How Not to Talk to Your Kids.

[Mr.Samsa]

Samsa - why not look for work in the field? Get on some discussion boards where people are running programmes? Meet face to face with the academics/professionals at conferences?

I'm telling you straight - you are not 'all that' in terms of understanding the reality, you clearly have not been involved in actually applying what you're reading about.

If you're that interested get involved, sit face to face with people using it, apply it yourself with other people's kids (because hell that makes you think).

I'm confused, Floppit. I'm not just an interested fanboy who has read about ABA and thinks it's the bees knees; I've already earned my qualifications in ABA. I've done work in the area (both in homes and schools, with developmentally disabled people and with "normal" people and with animals), I've met people running these programmes because they are my colleagues, I've been to conferences and presented at conferences, I've read the research and published my own research.

My disagreement with you was not because your experiences disagree with 'what I've read in books', but rather your experiences disagree with my training, my experience, and the experience of every single practitioner I've ever met.

this was my uni supervisor, one of the top guys in the field, in NZ and very approachable by people wishing to learn more and practice ABA.
http://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/oliver-mudford

If you're happy to volunteer at the start and have any space to actually listen rather than just debate I'm sure he'd be glad to here from you and would bear you in mind for families running programmes.

Oliver was one of my teachers too. Interestingly, Oliver was one of the guys who spearheaded the reply to the autism report I mentioned earlier in the thread, where he and colleagues produced a report extensively detailing how ABA differs from DTT.

[floppit]

Well, fair enough. I worked in ABA between 1997 and 2003. I worked for families prior to the needed structure being fully in place - I didn't always agree with Oliver but highly respected him.

I hope with every fibre of my being that things have moved forward because hand on heart every single thing I've written is utterly based on the experiences working with some excellent people but against considerable challenges doing ABA in the community. I've always wished it well both for it's clinical applications and in terms of it's research but it remains something I remember with very mixed feelings. I have ALWAYS believed it to be about the best option where LD remove a more 'natural' course of learning and I would still beg to differ that parents involved with their children's experiences and knowing that behaviour rewarded survives simply apply random pot shots.

As a parent, the things I believe my child has benefited the most from are the times where she is experiencing the world and learning from it, whether that means socially in having a mix of friends and being able to quickly engage new friends, physically in climbing (her favourite), kicking balls with other kids and playing at races, or intellectually in conversation with her, answering her numerous questions and extending her field of awareness by introducing new concepts such as 'blood' and what it does. I have not and will not (until her diction is clear) attempted to teach her to read. She counts but I don't push it, just use the times life throw's a learning experience at her. She's only 3, but even that's a year after some ABA I used to work with would begin, where all the above is removed from a child because of a clinical problem it needs to begin - but I CANNOT even imagine wishing to do so where a child is succeeding without intervention.

I might wish it well but I have concerns and there is a part of me that truly would not like to see it in the hands of parents whose intent it is to hothouse their child.

[floppit]

As a side thought - if you're still in touch with Oliver why not mention this thread to him? I haven't been in touch since he moved to NZ and only rarely after leaving uni because he would attend some home run ABA workshops.

I would be fascinated to hear his take on ABA used where there is no LD or abberant (sp? time's a bugger!) behaviour involved.

[Mr.Samsa]

Well, fair enough. I worked in ABA between 1997 and 2003. I worked for families prior to the needed structure being fully in place - I didn't always agree with Oliver but highly respected him.

I had disagreements with him too. My interest is largely in the experimental side of the field, despite enjoying doing work in the applied field, but I've had a couple of talks with him where he has had a bit of a rant about the "problems" in the experimental side of the field; specifically he thought that the experimental psychologists were coming up with 'complicated' equations just to confuse the applied psychologists, and they were unnecessarily making things hard to understand..

I hope with every fibre of my being that things have moved forward because hand on heart every single thing I've written is utterly based on the experiences working with some excellent people but against considerable challenges doing ABA in the community. I've always wished it well both for it's clinical applications and in terms of it's research but it remains something I remember with very mixed feelings. I have ALWAYS believed it to be about the best option where LD remove a more 'natural' course of learning and I would still beg to differ that parents involved with their children's experiences and knowing that behaviour rewarded survives simply apply random pot shots.

I'm not sure if it's a "time" issue though, and instead I think you've just unfortunately been exposed to some very bad examples of it. And that's certainly possible - whilst I love the field itself, there are simply some idiots in it. One of the main issues is that, like Oliver, many people in ABA are reluctant to study the science behind what they're practicing, and one of the successful practitioners I've talked to (who's a great person and does a good job) told me that she hadn't even opened the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior since she was at university, 30+ years ago...

So my defence of ABA is largely a defence of the field itself and the principles behind it, rather than necessarily how it is applied by a number of people.

As a parent, the things I believe my child has benefited the most from are the times where she is experiencing the world and learning from it, whether that means socially in having a mix of friends and being able to quickly engage new friends, physically in climbing (her favourite), kicking balls with other kids and playing at races, or intellectually in conversation with her, answering her numerous questions and extending her field of awareness by introducing new concepts such as 'blood' and what it does.

Sure, but how does your child figure out what the concept of 'blood' is? You present it in a couple of ways (verbally, in pictures, etc) which is an example of stimulus equivalence and there will be control through verbal contingencies, and then when the kid points at the picture of blood, or their cut knee, and say "Blood!", you reply with: "That's right! It's blood! Well done".

It might not be highly structured, and you might not be rigorous (or obsessed) enough to chart their behaviors, but this is an application of behavioral principles (ABA).

I have not and will not (until her diction is clear) attempted to teach her to read. She counts but I don't push it, just use the times life throw's a learning experience at her. She's only 3, but even that's a year after some ABA I used to work with would begin, where all the above is removed from a child because of a clinical problem it needs to begin - but I CANNOT even imagine wishing to do so where a child is succeeding without intervention.

I'm not sure what you mean. The practitioners you worked with prevented the kids from interacting with other kids, climbing, kicking balls with other kids, etc? Or did I misunderstand that sentence?

I might wish it well but I have concerns and there is a part of me that truly would not like to see it in the hands of parents whose intent it is to hothouse their child.

There will obviously be crazy parents who would try to use it to create "the next Einstein" or whatever, but frankly I find the alternative more scary: parents who don't understand the principles of behavior, just assuming kids will learn everything they need to learn "naturally". Essentially, the only difference between using ABA and letting behaviors pop up 'naturally' is that with ABA you have some control and understanding over what's going on. Functionally, there is no real difference since you do everything basically the same way (reinforce kids for good behavior, punish the bad, etc), but by understanding and using ABA we can avoid unwanted behaviors.

As a side thought - if you're still in touch with Oliver why not mention this thread to him? I haven't been in touch since he moved to NZ and only rarely after leaving uni because he would attend some home run ABA workshops.

I would be fascinated to hear his take on ABA used where there is no LD or abberant (sp? time's a bugger!) behaviour involved.

Unfortunately I'm not still in touch with him (and to be honest I don't think he liked me very much to start with, which I'm sure you'd be surprised to hear ), but he was actually the one who pushed me into looking at how ABA is applied in schools with "normal" kids, so I can only imagine that (to some degree) he accepts it used in those situations. Whether he'd agree with a kid raised from birth with the help of ABA methods is another question, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was also supportive as he's very realistic about the utility of ABA.

[floppit]

Whether you will accept it or not from my end it's now at the point of agreeing to differ. I do not agree with your assessment of Oliver. FWIW my disagreements focussed more on the potential relevance of neural network research in whether there was any 'actual' distinction between EO and SD. However we may have disagreed, even long after, I found Oliver to be actively interested in new developments and research from more than the most narrow definitions of his field.

Of course we didn't stop kids kicking a ball around but if you read carefully what I wrote it was that this was the 'best' (where there is NO clinical issue) in what I've seen her use to learn from, in other words, being given new experiences with the support of enough understanding that rewards fuel the survival of behaviours creates something I feel far exceeds the potshots you describe it as.

I would also still disagree that applying any understanding of behaviourism is by default ABA.

[Warren Dew]

Do infants show generalised imitation of gestures? The effects of skills training and multiple exemplar matching training

Thanks. The article backs up my point that reinforcement isn't likely to reinforce generalized learning behavior, but rather only the specific stimulus responses being trained:

We found that the infants did not show generalized imitation of the four novel target behaviors in the tests administered either before or after staggered skills training.... Such low and selective matching performances ... cannot be considered as evidence of generalized imitation

In other words, not only is one not likely to encourage generalized mathematical aptitude by reinforcing "2+2=4", but one is unlikely even to be reinforcing generalized ability with addition. One is only encouraging memorization of the one discrete fact, which while useful, is of limited generality.

As a parent, the things I believe my child has benefited the most from are the times where she is experiencing the world and learning from it, whether that means socially in having a mix of friends and being able to quickly engage new friends, physically in climbing (her favourite), kicking balls with other kids and playing at races, or intellectually in conversation with her, answering her numerous questions and extending her field of awareness by introducing new concepts such as 'blood' and what it does.

Agreed. I think parents can do much more to encourage their childrens' cognitive development by exposing them to a broad range of experiences and giving them the time and opportunity to learn from it, than from reinforcing specific behaviors.

[Mr.Samsa]

Whether you will accept it or not from my end it's now at the point of agreeing to differ. I do not agree with your assessment of Oliver. FWIW my disagreements focussed more on the potential relevance of neural network research in whether there was any 'actual' distinction between EO and SD. However we may have disagreed, even long after, I found Oliver to be actively interested in new developments and research from more than the most narrow definitions of his field.

I'm not sure if he's changed since you've known him, but he's 'famous' (in university circles anyway) for his dislike of the experimental analysis of behavior. At conferences he will often make comments to the effect of it being unnecessary and overly complicated. Whether he's interested in neural research, I don't know.

Of course we didn't stop kids kicking a ball around but if you read carefully what I wrote it was that this was the 'best' (where there is NO clinical issue) in what I've seen her use to learn from, in other words, being given new experiences with the support of enough understanding that rewards fuel the survival of behaviours creates something I feel far exceeds the potshots you describe it as.

And that's great, peer modelling is an excellent tool in ABA. I don't see why you couldn't use other ABA methods in conjunction with letting her play and climb though.

I would also still disagree that applying any understanding of behaviourism is by default ABA.

Look at it this way: Behaviorism is the philosophy of science underpinning behavior analysis. If we apply principles of behavior analysis in some way, then we are (by definition) using applied behavior analysis. It is the principles of behavior analysis applied to some real-world situation. That's all that applied behavior analysis means; it is not wedded to any particular approach, technique or methodology.

Do infants show generalised imitation of gestures? The effects of skills training and multiple exemplar matching training

Thanks. The article backs up my point that reinforcement isn't likely to reinforce generalized learning behavior, but rather only the specific stimulus responses being trained:

We found that the infants did not show generalized imitation of the four novel target behaviors in the tests administered either before or after staggered skills training.... Such low and selective matching performances ... cannot be considered as evidence of generalized imitation

In other words, not only is one not likely to encourage generalized mathematical aptitude by reinforcing "2+2=4", but one is unlikely even to be reinforcing generalized ability with addition. One is only encouraging memorization of the one discrete fact, which while useful, is of limited generality.

Have a look at the article again, specifically the ages of the subjects. Generalised imitation is not present in any child that age, so it's not surprising that we don't find it in individuals that are cognitively incapable of doing so. I presented it to support a different point to the one you're making, specifically that ABA can produce improvements to "normal" children - which the study demonstrated successfully.

The reason they used that method specifically to see how it worked with young infants was because it has been successfully demonstrated to promote generalised imitation in older children (and adults, of course). The problem is that I presented that paper to demonstrate a different point to the one you're applying it to; that is, you're asking whether reinforcement procedures can be used to promote imitation at all. The answer is a big fucking "of course", which I'm sure even Floppit would agree to (even if she would like to make the qualifier of applying it only to people with developmental disabilities). Of 27,900 hits, I'm sure you can find one or two studies on the success of teaching children generalised imitation here: Google Scholar "Generalised Imitation".

However, you aren't even asking about generalised imitation at all, you're asking for 'generalisation' (the ability to learn a rule, not a fact). In other words, even if you demonstrate the paper I presented to be absolutely wrong and worthless, it wouldn't support your point any more so than presenting a paper on the molecular basis of cancer would support your point. Fortunately, we're very good at understanding why and how generalisation occurs, so we've been successfully teaching generalisation skills for decades now (more Google Scholar hits).

[floppit]

Let's assume most here now how to use Google Scholar and get back to some details.

You're approach strikes me as a circular argument - ABA is successful; anything successful is ABA.

Sure, but how does your child figure out what the concept of 'blood' is? You present it in a couple of ways (verbally, in pictures, etc) which is an example of stimulus equivalence and there will be control through verbal contingencies, and then when the kid points at the picture of blood, or their cut knee, and say "Blood!", you reply with: "That's right! It's blood! Well done".

And that's great, peer modelling is an excellent tool in ABA. I don't see why you couldn't use other ABA methods in conjunction with letting her play and climb though

.

Look at it this way: Behaviorism is the philosophy of science underpinning behavior analysis. If we apply principles of behavior analysis in some way, then we are (by definition) using applied behavior analysis. It is the principles of behavior analysis applied to some real-world situation. That's all that applied behavior analysis means; it is not wedded to any particular approach, technique or methodology.

So what do you do? You've slated the DTT approach as being too narrow, shown little appreciation of recording any specific target behaviour (by calling the above examples ABA), apparently denied need for alternative analysis, such as functional analysis, to make ABA distinct from usual child/child, teacher/child, parent/child interaction. In fact your arguments quite literally chase there own tail.

So what do you do? Could we have links to the organisations that need to define better what they have on offer as a saleable intervention. It doesn't have to be the ones you work for, although right now that added credibility might be helpful in persuading me to continue, but at the very least those you feel are doing what it is you're apparently failing to describe to me in non circular terms. Perhaps their websites will describe it better.

You say you are heavily involved in the field in NZ, knowing that and knowing Oliver's standing in that community(still totally disagree with your assessment even with the added argument of (unproven) popularity, ie everyone else thinks the same...), I was more than happy for him to be aware of this thread, partly because I found him an excellent teacher and a clear opponent in debate which would have upgraded things considerably!

I've looked to see if I can track down the Norwegian Consultants I worked with a decade ago but as I can't remember their names I've not met with any success! However you are well aware of what I actually DID, home based Lovaas programmes with a range of consultants, the best of which, by a mile, were from Norway where the approach has a firm stronghold. Still, I've been clear what I actually did, what made it distinct from merely adding ABA to anything remotely behavioural, with or without the specifics of target behaviours and WRITTEN ongoing behavioural analysis.

In other words: http://www.lovaas.com/index.php is what I've been talking about, a clear description of something actually practised world wide, not without controversy, but I'll happily state where I stand, that is, it's a viable and positive area of research and practice where LD has interrupted children's ability to learn by other means; that it's very success (in reinforcement of individual behaviours as opposed to whole programme success) is what produces the risks involved and the responsibility to weigh need against potential risk. Where only less than ideal consultants work, where tutors are ill trained the risks increase - likewise where those are in place they reduce, but they exist and fuel much of the ongoing learning and research. I would be more than happy to have any professional representative from that field view everything I've written and I know it would be instantly recognisable. What group of scholars or practioners would you describe as similarly in line with the approach you suggest the world taking? A link to a solid, recognised group is required...

You argue my definitions of ABA are to vague but equally offer nothing substantial in terms of what you suggest should be provided or who on earth is succeeding at providing it outside the lab.

[Mr.Samsa]

Let's assume most here now how to use Google Scholar and get back to some details.

Well most people don't know how to use Google Scholar, but assuming that they do, it's still useful to link to scholar searches in this case. This is because Warren has not asked for anything specific, but instead has simply made vague claims as to the ability to teach generalisation. This means that if I present a study on generalisation there are a list of counters he could come up with; e.g. that study is only looking at animals, that study is only looking at children with learning disabilities, that study is only looking at children, that study is only looking at some adults, etc.

I'm not going to waste time looking for specific papers when no specific claim has been made and there are ways of weaseling out of accepting the evidence.

You're approach strikes me as a circular argument - ABA is successful; anything successful is ABA.

That would be circular, except that's not what I said.

Sure, but how does your child figure out what the concept of 'blood' is? You present it in a couple of ways (verbally, in pictures, etc) which is an example of stimulus equivalence and there will be control through verbal contingencies, and then when the kid points at the picture of blood, or their cut knee, and say "Blood!", you reply with: "That's right! It's blood! Well done".

And that's great, peer modelling is an excellent tool in ABA. I don't see why you couldn't use other ABA methods in conjunction with letting her play and climb though

.

Look at it this way: Behaviorism is the philosophy of science underpinning behavior analysis. If we apply principles of behavior analysis in some way, then we are (by definition) using applied behavior analysis. It is the principles of behavior analysis applied to some real-world situation. That's all that applied behavior analysis means; it is not wedded to any particular approach, technique or methodology.

So what do you do? You've slated the DTT approach as being too narrow, shown little appreciation of recording any specific target behaviour (by calling the above examples ABA), apparently denied need for alternative analysis, such as functional analysis, to make ABA distinct from usual child/child, teacher/child, parent/child interaction. In fact your arguments quite literally chase there own tail.

Just because the target behavior being defined isn't fit for scientific papers doesn't mean it isn't defined by parents. If they know what they want, then they have defined their target behavior. Functional analysis is a useful tool, but it's a tool, not the definition of ABA. That is, ABA was still ABA before FA came about. People come up with alternative explanations for behavior all the time, the difference between that and using FA is that FA is empirically justifiable.

So what do you do? Could we have links to the organisations that need to define better what they have on offer as a saleable intervention. It doesn't have to be the ones you work for, although right now that added credibility might be helpful in persuading me to continue, but at the very least those you feel are doing what it is you're apparently failing to describe to me in non circular terms. Perhaps their websites will describe it better.

I'm not even sure what you're after. I've presented you with the definition of ABA from Cooper et al, which is what all behavior analysts cite as the definition of ABA.

You say you are heavily involved in the field in NZ,

Depends what you mean by "heavily involved", I'm certainly not a major player in the field.

.. knowing that and knowing Oliver's standing in that community(still totally disagree with your assessment even with the added argument of (unproven) popularity, ie everyone else thinks the same...), I was more than happy for him to be aware of this thread, partly because I found him an excellent teacher and a clear opponent in debate which would have upgraded things considerably!

There was no appeal to popularity, you've misused that fallacy. Logical fallacies only occur when a flaw in reasoning is used to support the conclusion of an argument. I wasn't making an argument, I was describing my experiences. I could similarly point out problems with using "anecdotes", but that would be ridiculous because we're not in the middle of a formal debate, we're simply comparing experiences.

As for informing Oliver of the thread, I'm sure he's probably got more important things to do than to discuss these things with random people on the internet, but I hope it proves useful for you.

