From: RJKOPP@SUVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.autism
Subject: Re: Facilitated Communication Question
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:17:14 GMT
              <AUTISM@SJUVM.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

In light of some things that Carolyn said, that I have suspected, I am not
really so sure "scientific" methods will work.  I think the scientific
community and the educational and phychological communities all need to work
to develop the tests, if testing is feasible, if so how is the method best
able to be used in a non-intrusive way and assume from the start that the
kids have normal intelligence, not the opposite way of assuming retardation
and working up.  I don't know how easy all that would be, or if it is feasible.

On the other hand I think that the approach that proponents have put up so
far that they are unwilling to test due to trust issues is not good enough.
Even if that reason is the reason it can't be done, I think more needs to
be said about the process and we need to see more case histories in books
so that a base is built to work from.  There have been articles in professional
and non-professional publications, there have been TV interviews and programs,
but I think alot more literature also is needed.  Perhaps an indepth book
on the work of Mary Crosley in Austalia, outlining the cases in depth.

Many of the opponents cases come accross very strongly, but when you think
about it they are just as hard to authenticate.  First I think you have to
consider the state of the child who did the typing, the atmosphere some of the
testing was done under and how the additional information (even the typed
information was obtained).  One thing that struck me in a couple of the cases
was the extreme they went through to test it.  One case mentioned putting
headphones on the facilitator and the facilitatee and asking different
questions of each and then seeing the answer to the facilitators question
appear.  It seems to me that two conversations first of all is awful
confusing.  Why do you need to ask the facilitator anything at all?  Head
phones to block the possibility of hearing the question should have been
enough.  Other pertinent facts aren't always included such as does this
facilitator know the child?  What was the childs mental attitude at the
time, what was the facilitator's attitude at the time and what was the
tester's attitude?  Where was the test done, under what conditions and
environment.  How many times was this test performed and what were the
rest of the statistics, how many other children had this happen, how many
were successful.  I think that we are seeing too little information on
the opponents end to.  Of course that's the usual way it happens on TV.

The last issue is one that I almost hate to bring up, because it gets into
the hocus-pocus part that seems to scare so many people, why I still can't
figure out, but it still is enough to give a strong resistance to FC.  It's
the ESP factor.  There has been mention on this list of some autistics who
feel they have ESP or some kind of way of knowing things.  While this is not
something very provable, to think of the consequences it could explain alot.
It could be the child knew the question being asked of the other, it could
be that maybe through ESP the Facilitator somewhat helps the child get their
thoughts out, although when hand support retreats back up the arm to be only
a sleeve the translation to type has to be coming from the child, since the
facilitator's hand hold could not be such that they could control where a
finger is going to hit a key (where 1/2" could be the difference between
two letters.)

Well enough for now, just some more thoughts to throw in.  Also to clarify
my thoughts on the success of the tests.

Thanks,
Ray Kopp
Syracuse, New York
Internet:rjkopp@mailbox.syr.edu
Bitnet:RJKOPP@SUVM.BITNET
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU