Otter's Rock

Applied Behavioral Analysis, also known as "ABA," is the most common therapy for "treating" autism.  In the US, it is the only autism therapy that most insurance companies will pay for.

It's also pretty universally hated as abusive by those who have been unfortunate enough to have had it inflicted on them.  For those of you who don't know, it was designed by the same guy (Ivor Lovaas) who created gay conversion therapy.  He was working with two kids, one an "effeminate" boy, and one an autistic boy, trying to train them to be "normal."  The same basic reasoning and methodology are at the heart of both gay conversion therapy and ABA.  (Note the sample size he was working with, folks, that's gonna be important.)

Oh, but ABA is kinder and gentler now! its proponents say.  They don't use punishments, only rewards! as if that somehow makes it less coercive.  (And, oh, by the way, while it is true that most ABA therapists don't use punishments, there are still a ton who do, and the practice is still condoned by their professional organization.)

Most ABA professionals are absolutely unaware of how much adult autistics who have been through ABA hate and loathe it, how much trauma it causes.  But even when they are aware of it, their excuse is that it's "evidence based."  We have to do this, because it's the only thing that works!  It's the only thing that's been scientifically proven!  And I knew that part of that claim was bullshit, because there aren't any longitudinal studies of ABA (i.e. what results can you find a decade or two later); all the studies are of immediate effects.  But it's worse than I thought.

Someone just did a meta-analysis of all autism intervention therapies.  And guess what they found!  The vast majority of studies of ABA are not scientifically valid enough to be included in the study.  Either they're case studies of ONE (1) child, or the results are reported by parents and/or therapists (and such reports are NOTORIOUSLY BIASED, parents will report a child received benefit from a therapy the child never even RECEIVED).  Yeah, sure, the results reported are glowing, but the whole "study" is junk!  When you take out the junk studies, not only are there not many studies left but the results are a lot more ambiguous than ABA proponents would claim.  I knew that Lovaas' initial research had been done on only two kids, one autistic and one "effeminate" (i.e. queer), but I had assumed (silly me) that he'd followed up with larger studies once he had his methodology worked out.

And you know what?  It isn't just that the "evidence" for ABA is incredibly flimsy and their whole "but it's EVIDENCE BASED so if you don't like it you're against SCIENCE!" is bullshit.  The meta-analysis showed that when you only include studies that are based on actual scientific method and shit like that, there are two "promising" types of therapy, and ABA IS NOT ONE OF THEM.  There are two studies that, when one looks at ACTUAL evidence and not just ABA practitioners writing self-congratulatory odes about their star victi--er, sorry patient, show actual positive results.  And those two therapies are Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Interventions and DIR/Floortime.  Neither of which, after a decade of keeping up with autism news, I had ever even heard of.

To every ABA "therapist" who's ever justified themselves by claiming to be "evidence based," FUCK YOU.

For those who want a less-academic summary of the study, that has some really choice things to say about ABA and those who practice it, Alfie Kohn has an excellent blog post about it.  Here's my favorite bit:

The uncomfortable irony is that we are apparently supposed to accept such appeals to “evidence” on faith. I have written elsewhere about how research cited in the field of education sometimes doesn’t stand up to close examination. This is particularly true of traditional practices rooted in behaviorism — not only ABA and similar interventions for children with special needs but also highly scripted direct instruction of discrete facts and skills in early childhood (and beyond) and explicit phonics-based strategies for teaching reading.⁹  You might assume that those who use the phrase “evidence-based practice” (EBP) are offering a testable claim, asserting that the practices in question are supported by good data. In reality, the phrase is more of an all-purpose honorific, wielded to silence dissent, intimidate critics, and imply that anyone who criticizes what they’re doing is rejecting science itself.¹⁰  It’s reminiscent of the way a religious leader might declare that what we’ve been told to do is “God’s will”: End of discussion.

Moreover — and it took me awhile to catch on to this — behaviorists often use “EBP” just as a shorthand for the practices they like, in contrast to the (progressive or humanistic) approaches they revile. It doesn’t matter if the evidence is actually weak or ambiguous or even if it points in the other direction. They’ll always come up with some reason to dismiss those inconvenient findings because their method is “evidence-based” by definition. (On social media and elsewhere, you can get a glimpse of how modern behaviorism resembles a religious cult, with adherents circling the wagons, trading ad hominem attacks on their critics, and testing out defensive strategies to employ when, for example, people with autism speak out about how ABA has harmed them. Or when scholarship shows just how weak the empirical case for ABA really is.)

We hear all the time about how the Liberals are nicer people--they want to take care of people, and the environment, etc. Conservatives, being against government programs that do these things, are inherently less compassionate, right? After all, argue the Liberals, sure, in principle it would be better if people would actually donate their time and money to charity than have the government do it, nobody in today's era would actually do that, right? Which is why the government has to step in and do it.

I've always believed that in most cases, that belief that people would never give to charity says more about the people who say that than it does about people in general. And whaddaya know, an economist named Arthur C. Brooks did a study and found out that I was right! Note that he was expecting to find that Liberals gave more to charity (in general) than Conservatives did, and was quite shocked by his actual findings. That's a good indication that his findings aren't tainted by his own biases; I'm always a little leary when people find exactly what they set out to, y'know? Even if it does agree with what I believe. Anyway, here's the Amazon editor's review:

"Surprising proof that conservatives really are more compassionate--and more generous--than liberals

We all know we should give to charity, but who really does? Approximately three-quarters of Americans give their time and money to various charities, churches, and causes; the other quarter of the population does not. Why has America split into two nations: givers and non-givers?

Arthur Brooks, a top scholar of economics and public policy, has spent years researching this trend, and even he was surprised by what he found. In Who Cares, he demonstrates conclusively that conservatives really are compassionate-far more compassionate than their liberal foes. Strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills-all of these factors determine how likely one is to give.

Charity matters--not just to the givers and to the recipients, but to the nation as a whole. It is crucial to our prosperity, happiness, health, and our ability to govern ourselves as a free people. In Who Cares, Brooks outlines strategies for expanding the ranks of givers, for the good of all Americans.

About the Author
Arthur C. Brooks is professor of public administration at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. He is the author of numerous articles and books on topics relating to charity and civic life, and his work appears frequently in the Wall Street Journal and other publications."

Among the findings of the book:
Conservative households in America donate 30% more money to charity each year than liberal households, even in spite of lower average incomes

Conservatives are also more generous in other ways, such as blood donations, and volunteer work. In fact, if liberals gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the U.S. would jump by about 45%

People who mistrust big government give more than those who rely on the government to take care of the poor. This includes giving and volunteering even to traditionally “progressive causes” such as the arts and the environment

( More stats )

Quote of the Day:
I am not an American who “will cut the cloth of my conscience to fit this year's fashions.”
-Lillian Helman, The Senate Committee on Un-American Activities, 1952

When you have a government big enough to give you all you want, it will be big enough to take it all away.
-Barry Goldwater

God has a special providence for fools, drunks and the United States of America.
-Bismarck

As promised, here's my take on creation and evolution. (Keep in mind that I haven't even begun seminary yet, so it's not like I've spent a huge amount of time studying the question or anything.)  It is taken from an exchange on forum.gateworld.net, in which GateGypsy asked the following questions:

( Read more... )

That's my take on the whole creation/evolution debate.  I hope this has been helpful to anyone who reads it.