John Dorsay <restimula...@gmail.com> wrote: >It gets *much* worse. I think this article should be required >reading for anyone who thinks Monica's criticisms are out of line.
The problem, John, is not with her criticisms. The problem is that she is not really putting them here or anywhere else where they can be rebutted by those "vested interests" who you claim are behind continuing to injure children with restraint. All I see clogging up ars are her stupid rebuttals to stupider accusations by people in my killfile.
D _______________________
"Scientology does not dissuade members from seeking out medical attention or getting any medication." - Monica Pignotti, PHD
"At this point, if we could go back in time and get rid of the internet altogether, I would be all for it." - Monica Pignotti, PHD
"If you don't stop pointing out my hypocrisy, I'm gonna tell Steve Hassan on you." - Monica Pignotti, PHD
>>It gets *much* worse. I think this article should be required >>reading for anyone who thinks Monica's criticisms are out of line.
> The problem, John, is not with her criticisms. The problem is that > she is not really putting them here or anywhere else where they can be > rebutted by those "vested interests" who you claim are behind
The vested interests are no different than in any other group. They are driven by power and/or money. It costs a hell of a lot less to employ one person to "treat" multiple patients by zapping the hell out of them by remote control than it does to provide 1:1 or greater staff/patient ratios. The math is real easy. And given the reluctance of ethical practitioners to provide the same "treatment", the lack of competition allows one to charge outrageously high prices if one can dupe people into placing their loved ones in that "care". Or, in jurisdictions like mine, where there are fixed payment schedules, minimizing staffing costs maximizes profit.
> continuing to injure children with restraint. All I see clogging up > ars are her stupid rebuttals to stupider accusations by people in my > killfile.
I'm pretty sure Monica won't object if she has to share a spot in your kill-file with her insane cyberstalkers. I'm just sayin'
The whole conversation has taken an interesting and timely turn for me. We are approaching a provincial election here, and at least one major party has shown an inclination to yield to lobbying to make "applied behavior analysts" a regulated health profession.
I *know* what went on when behavior analysts got their hands on vulnerable people 20 years ago, but I have been out of touch with that community since then. In fact, I suspect if the internet had been as established then as it is now, I would have enjoyed similar attention to that shown Monica by her kook cyberstalkers, and for precisely the same reasons. At that time, applied behavior analysts used junk science to justify abuse of vulnerable people.
A lot can change in 20 years. I am curious about the current view of aversives within the behavior analyst community, and I am also curious about whether or not the junk science has been replaced by evidence-based research.
Nothing I saw on the web encouraged me, but the web is not real life. Monica knows some behavior analysts about whom she has positive opinions. I'm really curious about whether or not behavior analysis has changed. I'm hoping she'll be willing to ask a few questions on my behalf and tell me her opinion. Anything she can tell me will influence the direction I take in response to the local lobbying.
That there is a 'group' which might claim this as their overarching philosophy and a 'treatment model' alarms me considerably.
Behavioural analysis, is a step in a process. Usually specifically applied where ordinary communication with an individual is limited or difficult. Essentially a behavioural analysis, looks at what, unwanted behaviours exist for a client, and what triggers an unwanted behaviour. (There is also ongoing debate about what represents 'unwanted'. Without other 'steps' this at best leads to avoiding the triggers. An actual treatment model is a very different thing, and might vary considerably depending on what undesirable behaviours are observed, and what actions trigger them. You might treat a 'phobic' behaviour with a systematic desensitisation model, inappropriate sexual expression, with an 'acceptable space' intervention.
Things can however get complicated. For instance self injury triggered in the presence of a woman, would lead to a very different intervention than self injury triggered by the presence of a man, not specifically based on the issue of gender, but also on the issue of gender balances in caring professions. And even then it would need to be tuned specifically into what else was known about the client, their age, and the possibilities for development, known experiences, ambitions. All of which might be influenced by Cognitive behaviour therapy, Kleinian psychotherapy, formal eclecticism, or theoretical integrationist approaches, there are multiple treatment models, behaviour analysis isn't one of them.
