Saturday, January 28, 2017

Here's a review of pro-Applied-Behavior-Analysis Temple Grandin's (1984): "My experiences as an autistic child and review of selected literature."

Here's a review of pro-ABA, hot-air-motor-mouth, sell-out, traitor to the actually autistic, Temple Grandin's (1984): "My experiences as an autistic child and review of selected literature." He or she knows squat about actual Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) in practice, as it occurs.

Sources she used such as those found in the following block quote show that this paper was Grandin’s (1984, p. 149) version of the Leo Kanner's (1943) currently-debunked claim that heartless "refrigerator mothers" cause autism.
Monkeys raised in total isolation would rock and engage in stereotyped behavior, whereas monkeys kept in single cages where they could see and hear other monkeys and were allowed four hours of play daily with another monkey, had a much lower frequency of abnormal behavior (Floeter and Greenough, 1979). Thirty- three percent of kittens which were blindfolded with cloth hoods at birth developed stereotyped walking by the fourth month of life (Korda, 1978). A child raised in a barren environment developed similar behaviors. Genie, a child who was kept under extreme sensory and emotional deprivation for 131/2 years, had many autistic behaviors. "Genie is an 'appositional' thinker, visually and tactily [sic - error left intact - correct: tactilely] oriented, better at holistic than sequential analytic thinking." (Curtiss, 1977).
In the fashion of misjudgmental ABA, she called body-rocking problematic stereotyped behavior (Grandin, 1984, pp. 149, 150, 153, 156...) She also said that autistics have "disordered behaviors" (p. 167).

Grandin (1984, p. 149) called the combination of painful shock and gentle handling "beneficial" to animals. She said, "A variety of tactual, motor and kinesthetic stimulation is beneficial to young animals. Levine (1960) found that infant rats subjected to 'both painful shocks and gentle handling enhance the development of normal stress responses in infant animals.'" Nor did she object to animal restraint. She said (1984, pp. 154-55), "This may be similar to the pressure hypnosis response described by Takagi (1956) [sic - error intact - correct: Takagi (1954)] The restraining chute must be sturdy and it must hold the animal firmly. Otherwise, the animal will fight and attempt to escape." She seemed to favor both of these aversive techniques in the context that her fellow researchers used them.


Furthermore, Grandin supports ABA interventions elsewhere. See her co-authored ABA statement in Adams et al. (2004/2012).
Today, ABA programs are widely accepted, and the American Medical Association and the US Surgeon General recommend ABA therapy for children with autism. ABA programs are most effective when started early (before age 5 years), but they can also be helpful to older children. They are especially effective in teaching non-verbal children how to talk.... Parents are encouraged to obtain training in ABA, so that they can provide it themselves and/or help supervise other providers. Board-Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBA’s) are often available, and there are often workshops on how to provide ABA therapy.
She concluded, in a typical ABA unethical, misjudgmental, and coercive manner, that "As research progresses, the findings will probably indicate that many mental disorders which were previously thought to be due to some vague 'psychic injury' are real physiological problems which can be either cured or controlled [italics added]. Exciting research is being conducted on the brain." (Grandin, 1984, p. 169)

We autistic adults who are emancipated from ABA strongly object to the behavior control and to the autism-is-a-disease-to-cure arguments.

B. F. Skinner, the predominant founder of ABA, discovered the phenomenon he called Operant Conditioning: The presentation and removal of appetitive and aversive stimuli and events soon after "organisms emit responses" will increase or decrease the probabilities of the reoccurrence of the reinforced or punished behaviors during similar circumstances in the future. This explains why we return to sushi restaurants if we loved them the first time we tried one, and why we avoid them if the sushi had made us vomit.

In the following YouTube audio recording, Skinner accepts a lifetime achievement award from the American Psychological Association (APA) and lambasts cognitive methods in front of what had become a heavily cognitive, as opposed to a behavioral, society. This Reward and Consent blogger sometimes likens ABA to a nuclear bomb. Just because we know how to use it, that doesn't mean we should. ABA, however, is decidedly a behavior controlling way of life among its members.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) shows that Behavioral and Cognitive Psychology are not mutually exclusive. However, the two ways of knowing have frequently clashed.

Watch here:

Grandin (1984) is not a behavioral analytic paper. Nor does she demonstrate here any strong comprehension of behavioral science, ethics, or general philosophy. It is questionable whether or not she does indeed know, technically, the way ABA is supposed to work. Further investigation by this blogger is due. Perhaps she'll do an interview with him one day. Her arguments related to her book Thinking in Pictures are clearly of Cognitive Psychology in nature, a science which obviously depends upon on the reports of the actual thinkers in order to try to get a picture of their internal thinking states, which Behavioral Psychology poses as bad science.