I've looked to see if I can track down the Norwegian Consultants I worked with a decade ago but as I can't remember their names I've not met with any success! However you are well aware of what I actually DID, home based Lovaas programmes with a range of consultants, the best of which, by a mile, were from Norway where the approach has a firm stronghold. Still, I've been clear what I actually did, what made it distinct from merely adding ABA to anything remotely behavioural, with or without the specifics of target behaviours and WRITTEN ongoing behavioural analysis.

In other words: http://www.lovaas.com/index.php is what I've been talking about, a clear description of something actually practised world wide, not without controversy, but I'll happily state where I stand, that is, it's a viable and positive area of research and practice where LD has interrupted children's ability to learn by other means; that it's very success (in reinforcement of individual behaviours as opposed to whole programme success) is what produces the risks involved and the responsibility to weigh need against potential risk. Where only less than ideal consultants work, where tutors are ill trained the risks increase - likewise where those are in place they reduce, but they exist and fuel much of the ongoing learning and research. I would be more than happy to have any professional representative from that field view everything I've written and I know it would be instantly recognisable.

I'm not sure why you're bringing up the Lovaas approach to a discussion on ABA? You understand that the Lovaas method is a narrow, and specific instance of ABA right, and the two are not synonymous? So whilst the Lovaas method does primarily use DTT as its main tool, this has no bearing on whether ABA does or not. Importantly, the Lovaas approach is specifically tailored to kids with autism (or other serious learning disabilities), and wouldn't be appropriate or necessary to use such an approach with a normally functioning kid. Instead it would be more appropriate to use a more general ABA approach.

What group of scholars or practioners would you describe as similarly in line with the approach you suggest the world taking? A link to a solid, recognised group is required...

Again, I'm not sure what you're asking for? Are you asking for links to professional organisations which promote highly specific and personal political beliefs about how to raise children? Why would any organisation promote this? As for specific scholars, I can only list those that I've talked to on a personal level but you've made it clear that such evidence is useless to you. If you simply want a scholar that believes in applying behavior analysis to everyday life (ignoring the fact that practically everybody in behavior analysis would accept this), the easiest reply would be to tell you to read Skinner. He was obviously one of the first to suggest this, with numerous others accepting his arguments and refining them. If you want a list of scholars who think ABA can be applied to "normal" kids, then simply look up any behavior analyst who works in schools: Dennis Rose, John Church, Brian Iwata, etc. Useful journals to look at would be: "Journal of Behavioral Education" and "Behaviour Modification", where most subjects used are "normal".

You argue my definitions of ABA are to vague but equally offer nothing substantial in terms of what you suggest should be provided or who on earth is succeeding at providing it outside the lab.

I didn't say your definitions of ABA were too vague, I said they were wrong. And all ABA is done "outside of the lab", so I don't understand that last comment.

You seem to be getting snarky with your responses and I have no idea why you're getting so worked up. I don't know if you've taken something I've said personally or whatever, but I don't think continuing this discussion is going to of any use. I'll probably bow out of this thread unless anything in particular catches my eye again - for what it's worth, it was for the most part entertaining and interesting.

[floppit]

Are you able to offer any links re this:

I'm confused, Floppit. I'm not just an interested fanboy who has read about ABA and thinks it's the bees knees; I've already earned my qualifications in ABA. I've done work in the area (both in homes and schools, with developmentally disabled people and with "normal" people and with animals), I've met people running these programmes because they are my colleagues, I've been to conferences and presented at conferences, I've read the research and published my own research.

I'm asking that as your description leaves me baffled as to what you've actually practised/learned that you offer me an alternative source. Particularly in terms of approaches used in homes, schools, etc as hopefully they will need to be clear for economic survival reasons.

I referenced Lovaas merely as a recognisable (and considerably large) area of ABA that any reader can look up and compare to all I've ever said on the subject, whether my comments are recognisably those of a person whose experience lay in that field. That's what I would like to be able to achieve with you Samsa, I would like to read and compare a viable, existing, reputable approach to the opinions you express as a qualified, published academic and professional.

A link.

