Autistic genius novelist woos the literary world with novel composed using "Facilitated Communication"

[steenkh]

As I said, I am willing to wait until I have ALL the information.

What information are you waiting for?

 

[Vixen]

What information are you waiting for?

Just to answer your question, the information needed would be Woody's clinically diagnosed intellectual level of comprehension (i.e., learning ability) and what reasonable adjustments does he need for his severe neurological disability/disabilities in order to sit exams and write dissertations. As a private individual, he doesn't have to reveal personal medical stuff but it'd be useful for future similarly disabled people, and maybe even initiate better inventions to improve communication.

 

[Darat]

Thread 'Facilitated Communication Nonsense still doing Harm' https://internationalskeptics.com/f...mmunication-nonsense-still-doing-harm.308788/
Thread '"Facilitated communication" is thriving.' https://internationalskeptics.com/forums/threads/facilitated-communication-is-thriving.300233/
Thread ''Facilitated Communication' on 20/20 tonight' https://internationalskeptics.com/forums/threads/facilitated-communication-on-20-20-tonight.227634/
Thread 'Jemma Leech/Facilitated Communication?' https://internationalskeptics.com/forums/threads/jemma-leech-facilitated-communication.111181/
Thread 'Court Rejects Facilitated Communication Case' https://internationalskeptics.com/f...ejects-facilitated-communication-case.108600/
Thread 'facilitated communication/Carly's World (Autism)' https://internationalskeptics.com/f...ted-communication-carlys-world-autism.107417/
Thread 'TIME Magazine and facilitated communication' https://internationalskeptics.com/forums/threads/time-magazine-and-facilitated-communication.56718/
Thread 'Facilitated Communication' https://internationalskeptics.com/forums/threads/facilitated-communication.47035/
Thread 'facilitated communication' https://internationalskeptics.com/forums/threads/facilitated-communication.42865/

It's almost as if this whole topic was known to people prior to this thread being started!

 

[Darat]

Just to answer your question, the information needed would be Woody's clinically diagnosed intellectual level of comprehension (i.e., learning ability) and what reasonable adjustments does he need for his severe neurological disability/disabilities in order to sit exams and write dissertations. As a private individual, he doesn't have to reveal personal medical stuff but it'd be useful for future similarly disabled people, and maybe even initiate better inventions to improve communication.

Further evidence that you lied.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Just to answer your question, the information needed would be Woody's clinically diagnosed intellectual level of comprehension (i.e., learning ability) and what reasonable adjustments does he need for his severe neurological disability/disabilities in order to sit exams and write dissertations. As a private individual, he doesn't have to reveal personal medical stuff but it'd be useful for future similarly disabled people, and maybe even initiate better inventions to improve communication.

What does that have to do with whether or not the mom is just making stuff up?

 

[arthwollipot]

Again - and apparently this needs to be said multiple times. We are not disputing Woody's diagnosis. We are disputing the pseudoscientific practice of Facilitated Communication, by which his mother claims to be passing on genuine messages from him.

 

[junkshop]

Again - and apparently this needs to be said multiple times. We are not disputing Woody's diagnosis. We are disputing the pseudoscientific practice of Facilitated Communication, by which his mother claims to be passing on genuine messages from him.

Yes, this is obvious, and I believe that Vixen is fully aware of this. That is why I find her incessant performative misapprehension so ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ annoying. I don't believe that Vixen is as incapable of parsing the English language as is the persona she choses to present.

Of course, I may be wrong.

 

[angrysoba]

I think the problem is that regardless of how performatively going along with the story some poster is here, it really isn't different from the way that the New York Times and Guardian have been going along with it.

I honestly thought it was possible that the writer of the OP article was signalling that he didn't believe the story and was trying to make it obvious without being explicit.

Yet, if that was true, why is it that a week after, there is this gushing review in the same media outlet?

As for Brown, his story arc as a novelist is just getting started, and it’s hard to imagine a more vertiginous lift-off than this. His book is flawed in the way that most good first novels are flawed: it overexplains, provides too much exposition and information. That’s a common failing in debut authors and surely doubly so for one who has spent his whole life off the page trying to make himself understood. But Upward Bound is also funny and moving and ringing with life; a book that embraces the difficulty and contradictions of its subject matter. It’s the garrulous, charming story of a young man who can’t speak, and an inclusive, friendly guide to the overlooked and the isolated. One obvious measure of great fiction is its ability to transport you to a whole other world. Sometimes the world contains spacemen, dragons and amazing talking trains. Sometimes it’s one that’s right under your nose.

Link

Surely their editors must have been made aware of the doubts around the interview. Why would they just publish a credulous review like this?

Then again, these are the outlets that will publish credulous UFO stories as well.

 

[Pixel42]

Just to answer your question, the information needed would be Woody's clinically diagnosed intellectual level of comprehension (i.e., learning ability) and what reasonable adjustments does he need for his severe neurological disability/disabilities in order to sit exams and write dissertations. As a private individual, he doesn't have to reveal personal medical stuff but it'd be useful for future similarly disabled people, and maybe even initiate better inventions to improve communication.

The additional information that is both necessary and sufficient to determine whether it's Woody or his mother who is the originator of the text can only be obtained by the sort of simple experiment which has been explained to you several times. Until and unless such an experiment is carried out, precedent strongly suggests the working assumption must be that it is his mother.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

I think the problem is that regardless of how performatively going along with the story some poster is here, it really isn't different from the way that the New York Times and Guardian have been going along with it.

I honestly thought it was possible that the writer of the OP article was signalling that he didn't believe the story and was trying to make it obvious without being explicit.

Yet, if that was true, why is it that a week after, there is this gushing review in the same media outlet?



Link

Surely their editors must have been made aware of the doubts around the interview. Why would they just publish a credulous review like this?

Then again, these are the outlets that will publish credulous UFO stories as well.

I saw that review the weekend and my first reaction was to make a complaint to the editor that it's facilitating what is effectively child abuse by the mother for her own profit.

 

[steenkh]

Just to answer your question, the information needed would be Woody's clinically diagnosed intellectual level of comprehension (i.e., learning ability) and what reasonable adjustments does he need for his severe neurological disability/disabilities in order to sit exams and write dissertations. As a private individual, he doesn't have to reveal personal medical stuff but it'd be useful for future similarly disabled people, and maybe even initiate better inventions to improve communication.

I don't see the relevance of Woody's clinically diagnosed intellectual level of comprehension as long as his mother is writing his dissertations.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I think the problem is that regardless of how performatively going along with the story some poster is here, it really isn't different from the way that the New York Times and Guardian have been going along with it.

I honestly thought it was possible that the writer of the OP article was signalling that he didn't believe the story and was trying to make it obvious without being explicit.

Yet, if that was true, why is it that a week after, there is this gushing review in the same media outlet?



Link

Surely their editors must have been made aware of the doubts around the interview. Why would they just publish a credulous review like this?

Then again, these are the outlets that will publish credulous UFO stories as well.

Editorial decision. The mother is almost to a certainty making it all up herself. Can they prove it? No. Well then run with it as-is. That way you get two stories out of it. The "triumph over adversity" now, and if evidence emerges you get the "world is shocked" story later, made more impactful by your setting her on a pedestal in the first story.

 

[Darat]

Editorial decision. The mother is almost to a certainty making it all up herself. Can they prove it? No. Well then run with it as-is. That way you get two stories out of it. The "triumph over adversity" now, and if evidence emerges you get the "world is shocked" story later, made more impactful by your setting her on a pedestal in the first story.

Yep, as ever what is being chased is "engagement", doesn't matter whether it is immoral humans or an amoral algorithm it all boils down to the same metric.

 

[arthwollipot]

Now, if I were to be charitable, and I should be, I would say that Woody's mum genuinely believes that she is interpreting his actual intentions, and the product is akin to the ideomotor effect, like a ouija board. Such illusions can be pretty convincing. I believe that there are some purported psychics out there who don't realise that what they are doing is simply cold reading, and that they are genuinely getting messages from dead people.

However, for it to have come this far, that hypothesis is unlikely. More likely is that Mum absolutely knows what she is doing, and is continuing to do it because after this long and pushing it this far, admitting the lie is practically impossible. She may have some underlying psychological syndrome where she is unable to take credit for the creative work that she attributes to her son, but since her mental health has never been under scrutiny, it's impossible to say for sure.

