Newsgroups: bit.listserv.autism
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 09:18:02 PST
              <AUTISM@SJUVM.BITNET>
From:         Leon Ungier <ungierl@CCMAIL.ORST.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Stuff

      Just cannot stand this discussion on FC any longer. Need
to put some common sense into this. First, quick summary.

1. According to postings on  this list the effectiveness of FC
ranges from very modest to most spectacular. Significantly, the
most modest ones are 1st hand experiences while the spectacular
are more indirect in every sense.

2. No explanation of how or/and why FC works or supposed to work.

>The one thing that I think is always hard is that one can set the destination
>for many tests by their pre-disposition.  I believe if the person conducting
>the test wants it to fail, it ultimatly will.  If the person wants it to
>succeed, it has a much better chance of succeeding.  If the trust really is
>a big factor and I personally believe it could be that it depends on the
>children in the experiment.
    This is the argument given in defending Oja and similar  sessions.


> The main features of this test would be to either ask questions of the
> facilitatee without the facilitator knowing what question has been asked,
> or to ask different questions to each of them.  This way, you could
> determine whether the responses were due to the facilitatee or the
> facilitator.  I do not believe that such an experiment would affect the
> level of trust needed in the pair.  I would expect that you could even
> explain the test in full to all of the participants, since unlike many
> psychological tests, the outcome should not be able to be affected by the
> knowledge of the test format.  The testing should not be a stressful
> situation, since you are testing the content of the response, rather than
> trying to asses the intelligence of the responses.

As I understand this has been done with total lack of correlation between
questions and answers. In other words, it was proven that it is a facilitator
not the child is answering the question.

Clearly it is a bit more complicated than that. Someone
described on this a test where facilitator/child pair come up
with words and phrases facilitator colud not possibly known.

You can explain this very consistently if you realize that
autistic children cam and do memorize a lot of words and phrases
 they hear without much understanding. The point is that the
child provides these randomized context-free words and the
facilitator makes out of this a coherent output. You may say
that in a way they do work together.

> >Incidentally, the idea of facilitation is to withdraw the hand support
> >gradually.

> The reports I had seen on facilitation did not make this point clear,
> which I think should be made clear.  If the facilitatee is able to type
> on her own, then it should be clear that the facilitatee is giving the
>responses.  (well, one could perhaps argue that supernatural spirits had
> invaded the typewriter, but since it is a simpler and more encouraging
> hypothesis that the facilitatee is responsible it would be the hypothesis
> that I would use. :)

> Let me point out that I think F/C is a very promising method for
> communication, and I would be more than happy to train autistics that are
> apparently low-functioning to do work that requires the higher functioning
> that F/C indicates they may be qualified to handle.  I am just leery of
> endorsing a technique that can't even stand judicial scrutiny, much less
> scientific scrutiny as it stands.

      It may be a promising method for communication or teaching
autistics though consciously or unconsciously all facilitators
(not all but those with spectacular results; full well crafted
sentences, etc.) provide most of the output ascribed to be
coming from the child alone.

> Now it seems to me that the major flaw in the technique as described is
> that it has not been shown that the facilitator does not steer or guide
> the hand of the facilitatee.  Although I realize that the facilitatees
> type relatively quickly in most cases, the facilitators could react on a
> subconscious level to these questions and thus affect the answers.

     This is as good explanation as one can get. People can
hypnotize other people; and some are better in this than other
(on both sides). Autistics are likely to be more vulnerable
to manipulation of this kind of nature.

>
>>Attitudes like this are why f/c gets such a bad name.  The guy suggests
>>testing the procedure and the answer is:  "Don't do it because the
>>experimenter might be biased."  Talk about bias!

       It got its bad name cause it deserved it. If a child
shows little understanding of the surrounding world and shows out of
a sudden orders of magnitude higher intelligence - something is
fishy here.

> I freely admit that I am biased - in favour of autistic people being treated
> like intelligent human beings rather than guinea pigs to be manipulated
> according to the whims of the research scientists. If the research scientists
>want proof of the validity of FC let them find some other group to experiment
>with (e.g. brain-damaged children). Knowing the particular sensitivities of
>the autistic child, I would prefer not to see them subjected to this type of
>treatment. There are many aspects of the type of experimental situation
>suggested by John Kasab in using autistic children in these types of
>experiments that really worry me and I doubt that the results would be any
>more useful than any that have been done already.....they would still be
> inconclusive.

Something is missing here. It is widely known that human beings
vary widely in their intelligence capability and this fact in NO way
affects (or should not affect) their human rights. The problem
of guinea pigs is emotional not rational; we are all in one
sense or another guinea pigs so what? we are all expect to be
treated with dignity. Calling my autistic son an intelligent human
          being is extreme wishful thinking. He is very troubled human
          being that's for sure.


> (2) Testing could be *offered* to children, parents, and facilitators
> (as a trio).

         The troubble with testing that no matter how many times
the result is negative one can always blame it on something,
stress, bias, etc. The biggest factor is of course, the parents.
   When the tester says it is all bullshit the parents cry: BUT
IT WORKS! And they know it and they are right. BUT they forget that
what they understand by working is different from what is being argued about.
What they see is that their child is doing something he/she was
never doing before and is learning something. That's great, but
it is not something that was always there just waiting to be
uncovered; this just another channel or tool of getting to the child.


> 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, ...

    I am sure the scientific methods won't work. How about
developing a scientific test for any two people to check whether
they REALY love each other (when they claim so).

> The facilitators will probably get some kind of training.  I don't think
> it needs to be extensive, particularly in the cases of parents and friends
> of the typist, although it does seem to be common that the person has
> a hard time typing with parents.  Those that do facilitate can probably
> teach those that want to.  Other lessons are probably always a help.

> I would think that a child who already has the childs confidence would
> have an easier time starting facilitation.  The only thing that comes
> with this is something similar to the parent thing.  One proposed reason
> I heard was that the child already has built up some language or method
> of communication with these people, so they may not really see the need
> or be willing to change their mode of communication.

       The other explanation is that parents don't cheat
       consciously or unconsciously.


> Cautious as I am about subjecting any children to testing, I'm also
> very concerned about all those autistic children who will never get the
>chance to try FC if things go on as they are now.

            Why not. What is so drastic in taking a cardborad
            with letters on it and play with your child?

            Testing with "professional" facilitators is of
            course another story. Why bother. Are there any
            serios tests on UFO?

Cheers,
Leon
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU