Saturday, January 28, 2017

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

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 Applied Behavioural Analysis (Analy$i$) (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 Behavioural and Cognitive Psychology are not mutually exclusive. However, the two ways of knowing have frequently clashed.

Watch here:

Grandin (1984) is not a behavioural 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 Behavioural 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 fimmly [sic - correct: 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.

Here's my autobiography embellished into a coconut shell: A monkey falls off the monkey bars to become 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 JP 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, believe 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.

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


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 Mid-East oil, he said. Here he provokes and empowers ISIS to recruit more followers, no doubt.

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

We paranoid schizophrenics have only one personality each and we are rarely dangerous—despite the ignorant, false, and wildly exaggerated myths about us. However, a paranoid sociopath like Trump is dangerous, as so we may opine this with evidence to support the argument.

I know a paranoid man when I see one. Donald Trump is a paranoid man and so is the USA's international CIA spy agency chock-full-o' honest-to-goodness paranoid lunatics, no doubt. Mine is in remission. Trump needs to take his antipsychotics and so do his spies. It seems no coincidence that he spoke to them first.

Other schizo-type features Trump exhibits are his grandiosity, religiosity, and his finding of enemies where enemies don't lurk.

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, no doubt, 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 M.D.'s white psychiatry robe, put a stethoscope to his head, and analyze him for nuttiness, please:

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Here's some great happy news from Germany. A generous lottery group, Aktion Mensch, defunds Applied Behavioural Analysis (ABA) programs.

We autistic and schizophrenic people have great news today from the German group who uses the Twitter hashtag #NoABA. I quote from a German Twitter friend of mine.

"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 organisations 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 behavior 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 of ABA 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 Association 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 demanded she rescind her statement. See here from this blog. 

Josh Pritchard, Board Certified Behavior Analyst, 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 Judge Rotenberg Center of extremely painful electric skin shock in Canton, Massachusetts. According to this link, he's also an Assistant Professor at Florida Institute of Technology.

I remain, yours truly, "Safety Pat the Proud Autistic Schizophrenic Silly Whistleblowing Clown" of Asbury Park streets and Boardwalk. All my friends ask why I do it? To bring attention to my life mission. To rid the world of punishment run amok, starting with those who should know better, ABA, in order to build up, even with ABA as friends, in the end, if they would only shut up and listen to us for a change, the highly-ethical Dual Consent of Parent and Child Cognitive Behavioral Teaching Method (R+C). See here. (We're uni-persons and rarely dangerous, fact, despite the myths about us.)

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 behavior 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

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.