 

[zooterkin]

As I said, I am willing to wait until I have ALL the information.

Here's some more information about RPM (which differs subtly, but not meaningfully, from Facilitated Communication).
A statement on Rapid Prompting Method by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Society.

It is the position of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) that use of the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) is not recommended because of prompt dependency and the lack of scientific validity. Furthermore, information obtained through the use of RPM should not be assumed to be the communication of the person with a disability.

Since you're clinging to the method differing from the description of FC in wikipedia, they also have this to say:

RPM bears considerable similarity to Facilitated Communication (FC)—also called "Assisted Typing," "Facilitated Communication Training," and "Supported Typing"—and FC is a pseudoscientific technique that has been discredited, disproven, and found harmful (see ASHA, 2018; Schlosser et al., 2014). Both RPM and FC are "facilitator"-dependent techniques (i.e., techniques that involve the person with the disability being dependent upon a "facilitator" to produce a message; Tostanoski, Lang, Raulston, Carnett, & Davis, 2014). These techniques ostensibly are designed to provide access to alphabet/letter/word boards or speech-generating devices for communication or education. In RPM, the instructor typically does not physically guide the hands of the individual but, rather, holds the letter board and provides repeated verbal, auditory, visual, and/or tactile prompts. See Table 1 for a comparison of characteristics of RPM with those of FC.

...The use of RPM or other "facilitator"-dependent techniques is not consistent with the communication rights of autonomy and freedom of expression and prevents access to the person's human right of communication (Chan & Nankervis, 2014). It must not be assumed that messages produced via RPM or any other "facilitator"-dependent technique (e.g., FC) reflect the communication of the person with a disability. ...

Rapid Prompting Method (RPM)

It is the position of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) that use of the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) is not recommended because of prompt dependency and the lack of scientific validity. Furthermore, information obtained through the use of RPM should not be assumed to be the...

www.asha.org

 

[Vixen]

Here's some more information about RPM (which differs subtly, but not meaningfully, from Facilitated Communication).
A statement on Rapid Prompting Method by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Society.


Since you're clinging to the method differing from the description of FC in wikipedia, they also have this to say:

Rapid Prompting Method (RPM)

It is the position of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) that use of the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) is not recommended because of prompt dependency and the lack of scientific validity. Furthermore, information obtained through the use of RPM should not be assumed to be the...

www.asha.org

Just leaning in to correct your error. The case on which ASHA bases its warning, as does the American Psychological Society, is that of a man with severe learning difficulty as well as having severe cerebral palsy. 50% of cerebral palsy cases involve intellectual impairment. The criticism there is based on a LEGAL CASE in which the family of the aforesaid specific individual sued a woman, whom they accused of sexually abusing him because they argued he could not have consented. The defendant got some medic to apply FC and she instructed the poor chap to "Tell them you love me" with someone moving his arm or hand.

This has NOTHING, zippo, nada, zilch, to do with a neurodivergent student (and UCLA and Columbia will be well aware of ASHA's disability no-no edicts) with high intelligence and who, albeit with motor-coordination issues, is able to move. Please can people get their facts straight.

 

[arthwollipot]

Who measured his intelligence, and how?

 

[Vixen]

Who measured his intelligence, and how?

This is information we don't have, which is why it might be wise to find out more. Intelligence can be measured by brainwave reaction, just so you know.

 

[arthwollipot]

This is information we don't have, which is why it might be wise to find out more.

Then why do you so confidently proclaim that he has high intelligence? You can't possibly know that.

Intelligence can be measured by brainwave reaction, just so you know.

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

At best, brainwave monitoring is a research tool, not a diagnostic one. Also, you don't have any evidence that it has been used to measure intelligence in this case.

 

[Vixen]

Then why do you so confidently proclaim that he has high intelligence? You can't possibly know that.


◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

At best, brainwave monitoring is a research tool, not a diagnostic one. Also, you don't have any evidence that it has been used to measure intelligence in this case.

Columbia Uni requires an independent medical assessment.

General Guidelines For Disability Documentation | Columbia Health https://share.google/wcy6bCguNR09aiHMo