Sorry I know it's a bit of a rant, but 'behaviour analysis' as a treatment model sounds like a fad, as a component of a more detailed treatment regime, that's a different issue entirely.
> > On Jun 9, 4:52 pm, John Dorsay<restimula...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 6/9/2011 4:26 PM, Monica Pignotti wrote: > >> > They are certified by this organization:
> >> (a) The behavior analyst always has the responsibility to recommend > >> scientifically supported most effective treatment procedures. > >> Effective treatment procedures have been validated as having both > >> long-term and short-term benefits to clients and society.
> >> (b) Clients have a right to effective treatment (i.e., based on the > >> research literature and adapted to the individual client).
> >> > The ones I know don't use the kinds of punishments that are used at > >> > the Rotenberg Center.
> >> Are you saying they use different punishments, or are you saying > >> they don't use punishments at all? If the latter, they are probably > >> violating their "Treatment Efficacy" standard. If you have the > >> chance, please ask them about their views on the use of aversives, > >> what they think about their certifying organization's position, and > >> where do they draw the line if they think aversives are sometimes > >> acceptable. I'm curious. And you might be surprised by their answers.
> > I'm saying that they first use positive reinforcement and only resort > > to punishment if the positive stuff doesn't work, but even then, they > > don't use the harmful punishments. They just use things like time outs > > or taking away a privilege, which are punishments, but not abusive > > ones. The kind of torture used at the Rotenberg Center is not > > empirically supported.
> Well, the JRC has its own method of calculating empirical support. > In essence, it works like this.
> 1. Record the frequency of targeted undesired behaviors in a > controlled environment to establish a baseline.
> 2. Consequate targeted undesired behaviors.
> 3. Record the frequency of targeted undesired behaviors that occur > after the victim has associated the behavior with the consequence, > while the victim is aware of the possibility of further consequences.
> 4. If the frequency has not reduced, increase the severity of the > consequence and return to step 2.
> 5. Otherwise, claim empirical support.
> Sorry if I'm sounding thick, Monica. I was careless with my use of > terminology. Punishment is a consequence that causes a behavior to > occur with less frequency. It can be negative (ie the withdrawal of > something, such as a reward), or positive (ie the addition of a > stimulus). Positive punishments are commonly known by their > proponents as aversives, and of course they are widely used at the > JRC. It sounds like the behavior analysts you know limit themselves > to negative punishments.
> But positive punishments are a core component of behavior analysis, > and this is what the doubletalk from the bacb.com web page is > addressing. There are certainly far less extreme forms of positive > punishment than those used by the JRC, but they are still aversives, > and as far as I know lack any credible empirical support. Therefore > I take the perhaps extreme position that any form of positive > punishment is unacceptable. The bacb disagrees, and indeed the > standard I quoted requires behavior analysts to include positive > punishment in their repertoire. This is what I was talking about, > and why I was curious about the views of the behavior analysts you know.
I can ask them again next time I talk to them, but the ones I have worked closely with are very much opposed to that sort of aversive, regardless how some may have twisted interpretations of certain things. I do share your concerns, though, about how some behavior analysts are using it. Federici has two behavior analysts listed on the letterhead of his response to the internet critics, who apparently work with him and I have always wondered how they apply behavioral analysis to his work, if they do.
So, if Deborah Greenwald is reading this and would like to join in this conversation and respond, please do feel free to. I would be very interested in what capacity she works with Ronald Federici and if she has used the intervention recommended in his book.
On Jun 9, 7:05 pm, Dennis Erlich <infor...@informer.org> wrote:
> John Dorsay <restimula...@gmail.com> wrote: > >It gets *much* worse. I think this article should be required > >reading for anyone who thinks Monica's criticisms are out of line.
> The problem, John, is not with her criticisms. The problem is that > she is not really putting them here or anywhere else where they can be > rebutted by those "vested interests" who you claim are behind > continuing to injure children with restraint. All I see clogging up > ars are her stupid rebuttals to stupider accusations by people in my > killfile.
That is absolutely false. I have published my criticisms in peer reviewed journals, the very best place for them to be rebutted by anyone who cares to. I also have specific, very detailed criticisms on this topic complete with valid references, on my blog that is open to anyone who cares to read it:
You have said you are not interested in reading them and that's fine with me but if you accuse of not posting my criticisms "anywhere" else, that is demonstrably false.