In the following video, Grandin spoke about the autistic "mind." However, Skinner would have attacked her for "mentalism," or for using the "fictional" notion that an autonomous "mind" accounts for the cause of behavior, a notion which interferes with his explanation, that the three factors which determine our actions are 1) our genetic histories as manifested in all human and non-human behaving organism bodies, 2) our histories of lifetimes of experiences in the environments which surround us, and 3) the current situations in which we "operate" upon the environment, which in turn acts upon our propensity to behavior in a certain manner in similar circumstances in the future. See, for example, Skinner's (1950) argument against "mentalistic" psychology in "Are theories of learning necessary?"

Even though she may not know much about how ABA works, technically, Grandin did sound very much like a so-called "ABA therapist" in this presentation when she asked her audience, "Did I hear a cell phone that I'd like to step on and crush it like a roach?" But it does not take much background in ABA to behave in typical ABA fashion—full of punitive coercion.


Please note: Grandin buys ads with ABA publications, she's a researcher like them, and birds of a feather flock together, like flies to fly paper.

On the internet a company is selling her "Squeeze Machine" invention which she promotes in this paper for $4525. This Reward and Consent blog author is concerned that, although Grandin would have voluntarily consented to restraining herself in her own Squeeze Machine, that parents and so-called "therapists" would use her self-control contraption as an inescapable ABA "time out" prison on actually autistic children, for Grandin (1992) said in "Calming effects of deep touch pressure in patients with autistic disorder, college students, and animals,"
Recently I operated a cattle-restraining chute that was fitted with hydraulic controls; these provide more precise control over the amount of pressure and the speed of movement of the apparatus. Any sudden jerky movement caused animals to jump and become agitated. If pressure was applied slowly, many animals would remain passive and not resist. Squeezing in a smooth steady motion, required less pressure to keep the animal still. This chute was equipped also with a head restraint yoke, which would rise up under the animal's chin after the body was restrained. Some cattle would fight the chin yoke by keeping their heads in a crooked position, which made it impossible to restrain them fully. Sudden bumping often caused the animal to resist. By gently pressing the yoke against them, l found that wild cattle would straighten their necks and place their chin in the curved part of the yoke. When the animal moved into position, the pressure could be increased, and the head was brought up into the restrained position with very little pressure. None of these animals pulled their head out of the yoke or even tried. At all times, pressure was applied firmly.

Adams and Socha (2012) also criticized Grandin in a book chapter they called “Shocking into submission: Suppressive practices and use of behavior modification on nonhuman animals, people with disabilities and the environment.”
The other justification for using shocks on people with disabilities is not just because they are equated to nonhuman animals, but because they have disabilities. It seems that for Lovaas, Israel and others who support the use of aversives, these practices are morally, ethically and scientifically acceptable because they are the last resorts in bringing the “deviant” back to something mirroring normality. But disability rights and autism self-advocates continue to ask: What is normal, and why should they be forced to comply with these standards? Why, to put it bluntly, shouldn’t neurotypicals be shocked into understanding the premise and promise of biodiversity? 
Temple Grandin (2005) [sic - correct: (2006)], an autistic person and an animal scientist, uses examples of her own manifestations of autism to explain her understanding of animal behavior. Grandin writes, “Autism is a kind of way station on the road from animals to humans, which puts autistic people like me in a perfect position to translate ‘animal talk’ into English” (p. 6). Throughout the book, Grandin makes connections between animal genius and autistic genius, as well as their respective responses to pain. Here, she address the topic of fear:
Autistic people have so much natural fear and anxiety—I’m almost comfortable saying it's universal—that when they're young they can be like little wild animals ... No one would call an autistic child feral today, but the word is a pretty accurate description of the way a lot of these children—not all, but quite a lot—appeared to normal people who never dealt with them before. (p. 192)
Grandin is further problematic from an animal rights/liberation perspective, as she uses her supposed trans-species communicative abilities to design slaughterhouses. (We say “supposed” because the validity of Grandin’s work connecting animal and autistic cognition has been questioned [Vallortigara et al. (2008)]). 
Working with the American Meat Institute and within federal guidelines, Grandin is credited with improving the way “food” animals are slaughtered, thereby peddling the paradoxical concept of “humane slaughter.” Just as she reinforces the supposition that those with autism are not complete beings, her work in the slaughterhouses does the same with nonhumans who must be incomplete if humans have the natural right to dominate and eat them. Grandin’s work is dangerous because, as an animal voice by proxy that people actually listen to, she is reinforcing the human/animal binary with the message that nonhumans don’t dislike being killed as much as they would like to have somewhat better lives before the inevitable bullet to the brain or knife to the throat. Her work is part of a trend in welfarist animal activism that makes consumers feel better about eating animals and their byproducts. However, the problem is that while Grandin is arguing that animals deserve better treatment, she is not challenging hierarchy and domination, and until those concepts are confronted, the shock and slaughter of humans and nonhumans will continue in a bid to make everyone “normal,” and this includes all of nature.

I fell off the monkey bars and became a proud schizophrenic.

I fell off the monkey bars as a young boy when an encyclopedia salesman was in our house, said Mom. How did that happen? Well I'm too embarrassed to say. Then she told him, "Quick. Look up concussion." He couldn't. She said, "Get out of my house!"

Then J. P. said, "Let's play Chutes and Ladders." I refused.

Then I became a schizophrenic, possibly due to the fall. We have one personality each and we're rarely dangerous, with no thanks to Alfred Hitchcock, false myth-maker, director of Psycho, which is a very bad word to us, as it hurts our feelings, believe it or not, like it or not.

Then I met the autistic Neurodiversity Movement. Then I met Mad Pride. Now I am so happy I'm a schizophrenic who voluntarily takes his meds, which work very well for me.

I'm still a pathetic monkey, when it comes to monkey business.

Friday, January 27, 2017

A harmless schizophrenic man with paranoia in remission sees Donald Trump's rambling CIA speech and calls him a dangerous, provocative, grandiose, paranoid sociopath with religious pathology.

January 21, 2017. Trump rambles on and on, nonsensically at times, in his speech to the CIA, especially when he indicates he's gonna "keep the oil" as he attacks ISIS. "Maybe we'll have another chance" to take it from the MidEast, he said. Here he provokes terrorist networks and empowers them to recruit more followers, no doubt.

Disorganized speech is one of his clear signs of paranoid sociopathic pathology. Look at this office from the movie about John Nash, the "renowned" schizophrenic Princeton University Mathematics professor. Ron Howard, A Beautiful Mind director, captured the nature of our disorganized thinking, as reflected in our behaviors and speech patterns.

Schizophrenics have only one personality each and we are rarely dangerous—despite the completely false and the wildly-exaggerated myths about us. Psychiatry ought to change this label and we'll tell them what they can call us, instead of the other way around. They know the word causes us stigma, but they don't fix it. Why not? They know it harms us. And you can't blame the public for thinking we have split personalities. The word derives into "split brain" or "split mind," from the original Greek root words. We're nothing of the sort. It must be intent. Psychiatry wants the public to fear us. Otherwise, they'd change the label. We've asked, and they won't. They make big money locking us up into abusive institutions against our will, whether we need it or not. This is a felony and it's called "false imprisonment" when we're so often obviously completely harmless to ourselves and others. They need the public to fear us, in order to profit. What else could explain it? Nevertheless, a paranoid sociopath like Trump is dangerous, as so we may opine, with evidence to support the argument.

Therefore, I know a paranoid man when I see one. Psychiatry has no clue about how it feels to be us. Common sense folk wisdom dictates this undeniable fact. So we are the best authority on the relative sanity vs. insanity of Donald Trump, not the medical profession, and not the PhD psychologists. This only follows, and logically so. So it's with the utmost epistemological (philosophy of knowing) confidence of first-hand experience with my own severe mental illness that I can say it, and I can be sure when I say it, that Donald Trump is a paranoid man. And so is the USA's international spy agency chock-full-o' honest-to-goodness lunatics, no doubt. History shows us how vicious they are. This is no secret, not any more top than the unquestioned fact that Pope Frances is a Catholic is the utmost form and classified information, privy only to them. Anyhow, I'm in remission. He's full blown. Trump needs to take his antipsychotics and so do his CIA spies. It's no coincidence that he spoke to them first. That's what an extreme nutcase of a president would do, my friends.

Moreover, and as a note on the side, it's a well-known fact among the public-at-large, -writ-large, that Forced Psychiatry and Forced Behavioral Psychology are an equally-harsh pair of extremely-dangerous, clearly-diagnosable severe mental illnesses, but not according to their falsifiable bibles and ethics codes, only ours. This is no secret, either. The Mad Pride and the NeuroDiversity Autism Pride Survivor Movements have published reams of anecdotal evidence self-reports on the PTSD traumas they cause us, but this is a matter of importance for another set of posts. 

Nonetheless, other SchizoTribe features Donald Trump exhibits are his grandiosity, his religiosity, and his finding of enemies where enemies don't lurk and I elaborate more below.

In this speech he said, "As you know I have a running war with the media. They are among the most dishonest human beings on Earth.... I always call them, 'the dishonest media,' ... although they did treat me nicely on that speech yesterday."

To his CIA audience he said, "The military gave us tremendous percentages of votes.... and probably almost everybody in this room voted for me, but I will not ask you to raise your hands if you did," (laughter) "but I would guarantee a big portion, because we're all on the same wavelength, folks. We're all on the same wavelength. Right? (Trump points out to the audience.) He knows. It took Brian (He points again.) about thirty seconds to figure that one out. Right? Because we know. We're on the save wavelength. (Points.) But we're gonna do great things. We're gonna do great things...."

