the publication of the best selling book "Let Me Hear Your Voice" by Catherine Maurice. The National Autistic Society writes on it's website "In recent years there has been renewed interest in the Lovaas method following the publication of Let Me Hear Your Voice, so I'm not alone in tying the two together. I can only imagine parents then, like now, were beating down the doors of Lovaas' office to grab onto the latest recovery fad. Therefore, it is my contention that Lovaas' disciples have every motivation to promote his study, to promote the 47% myth, to minimize and omit important facts (physical aversives) all of which have led parents down a 2nd money pit avenue known as behaviorism. No different from the biomed/recovery crowd. Its all about protecting the dogma and none of it stands up to scrutiny. Both "industries" (biomed and behaviorism) have a totalitarian view of autism. If a group "dedicated" to "remediating" autism refuses to acknowledge that their profession or industry has abused and tortured autistic people (chelation deaths/electrified floors/electric shocks/physical aversives/lupron/etc. ad nauseum), then they are not interested in truth, but in preserving a dogma.
Noam Chomskey is a professor of linguistics at M.I.T. and perhaps one of the most engaging and prolific intellectuals of the 20th century. In 1971, The New York Review of Books published his essay "The Case Against B.F. Skinner". Chomsky makes the case that Skinner's theory of Verbal Behavior isn't really science but a sort of secular dogma (dogma is my interpretation). In light of my ongoing conversation with Interverbal, I thought the passage below selected from "The Case Against B.F. Skinner" summed up the impasse I have with Interverbal, that is that I don't believe verbal behavior is a science but a set of terminology, like Chomsky, that is unscientific, even devoid of common sense in its use of terminology. Perhaps this is one reason why we view the word torture so differently.
The libertarians and humanists whom Skinner scorns object to totalitarianism out of respect for freedom and dignity. But, Skinner argues, these notions are merely the residue of traditional mystical beliefs and must be replaced by the stern scientific notions of behavioral analysis. However, there exists no behavioral science incorporating empirically supported propositions that are not trivial and that apply to human affairs or support a behavioral technology. For this reason Skinner's book contains no clearly formulated substantive hypotheses or proposals. We can at least begin to speculate coherently about the acquisition of certain systems of knowledge and belief on the basis of experience and genetic endowment, and can outline the general nature of some device that might duplicate aspects of this achievement. But how does a person who has acquired systems of knowledge and belief then proceed to use them in his daily life? About this we are entirely in the dark, at the level of scientific inquiry.
If there were some science capable of treating such matters it might well be concerned precisely with freedom and dignity and might suggest possibilities for enhancing them. Perhaps, as the classical literature of freedom and dignity sometimes suggests, there is an intrinsic human inclination toward free creative inquiry and productive work, and humans are not merely dull mechanisms formed by a history of reinforcement and behaving predictably with no intrinsic needs apart from the need for physiological satiation. Then humans are not fit subjects for manipulation, and we will seek to design a social order accordingly. But we cannot, at present, turn to science for insight into these matters. To claim otherwise is pure fraud. For the moment, an honest scientist will admit at once that we understand virtually nothing, at the level of scientific inquiry, with regard to human freedom and dignity.
There is, of course, no doubt that behavior can be controlled, for example, by threat of violence or a pattern of deprivation and reward. This much is not at issue, and the conclusion is consistent with a belief in "autonomous man." If a tyrant has the power to require certain acts, whether by threat of punishment or by allowing only those who perform these acts to escape from deprivation (e.g., by restricting employment to such people), his subjects may choose to obey -- though some may have the dignity to refuse. They will understand the difference between this compulsion and the laws that govern falling bodies.
Of course, they are not free. Sanctions backed by force restrict freedom, as does differential reward. An increase in wages, in Marx's phrase, "would be nothing more than a better remuneration of slaves, and would not restore, either to the worker or to the work, their human significance and worth." But it would be absurd to conclude merely from the fact that freedom is limited, that "autonomous man" is an illusion, or to overlook the distinction between a person who chooses to conform, in the face of threat or force or deprivation, and a person who "chooses" to obey Newtonian principles as he falls from a high tower.
The inference remains absurd even where we can predict the course of action that most "autonomous men" would select, under conditions of extreme duress and limited opportunity for survival. The absurdity merely becomes more obvious when we consider the real social world, in which determinable "probabilities of response" are so slight as to have virtually no predictive value. And it would be not absurd but grotesque to argue that since circumstances can be arranged under which behavior is quite predictable -- as in a prison, for example, or the concentration camp society "designed" above -- therefore there need be no concern for the freedom and dignity of "autonomous man." When such conclusions are taken to be the result of a "scientific analysis," one can only be amazed at human gullibility.
Skinner confuses "science" with terminology. He apparently believes that if he rephrases commonplace "mentalistic" expressions with terminology derived from the laboratory study of behavior, but deprived of whatever content this terminology has within this discipline, then he has achieved a scientific analysis of behavior. It would be hard to conceive of a more striking failure to comprehend even the rudiments of scientific thinking. The public may well be deceived, in view of the prestige of science and technology. It may even choose to be misled into agreeing that concern for freedom and dignity must be abandoned, perhaps out of fear and a sense of insecurity about the consequences of a serious concern for freedom and dignity. The tendencies in our society that lead toward submission to authoritarian rule may prepare individuals for a doctrine that can be interpreted as justifying it.
The problems that Skinner discusses -- it would be more proper to say "circumvents" -- are often real enough. In spite of his curious belief to the contrary, his libertarian and humanist opponents do not object to "design of a culture," that is, to creating social forms that will be more conducive to the satisfaction of human needs, though they differ from Skinner in their intuitive perception of what these needs truly are. They would not, or at least should not, oppose scientific inquiry or, where possible, its applications, though they will no doubt dismiss the travesty that Skinner presents.
Recent Comments