Interesting that first you slam me for being off topic and now you are slamming me for not posting my specific criticisms here to ARS when actually my criticisms are contained in the links I have posted here many times. It seems that no matter what I do, I cannot win with Dennis.
> On 6/8/2011 6:32 PM, Dennis Erlich wrote: >> No. No axe to grind. I am simply amusing myself by pointing out her >> self promotional hypocrisy.
> You know, I try really hard not to take sides in the quarrel between you > and Monica. FWIW, you are right at the top of "ars participants that I > would like to have a beer with" (aptiwlthabw for those who enjoy > acronyms). But I think you are naive about the health care system, and > and I think that naivete contributes to your animosity towards Monica.
> I guarantee that Monica's vocal criticism of abusive "treatment" > antagonizes more people than kooks like Federici. There are entrenched > authorities in the educational, treatment, and legal communities who are > threatened by criticism from people like Monica. If Monica is anything, > she is self-demotional. The entrenched authorities do *not* want to > confront the issues she raises, because they have long been complicit in > the abuse she is exposing.
> While it is a relatively recent development (ie since she abandoned > TFT), Monica has become a vocal advocate of evidence-based treatment. I > have long advocated the same thing, but I'm just a noisy guy with some > basic critical thinking skills. Monica has a legitimate PhD and she has > achieved real credibility within the academic community that influences > both legal and public perception. Both need to change before the abuse > Monica and others decry will ever be eliminated. Monica is trying to > influence that. That is a Good Thing, regardless of whether or not you > consider it on-topic for ars.
> Unfortunately, as long as the courts and uncritical corners of academia > are willing to accept people like Federici as experts, Joe Public is > going to assume that they know what they are talking about. The courts, > the academics, and Joe Public, are wrong.
> The reality is that abusive credentialed quacks promise easy solutions > to difficult problems, and Joe Public assumes that the they can't > possibly be abusive quacks because abusive quacks couldn't possibly be > credentialed. Many years ago, several years *before* you were raided, I > had the misfortune of working with an abusive credentialed quack in > Canada. My complaints about him eventually drew the attention of the > Toronto CCHR (who decided the quack-in-question *must* have either been > a psychiatrist or supported by psychiatrists when in fact the opposite > was true), and one thing led to another and I'm still here.
> My abusive credentialed quack, like Federici, did not understand that > RESTRAINT IS NOT TREATMENT. Restraint is by definition coercive and > nonconsensual. Treatment is neither. There is no reasonable definition > of treatment that includes restraint in any form, even without the risks > associated with prone restraint. Note that I am not suggesting restraint > is never appropriate. But I am stating that restraint is absolutely > *never* treatment, no exceptions. Without even considering the > recognized risks of prone restraint.
> Monica has been dragged through the courts for taking a principled stand > against Federici and people like him, who want people to believe that > coercive, nonconsensual restraint *is* treatment. You of all people here > must surely understand the impact that the whole legal process has on > one's life. You *must* know that there is much more to this than > responses to a few kook posts on ars. Monica is not engaging in > self-promotion, at least not now. Anything but.
> Monica has been trying to look beyond your longstanding animosity. > Please try to do the same.
> John
Brilliantly spoken by a insufferably pretentious retired Litigation Specialist for the Ontario Nurses Association, John d'Orsay. [Pictures are coming].
-- "... Where as many of us at one time idolized your fight against the cult, these days we see how much of a sham you are." - Yaakov, a high school teacher, to Rev. Dennis Erlich of the inFormer Ministry [marijuana] Collective (May 15, 2011).
> Brilliantly spoken by a insufferably pretentious retired Litigation > Specialist for the Ontario Nurses Association, John d'Orsay. > [Pictures are coming].
Once again, Tom, I assure you that any time you spend cyberstalking the John d'Orsay you mention above, is time you do not spend cyberstalking me. I've invited you to my home several times, for crying out loud. Do you think I am trying to hide something from your cyber kook detective powerz? Like I said before, if you have questions, just ask.