This "wavelength" chatter sounds eerily similar to what my psychiatrists called my grandiose ideas of reference, my thinking, for example, that if a television anchorman mentioned the word "doorknob" as I was turning one myself when the TV set was active in my mother's room, that then the news station must have intended to communicate that message about me to me. When that happened, I could read into myself with an element of doubt into the delusion, thankfully, for I'm fortunate for such a doubt when others don't have it, necessarily, and I take a PRN burst of my antipsychotic (as needed) as prescribed by my doctor or psychiatric nurse practitioner on a just-in-case basis. That's why I don't own a TV.

Of course, one can argue that Trump is so "huge," as he says, and so famous, that he's not falsely grandiose in his thinking, but note that throughout this speech that the business of the President of United States of America, a constitutional democratic republic, is more about him than it is about anyone else, according to how he reports his own episodes. That is his mental illness speaking, no doubt to me, although currently still, a valid argument can go in a different direction, that his disorder is Narcissism rather than some kind of pathologically paranoid delusional disorder.

Only time will tell. If I'm right, then sooner or later it will be obvious to everyone. That's how it works with us. Unmedicated, we can get indubitable, glaring, acute delusional episodes, so be on the lookout. He would push his finger directly down the nuclear bomb buttons all by himself if he could, which he said he's willing to do, were it not for our USA go-betweens who would or would not do it for him after he issued an order that would annihilate the species, should they comply. Hopefully THEY will consult some psychiatrists about Donald Trump now, before it's too late, the personnel who might or might not follow his orders in case of such a potential calamity. A little bird in Asbury Park, New Jersey told me last month that that's precisely what they would do. The military go-betweens would interfere with his crazy order, Polly said, and the upper and lower mandibles of that special bird beak calmed my fears, as it can my readers' anxiety over this.

He went on in his first post-inauguration address: "You know when I was young and when I was - of course, I feel young. I feel like I'm thirty, thirty-five, thirty-nine. Somebody said, 'Are you young?' I said, 'I think I'm young.' You know I was stopping ahh when we were in the final month of that campaign - four stops, five stops, seven stops, speeches, speeches, before twenty-five, thirty thousand people, fifteen thousand, nineteen thousand from stop to stop. I feel young. When I was young and I think we're all sort of young. When I was young, we were always winning things in this country...."

Speaking of his rainy Inauguration Day weather, he also said in what could be a bizarre grandiose religiosity, "God looked down and He said, 'We're not gonna let it rain on your speech.' "

He implied that the Devil's at work and he's going to stop him when he said, "We've been restrained. We have to get rid of ISIS. We have to get rid of ISIS. We have no choice. Radical Islamic terrorism, and I said it yesterday, has to be eradicated just off the face of the Earth. This is evil. This is evil. And you know I can understand the other side. We can all understand the other side. There can be wars between countries. There can be wars. You can understand what happened. This is something nobody can even understand. This is a level of evil that we haven't seen and you're going to go to it and you're going to do a phenomenal job, but we're going to end it. It's time. It's time right now to end it."

Then he goes on to attack the media even more, and if you watch it to the end, you can decide for yourselves, my friendly readers. Wear an MD's white psychiatry robe. Add a red nose over your regular nose. Then put a stethoscope to his head, listen inside his coconut, and analyze him for his relative degree of nuttiness, please.


See also: Altier(i) (November 13, 2016): Is sociopath Trump as pathologically paranoid as I was? Did HE hack the vote he insisted Clinton "rigged?"

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Aktion Mensch defunds Applied Behavior Analysis programs in Germany.

We autistic and schizophrenic people have great news today from the German group who uses the Twitter hashtag #NoABA. Aktion Mensch defunds Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) programs in Germany.

I quote from a German Twitter follower. "Hi Dave, #FragtWarum (autistic people and their allies/ supporters) were successful. After two years of protest against funding of ABA based Intervention @aktion_mensch will not do it again. That's great news today."

Aktion Mensch has 61,700 Twitter followers. It's a disability group. They're finally backing us up!

Aktion Mensch is NOT governed by people with disabilities the way we lead our own Centers for Independent Living here in the USA. It's "probably a combination of different organizations such as the German Red Cross," says the autistic source of this news from Germany.

Bankers and child welfare people manage the German group. They raise money by selling non-profit lottery tickets and by other means and then they fund groups

Funds get distributed in this manner, she says, "To the people who bought into the tickets and to organizations who submit requests for funding their projects which could be anything for disabled people."

She also said, "At present (since 2014 until May this year) an institution for autism research (called IFA, providing ABA-based interventions) requested funds for their current ABA-based project. In the past, other institutions received funds for their ABA-projects, too."

See also this Facebook page for another news article on the unfunding of ABA Aktion Mensch.


We autistic adults in the Neurodiversity Movement can tell the parents of our very young peers what we need. It's not ABA. We all concur, those of us who have been freed from its traumatic coercions.

Here the United Nations says:

"More investment is needed in services and research into removing societal barriers and misconceptions about autism. Autistics persons should be recognized as the main experts on autism and on their own needs, and funding should be allocated to peer-support projects run by and for autistic persons."

