catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 36,831
No "we" didn't agree. You're making stuff up.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Autistic genius novelist woos the literary world with novel composed using "Facilitated Communication"
- Thread starter angrysoba
- Start date
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 36,831
Strawman.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
I don't remember agreeing that, no. FC is only ethical in circumstances where it is shown to actually be working, i.e. when it has been demonstrated that what the facilitator claims the person they are interpreting for is saying is indeed what they are saying. That has yet to be established in the case of Woody and his mother.
It's wrong if what they claim I am communicating is not what I am actually trying to communicate.
Imagine this written very large, perhaps on a billboard or the side of a parked semi-trailer.
And it is wrong if it might deny you access to a method of communication that might actually work.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
William Faulkner once said to wannabe Creative Writers, 'Kill your darlings', by which he meant get rid of fondly held writing tools such as purple prose. Likewise, in the same vein, please let go of your fondly held dogma, re FC=bad. Don't be afraid.
Perhaps the people in the room with you agreed to this but no one here did.
The issue about facilitated communication being "unethical" is because it doesn't work.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
But that's not what the Disability guidelines say. Woody is clearly a bonafide student as far as UCLA and Columbia are concerned. They have ALL the information; we have next to none (except Angry YouTuber).
Or by anyone else claiming to be using facilitated communication - every single time it has been tested it has been shown that the facilitator makes up the communication, their victim is not communicating via their facilitator.
Carrot Flower King
Janitor of Lunacy
you regularly remind us that you have a psychology degree from a UK university, so hows about you take up "your fondly held dogma, re FC = bad" with the BPS:
Just believe: The strange story of Facilitated Communication | BPS
Dr Naomi Fisher looks into incredible claims in a popular podcast, and more…
www.bps.org.uk
NB, this is not, per other posts, "wiki says" etc...
ETA Tl;dr - "Unfortunately, FC has also been completely discredited. In order to test the validity of FC, researchers carried out simple blinded studies. They showed the nonspeaking person one picture and showed their facilitator a different picture. They then asked what was on the picture, using FC. When the facilitator did not know the answer, the nonspeaker could not give a correct answer 100% of the time. When the facilitator and the nonspeaking person were shown the same picture, the FC-generated answer was correct. The conclusion was inescapable; the facilitator had to know the answer to the question in order for the right answer to be generated using FC. Communication generated by FC came from the facilitator, not the nonspeaking person."
Last edited:
There is no dogma of "fc=bad" - there is the fact that it has been shown, time and time again to not work. No one has ever been able to demonstrate one instance of FC working in the 30 odd years it has been around.
Indeed. One might as well suggest I let go of the dogma of thoroughly, objectively disproven quack medicine=bad and really give colloidal silver a chance. Heck, why not Radithor? Or the dogma of cults=bad and go on that dual recruitment retreat with the scientologists and the falun gong.
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Then the disability guidelines are not allowing for FC type delusions/scams.
Once again: that UCLA have either not done their due diligence, or are turning a blind eye for whatever reason, does not alter the facts.
Either they don't have all the information about FC and its history, or they are deliberately ignoring it. You have been given that information, and are deliberately ignoring it, so that's clearly a thing that happens.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, I am aware of the so-called Telepathy Tapes. But Woody's mother is not claiming telepathy. The stuff being referred to is persons with cerebral palsy and who have severe learning difficulty. In addition an article on BPS webpage is one person's view. It's not necessarily the official view. However the official view - which is followed in Disability legislation - is that it is not to be used for such persons. Woody is not such a person.you regularly remind us that you have a psychology degree from a UK university, so hows about you take up "your fondly held dogma, re FC = bad" with the BPS:
Just believe: The strange story of Facilitated Communication | BPS
Dr Naomi Fisher looks into incredible claims in a popular podcast, and more…
NB, this is not, per other posts, "wiki says" etc...
ETA Tl;dr - "Unfortunately, FC has also been completely discredited. In order to test the validity of FC, researchers carried out simple blinded studies. They showed the nonspeaking person one picture and showed their facilitator a different picture. They then asked what was on the picture, using FC. When the facilitator did not know the answer, the nonspeaker could not give a correct answer 100% of the time. When the facilitator and the nonspeaking person were shown the same picture, the FC-generated answer was correct. The conclusion was inescapable; the facilitator had to know the answer to the question in order for the right answer to be generated using FC. Communication generated by FC came from the facilitator, not the nonspeaking person."
BTW please do not bring up any of my personal details without my having brought it up first.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
I had better return my degree then.
Helen
Implicitly explicit
We don't know what kind of person Woody is. Nor do you.
Fc has been used, and is sadly still used, to communicate with non-verbal children with wildly varying disabilities, and it has been shown not to work, over and over, for several decades. It is a method that differs from child to child, or parent to parent, rather; the only thing every case has in common is that it does not work.
There are, on the other hand, nethods that work for nearly all non-verbal children (well, for all actually, but for some, there will never be more than a few words, covering their most basic needs. But that is still better than no words). Woody's mother, whether consciously or not, has denied him the ability to learn duch a method, and with it, the ability to communicate with others. That is tragic.
PK, you are having issues with some of the arguments, but you did not tell us what it would take to change your mind. Can I assume that I was right that nothing can change your mind?
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Almost every post Vixen writes in this thread is a classic example of begging the question. If you ever need an example to point to so that people can understand what "begging the question" means (or at least used to mean before it started meaning "prompts the question") then you can just point them to this thread.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 27,208
I'm unafraid, thanks, and content to remain of the view that the mother uses a method which is notoriously used to produce fraudulent messages and, while it would be easy to prove she was using it honestly, there is no such proof so far.
Carrot Flower King
Janitor of Lunacy
How do you think I know about your qualifications? You've brought them up...
This isn't just "one person's view", as references are made to years of research. And it isn't just about the Telepathy Tapes, as is obvious in the piece. As are the repeated references to autistic folk, NOT just folk with CP or similar, given that the author of the piece works with people with autism.
As has been pointed out ad nauseam in this thread, with references, many folk have been aware of FC for many years and are well aware that it has never, ever been successfully demonstrated to actually work, so the constant refrains of "wiki says", "dogma" and "one person's view" do not hold water and we all know that.
And some of us have worked with autistic folk of varying levels of language use and varying levels of intellectual capacity...Not to mention being very familiar with disability legislation and its requirements.