But first you should definitely chug a couple of six packs. As you know, I am in Hamilton. When you go chasing my doppelgangers in London or Toronto, it is clear you are not yet sober.
On Jun 9, 7:44 pm, John Dorsay <restimula...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So it's definitely on topic for me :)
I just found a book available online through Google Books from a textbook that was written by Eileen Gambrill that includes a chapter where she discusses Behavior Analysis in great detail, including a discussion of punishment and the use of aversives and how the research is against that. She also gives very specific examples of how behavior analysis is used, that are free of any of the abusive treatments she strongly opposes. The author is also a known critic of pseudoscience and proponent of evidence based practice and an expert on propaganda. Unlike many texts on behavior analysis, her descriptions are clear and easy to understand. Check out Chapter 7, which begins on p. 157 (the section on punishment is on p. 166 where she has a good discussion on its negative effects):
> I just found a book available online through Google Books from a > textbook that was written by Eileen Gambrill that includes a chapter > where she discusses Behavior Analysis in great detail, including a > discussion of punishment and the use of aversives and how the research > is against that. She also gives very specific examples of how behavior > analysis is used, that are free of any of the abusive treatments she > strongly opposes. The author is also a known critic of pseudoscience > and proponent of evidence based practice and an expert on propaganda. > Unlike many texts on behavior analysis, her descriptions are clear and > easy to understand. Check out Chapter 7, which begins on p. 157 (the > section on punishment is on p. 166 where she has a good discussion on > its negative effects):
I've dug into the whole issue of behavior analysts a bit more, and it appears the Behavior Analyst Certification Board has differences with the behavior analysis establishment, to the extent that it formed its own professional body (the Association of Professional Behavior Analysts) rather than associate with the existing body (the Association for Behavior Analysis International).
"The Association of Professional Behavior Analysts (APBA) is a new organization with the primary mission of serving the needs of professional behavior analyst practitioners credentialed by the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB)."
...
"These needs are explicitly professional in nature and meeting them requires an organization focused on professional interests. Other organizations in behavior analysis are appropriate for other purposes. The Association for Behavior Analysis International includes basic and applied researchers as well as practitioners, and its annual convention brings those interests together. However, it has become clear that the rapid growth of the professional sector of the field demands the formation of an organization with the primary mission of serving professional needs."
...
"One of the major initiatives of the APBA will involve developing close and supportive relationships with regional, state, and provincial organizations serving professionals in applied behavior analysis. Of course, ABAI is the field’s oldest organization, and the APBA is committed to collaborating with ABAI in any ways that serve the overlapping interests of the two organizations and their members."
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, or I am engaging in wishful thinking, but this does not strike me as high praise for ABAI and its principles.
I suspect your impression of your colleagues is indeed correct, and that they do not endorse the use of aversives.
I had a quick look at the web site of Federici's associate, and I can't give an clear yae or nay. But, I have reservations because there is no explanation of what "RDI" is, and I have further reservations because RDI itself is a registered trademark. When I was checking out RDI I came across a document called "RDI as EBP" http://www.extraordinaryminds.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles... or http://tinyurl.com/3nbvg46, about which I also have reservations. Maybe this is just me being anal, but the inclusion of the same references multiple times (eg Aldred C, Green J, and Adams C. (2004) appears in three different categories) strikes me as potentially misleading. I at looked at a few of the references, and did not find specific mention of RDI in any of those I checked.
According to Wikipedia,
"While the Connections Center has conducted two studies into RDI, there have been as yet no independent studies, although there is currently one study being conducted at the University of Sydney, Australia.
"In a recent peer reviewed study, children whose families had participated in RDI and who had relatively high IQ at start of treatment showed dramatic changes in diagnosic [sic] category on the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) and Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R), though the study represented a non-experimental study without a control group and whose evaluators were not blinded to time in treatment."
I can't find anything about the "Connections Center", but the first hit on google takes you to RDI's main page. Furthermore, the first author of the "recent peer reviewed study" is none other than the creator of RDI. Maybe my notion of EBP is old-fashioned, but I am not convinced by the "evidence" that RDI incorporates EBP.