Yet Google Scholar "'Applied Behavior Analysis' autism deviance",  and tonight Google retrieves 129 results.

So it's not the parents' fault. ABA wants them to be afraid of our diagnosis. Otherwise it would go broke. ABA uses ABA on parents too, and on politicians with at least one Political Action Committee (PAC) we at ABA Leaks have uncovered so far. That's undoubtedly how it gets representatives to approve insurance coverage for this mammoth international behavioral control industry network.

Here is Pamela forced barefoot on an electrified floor in the UCLA ABA lab of O. Ivar Lovaas, ABA Pop, while ABA Grampz is B. F. Skinner, who put his daughter Deb as a baby in a "Skinner Box Air Crib." Skinner's daughters defend this, but examine it in context. ABA treats us autistics like albino lab rats.

Dick Malott, center, is on the Board of Directors of the Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) of ABA's extremely painful electric skin shock. Christmas Eve 2016, on the phone, Dick told this Reward and Consent (R+C) blog author that he would apply skin shock to autistics who body do self-stimulation, specifically body rocking that causes nobody any physical harm, what we need to do to soothe ourselves from ABA coercions. See the story here. ABA provokes, then, the "challenging behaviors" it aims to extinguish. Maria Malott, reputedly divorced from Dick now, is the CEO of the mammoth Ass. for Behavior Analysis International (ABAI). She officially "approves" the JRC as being "aligned" with her ABAI's "mission," her words, as she's supposedly in charge as the CEO. She approved what the UN calls ABA's "torture" after the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network (ASAN) demanded she rescind her statement. See here from this blog. 

Josh Pritchard, Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA), opens a Skinner Box. That looks like an electric grid for rats paws on the floor. He's on the Board of Directors of the JRC of ABA's extremely painful electric skin shock in Canton, Massachusetts. According to this link, he's also an Assistant Professor at Florida Institute of Technology.

Last but not least, is ABA's "most prolific" author, Brian Iwata, who sat as a non-voting member on the Neurological Devices Panel and told the FDA not to ban ABA skin shock devices which the FDA regulates as Neurological Medical Devices. Obama's FDA proposed a ban on these devices, but Obama let it sit and did nothing to finish the ban. Judas Barack Iscariot! Decades ago, Iwata hatched a plot to get ABA behavioral controllers to get parents rather than his peers to lobby for skin shock devices, namely, then his group's invention, the SIBIS, the first skin shock device that Dr. Israel of the Rotenberg Center bought. Why didn't Iwata recuse himself from that panel? Iwata ren a test and claimed his electromechanical head blow detecting skin shock delivering device was better than a hockey helmet. He sold the SIBIS, apparently, with the company his team worked with. Why couldn't he make a better helmet? Not enough money in it? See here and here

Saturday, January 21, 2017

Houston, we have a problem. Dick Malott, Applied Behavior Analysis "aversive therapy" guru, said he'd painfully skin shock autistics for body rocking.

Here Dick Malott says to his students: "Boobs are eyeball magnets for men's eyeballs, all men." This not only offends women, it's also highly homophobic. Gay men are not attracted to women's breasts. ABA has a long history of homophobia (Altieri, 2017). Does he sound like Donald Trump?

 Boobs Blog Part I from Dick Malott on Vimeo.


Houston, we have a problem. Dick Malott, Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) "aversive therapy" guru, said he'd painfully skin shock autistics for body rocking.

What harm body rocking? This autistic self-stimulation physically hurts nobody. According to ABA skin shock promoter and textbook author Dick Malott, body rock is so bad it needs extreme punishment, what the United Nations calls "torture." (Méndez, 2013, p. 85) Malott is a member of the Board of Directors of the Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) of ABA electroshock pain.

ABA is a so-called "science" that adds and removes appetitive and aversive stimuli and events in order to control behaviors, typically autistic behaviors that cause nobody any real physical harm. For example, they will spray water in the face to try to eliminate hand-flapping and other so-called "stereotypical autistic behaviors," which we need to do in order to soothe ourselves under the stress and trauma that ABA provokes in us with its completely-coercive control. See, for example, Wynne (2008).

Experimental and Applied Behavioral Analysis combined is not THE science of behavior as it often demands we say it is. ABA is merely a cruel, pseudo-scientific set of behavioral control models. There are non-ABA behavioral methods that are truly scientific and highly ethical alternatives to ABA. See, for example, my Reward and (dual parent AND child) Consent Cognitive Behavioral (R+C) teaching method in Altieri (March 31, 2016).

An editor of the Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis (JABA) admitted to me in email that ABA has never systematically figured out how to properly judge the behaviors it slates for "acceleration or deceleration to extinction" as good or bad or right or wrong behaviors. Yet is was autistic brilliance that created identity-first language arguing that people already know we're people, so we're not persons with autism. "We're autistics and we're damned proud of being different, so go away and leave us alone, ABA!"

ABA calls us autistic deviants, and yet they appear to have very severe control issues themselves. So who are the deviants here? I ask you.

Parents, unfortunately, typically neither observe nor videotape these trauma-provoking sessions, especially noteworthy on Day One of the power struggles between children and so-called "therapists" when training is most obviously nothing more than submission and control sessions. Children grow up resenting their parents for hiring ABA.

ABA calls its current "skin shock" device the GED, the Graduated Electronic (behavior rate) Decelerator. GED IS NOT ECT. The ECT "brain shock" of psychiatry is not supposed to hurt, but ABA says the GED would not be "effective" if it were not so terribly painful. Matthew Israel himself, JRC founder "Dr. Hurt," has called its shocks "very painful."

Malott and Altieri communicate on the telephone Christmas Eve 2016.

I, David Altier(i), the author of this Reward and Consent blog, called Dick Malott on the telephone December 24, 2016. I told him that the FDA sent our ABA Leaks team member Pam Zich (2016) a document where JRC Director Glenda Crookes (2012, p. 2, par. 3) admitted to the FDA that her multi-million dollar company puts skin shock electrodes on her victims' upper buttocks. Crookes earned $359,311 in total compensation in 2014 (IRS Form 990, p. 7). See also Altier(i) (August 10, 2016). For more on ABA Leaks, see Altier(i) (April 13, 2016).

[Edit note: I added the bulk of this paragraph in the February 22, 2017 update of this blog post, DA.] Anyhow, Dr. Malott is one rare behavioral analyst who has the decency to take my phone calls, so he's not a bad man. The groupthink of this pseudoscience cult causes him to behave immorally along with the rest of his gang of thugs. I believe they are delusional and they really believe they are helping us, even though they clearly do not listen to the actually autistic NeuroDiversity Movement which is up in arms against ABA all throughout our blogosphere with bona fide anecdotal evidence, hard "data" that the sadistic insurance fraudsters, the profiteering pseudoscience cult completely dismisses, emancipated from ABA and parents actually autistic self-reports of ABA-induced trauma, which ABA 'dissemination" teams repeatedly deny is actually taking place, and that's precisely why ABA is nothing less than a gargantuan international criminal fraud network. (See also my Tweets @RewardConsent, our Twitter hashtag #ABALeaks, and the left-hand side archives of this blog where I also support and elaborate on the arguments in this paragraph. See also Fragt Warum in Twitter who led the successful ABA unfunding campaign in Germany under the Twitter hashtag they created, #NoABA, and see the ABA Controversy Autism Discussion UK Facebook page which only began in 2017 and has already won a major ABA unfunding victory, much to the chagrin of our opponents. Other Twitter tags with undeniable data about ABA-induced trauma are #CloseTheJRC, #ABAisAbuse, and #actuallyAutistic.)

So I asked Dick why Crookes shocks the asses. He didn't know we had discovered her admission about that. He said they do move them around.

JRC is on record more than once denying that skin shock causes burns. For example, Jacob Persico and Jay Rosenthal met Mrs. Crookes last year in a meeting Malott and I arranged. Persico showed her a photo of her "client" Andre McCollins' marked up arm, a photo his mother Cheryl McCollins has publicly shared. Crookes denied the marks came from her electrodes. Persico told me that Crooked told him and Rosenthal that her staff caused those marks with her ABA restraint devices and not by her GED devices. She is not in the slightest bit credible to me and this is one reason why.

Andre McCollins'
damaged arm. This is a result of what ABA so-called "ethics experts" call "The Right to Effective Treatment." 

I speculated with Malott that the skin is probably so marked up all over the rest of body that they need to invade private areas. He did not comment. What else could explain why they go onto the ass with extremely painful ABA skin shock electrical surges?

I asked him if he has felt shock. He said he has. I asked him if he voluntarily felt the most powerful device, the GED-4. He said he didn't know if it was the GED-4 or some other shocker, which is hard to believe.

I asked him why he promotes shock. He said, "If they're gouging out their eyes—"

I replied, "Well I agree intervention is needed then," (I didn't take the time to tell Malott that ABA gets it all wrong when it comes to solving a crisis. I would use the crisis management strategy, in the maximally non-punitive and non-reinforcing deescalated Positive Behavioral Supports (PBS) manner Lavigna and Donnellan (1986 Chap. 1, Footnote 1) described. I would never advocates ABA's punitive rat-training ways of shock "torture," that all non-PBS ABA has invented and always thoroughly supported in its complete pseudo-profession network-wide.)

That's ABA's typical and most unethical ABA marketing ploy. It profits immensely when it constantly puts the parents of us autistic people in a panic and paints itself as a life saver, allegedly the only "effective" solution to a potentially horrific self-injurious tragedy and even death. In the meanwhile seven deaths have allegedly taken place at ABA's JRC which Malott leads, including an unborn baby allegedly dead while under ABA/JRC Malott's so-called "care and effective treatment."

Malott and company rarely promote the fact that they administer skin shock because of noncompliance and classroom disruption, but they're quick to "offer" parents and unsuspecting "clients" what they their homepage lists: "1) near zero rejection policy, 2) ABA based treatment plans, 3) elimination or minimilazation of psychotropic medication, 4) state of the art educational software, and 4) powerful and varied reward program" with no mention of ABA Malott's and Crookes multi-million dollar extremely painful skin shock "torture" operation. 

However, when push comes to shove on the witness stand during the FDA's Neurological Devices Panel skin shock ban proposal meeting, JRC spokesman Blenkush Transcript (pp. 144-45) admits to shocking out of seat behavior. See also actually autistic advocate Michelle Dawson's (2009) blog post where she first exposed to the World Wide Web that JRC founder Matthew Israel presented a symposium to his ABA peers at Maria Malott's big fat network she calls the Ass. for Behavioral Analysis International (ABAI) which Rotenberg's Israel entitled: "The use of contingent skin shock in treating behaviors other than aggression and self-abuse." Eventually the Attorney General of Massachusetts indicted Israel on charges of concealing evidence during an investigation into JRC, he copped a plea, and resigned in disgrace only to be replace by Crookes who told me on the phone she's spent almost her entire career at JRC. When I asked her if her job was stressful, she did not deny it. In my opinion, for her own health, she should retire immediately. She could suffer a quick and sudden heart attack at her age under a lifetime of extreme stress.

[Editorial comment. A friendly, but tough note to ABA: I'm not a doctor, though, so Glenda, when you read this, and you told me you monitor my internet activity, if I were you, I would see a cardiologist. I don't hate you. I love everyone and everyone eventually loves me, in my way of life. And get some decent non-ABA therapy for God's sakes! You too, Malott! So you can understand how evil it seems you've been and save us and yourselves! Got it? Get real! Get a job! Get a life! You, too, Pritchard, Florida State University huge ABA program assistant professor, ABA/JRC skin shock advocate and U.N. stated skin shock "torture" board member! Leave us alone! DA]

Before re-joining the ABA cult, ex-ABA dissident Dusty Jones told me that Maria is Dick's divorcée. Now that is no surprise.

[Update February 22, 2017. Now there are no known ABA dissidents inside ABA. They made him conform like they do the entire cult, one can easily argue. Dusty Jones temporarily quit ABA, told me on the phone they kick out the good ones, and then returned to ABA. I knew another ABA dissident, but I lost contact with her, but she was under their thumb then. They forced her to comply with BACB professional sanctions, taking extra coursework, I believe she told me, after they punished her for adopting an autistic person, so she told me, as I recall now about five years after Facebooking with her when she told me this. She said she would sue eventually BACB, but that's all I remember now. Anyhow, Jones once privately defended me to about eight of the administrators of the Applied Behavior Analysis Facebook group who had ostracized me without ever telling me what I said that was such a big sin. Maria Malott's Ass. for Behavioral Analysis International Facebook group did exactly the same thing soon after I exposed the fact that ABAI officially "approves" skin shock after they had told me in private message that they had no position on the shock. This is a snapshot of my exposure of ABAI's own official "approval of skin shock" that led ABAI's Facebook profile to claim I was dishonest about them. And then when I asked Maria Malott and company to tell me what I actually said that was so offensive to her group, she fell forever silent with me.]

[Here's the snapshot of my post to Maria Malott's ABAI Facebook where I exposed ABAI to its own members for officially approving skin shock, what the United Nations calls "torture." The person who took up the challenge defended skin shock in a round about way by not ruling it out as one of their options. I argued that there is no good time to do it and I supported the argument with LaVigna's PBS sworn testimony in opposition opposition to JRC's skin shock. After more than 25 years of study, the consensus of opinion of Positive Behavior Support (PBS) practitioners, theoretically, but not in practice, the gentle sister profession to ABA, as reported under pain and penalty of perjury by Gary LaVigna (Affidavit, 2013, p. 3, #4), is that (coercive) punishment technique is unnecessary and therefore unethical. All she did was try to defend skin shock by not ruling it out and I easily beat them in Behavioral Ethics debate which I always do. I think she gave up because she realized I knew more about PBS than she did, since PBS is different in may ways from ABA. It's atypical of an ABA pseudo-professional if s/he can demonstrate a knowledge of the complete array of all the alternatives to punishment. Those are the same ones who claim PBS in ineffective, those who learned it, let alone tried it. For example, ABA does not teach how behavior is communication, but actually autistic advocates make this clear and so does PBS. So ABA does not try to understand what a non-verbal autistic person is communicating when it diagnoses what it calls is a so-called "challenging behavior." ABA is the self-proclaimed prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner of behaviors that appear autistic and uses the popular norm of the day standard when it slates them for deceleration and elimination techniques. Note: my one opponent gave up the debate after I gave her just a few of facts and arguments why JRC is extremely unethical. I remained professional and on topic to the group. I did not spam. I was tough and gentle at the same time as readers of this image can see, I suspect. In a day or two she blocked me out of the group. Oddly, when using a friend's Facebook profile, I cannot find this group. Did she shut it down? Why?]

[Update February 22, 2017 continued: Jones sent me a snapshot of his then-friendly appeal to the eight group admins. It's sitting in a bulk folder on my MacBook waiting to be filed, probably. As I recall now, nobody objected when he asked them to let me back in, but they never did. Jones left ABA several months ago 2016, he told me on the phone. He was thinking about becoming a carpenter. He told me on the phone last Christmas Eve 2016 he was returning to ABA in New England, I believe, from Texas, on a long drive. I told him in Facebook messenger how he hurt my feelings because he tells me he "has no interest in publicly thanking" me for reviewing his paper on "rethinking" ABA. He demanded I keep "negative posts," critique of ABA, off his Facebook timeline. I blocked him in Facebook and I blocked his phone number in my free telephone service, Google Voice over internet. ABA has plugged a potentially big leak. I asked him if he would whistleblow Xmas Eve. He said he wouldn't.]

[Here is our Facebook Messenger dialogue verbatim February 21 or 22, 2017:]

[Dave: "Dusty. You didn't acknowledge my review of your work when you published your Rethinking Autism paper. You had me review it before you published it. Why did you never thank me publicly? That hurt my feelings you know. And I do not appreciate extinction attempts. Please answer."]

[Dusty: "Dave, how is your way of doing things so much different thann thowe you condemn? They use electric shock. You use words. You both are seeking to punish something you do not like out of existence. I don't want anymore negative messages on my Facebook page. Please respect my request."]

[Dave: "I asked you first. Answer me. I'll answer you next.Why did you never thank me publicly?]

[Dusty: About publishing your review? I have no interest in thanking you publicly. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.]

[Chat Conversation End]

[(If he was truly sorry, he was have thanked me as I had asked. I blocked him on the spot. Plus, I didn't tell him I published a review of his paper. I never did and never will. He had asked me to review his paper, critique it, give him feedback before he published it. That's precisely what I did for him over the phone when we had been amicable. That's what I was asking him to do. He never acknowledged my contribution to his work. A betrayal happens when you put your trust in someone and then they turn sour on you. That's how he made me feel: betrayed by the one guy inside ABA I thought I could trust.)]

Dick Malott center. Maria Malott right. Old picture.

Anyhow, back to Dick. So I asked Malott: "What about autistic body rocking?" 

He said he would shock body rocking. I asked him why. He said, and I paraphrase, "To help them function better in society later on in life."

I replied, "Did you ever think about teaching our age peers to accept our differences rather than shocking us?" He had no answer. Then I said, "What about consent? What about dissent? Couldn't you even ask these adults and children if they want to receive your shock abuse?"

Then I hung up on him without saying good bye.


Old Dick Malott, BCBA used to carry the title Board Certified Behavioral Analyst (BCBA), but he's currently listed here as just Dick Malott without it. (Retrieved January 21, 2017). I'll ask him why he's listed without his old title the next time we chat, if he'll ever take my call again. Lol.


ABA "food-deprives" this rat in an Experimental Behavioral Analysis (EBA) Skinner Box. Otherwise, when "satiated" it will not press the lever for the morsels of food it continually doles out, as in Discrete Trial Training (DTT) for autistics. It also awaits its extremely painful electric skin shock. This is why ABA wants children underfed when they "treat" them and this is how ABA "learned" how to shock gays in the 1960s and 1970s and still us autistics


Afterthought. Denouement.

ABA gives its opponents the label "counter-controllers." Then it says we're bad people because we oppose them. Nope! That's the pot calling the kettle black. ABA is bad. Not us, as so we assert and document.

Copyright and disclaimers

Reward and Consent , © is January 15, 2007 to the current date. All rights reserved (and stuff like that). E-mail me for permission to reproduce in part or in full. Please link to and cite passages quoted or paraphrased from here.

Reward and Con
sent is not responsible for links on the site. For example, I use keywords "Operant Conditioning" in the YouTube search field for the videos displayed below the archives on the left. Google selects the videos and the results change from time to time. Please email me if anything is not educational and germane to the subject and I will reevaluate the search.

I am an advocate for people with disabilities certified to teach special education with a Master of Arts in Teaching. I am not a Licensed Psychologist or a Board Certified Behavior Analyst. When in doubt, seek the advice of an MD, a PhD, or a BCBA. My ability to analyze the ethics of ABA stems from the fact that I am disabled and ABA interventions are often done to people like me, which I voluntarily accept, but only when I alone am the person granting consent, and not a parent, sibling, guardian, or institution.