[floppit]

I'm going to add, I think I was very clear in wanting a link to an example to the applications of ABA you claim to have personally worked with, not necessarily an organisation you worked for but one that exists and encapsulates your perspective.

I think you wriggled, dodged, failed to provide, then claimed other reasons for bowing out and I'm more comfortable expressing that clearly to be held to account than leaving it as inference.

[Mr.Samsa]

Are you able to offer any links re this:

I'm confused, Floppit. I'm not just an interested fanboy who has read about ABA and thinks it's the bees knees; I've already earned my qualifications in ABA. I've done work in the area (both in homes and schools, with developmentally disabled people and with "normal" people and with animals), I've met people running these programmes because they are my colleagues, I've been to conferences and presented at conferences, I've read the research and published my own research.

I'm asking that as your description leaves me baffled as to what you've actually practised/learned that you offer me an alternative source. Particularly in terms of approaches used in homes, schools, etc as hopefully they will need to be clear for economic survival reasons.

I referenced Lovaas merely as a recognisable (and considerably large) area of ABA that any reader can look up and compare to all I've ever said on the subject, whether my comments are recognisably those of a person whose experience lay in that field. That's what I would like to be able to achieve with you Samsa, I would like to read and compare a viable, existing, reputable approach to the opinions you express as a qualified, published academic and professional.

A link.

I still don't understand what you're asking for, and I think this is a result of your confusion over how the Lovaas method relates to ABA. The Lovaas method was a specific program developed for people with severe learning disabilities, specifically autism, and as such Lovaas (and those that followed him) created a program with the explicit intention of counteracting all of the problems associated with these disorders through intensive, early intervention applications.

There is nothing else like it in ABA, it's not like I can say I'm performing the "Iwata Method" when carrying out a functional analysis, or using the "Honig Approach" when I teach a child generalisation skills. So obviously I can't link to any organisations or scholars who say they're using some particular approach because the only approach they're using is ABA. So they define themselves as behavior analysts, and they'll cite the Cooper etc definition as what they mean by ABA.

The point being that different problems require different approaches, even within specific areas like autism and other LDs, and so nobody will simply be a behavior analyst that only uses the Lovaas method. And they'll alter the method according to what the progression of the treatment requires. Most behavior analysts don't adhere to a strict Lovaas interpretation because individuals require individual treatments, and an intensive treatment consisting only of discrete trial training can be exhausting and disadvantageous in the long run.

I'm going to add, I think I was very clear in wanting a link to an example to the applications of ABA you claim to have personally worked with, not necessarily an organisation you worked for but one that exists and encapsulates your perspective.

The problem is that what you're asking for is nonsensical. The "approach" I, and other behavior analysts use, is called ABA. I've presented you with the definition of it and this is what most behavior analysts use. I don't know what more you want. You want a "link to an example to the applications of ABA claim to have personally worked with", well have a flick through the Cooper book, they list practically all techniques used within ABA and I've used most of them. Functional analysis, peer modelling, time out procedures, extinction, etc. Do you really need me to link to organisations that use techniques from behavior analysis?

I think you wriggled, dodged, failed to provide, then claimed other reasons for bowing out and I'm more comfortable expressing that clearly to be held to account than leaving it as inference.

Very mature.

Your inability to comprehend my replies, which were made in good faith with having to make some serious assumptions given the confused nature of your questions, is not a valid excuse for claiming that I am "wriggling" or "dodging". Get a book on the subject, understand it a bit better, then formulate more coherent questions.

[floppit]

Nothing is simpler than asking for a link to the kind of ABA that you have claimed to be a professional, qualified practicioner within. Almost all services of this nature delivered to the public/schools now have an online presence. Had such a link been provided perhaps it would have made clear your responses but after 2 requests nothing has materialised.

I know what I know believe regarding your claims, other readers will make up their own minds. You are clearly well practised on the net, in forum world, I suspect that is where the life blood of your success lies.

[Mr.Samsa]

Nothing is simpler than asking for a link to the kind of ABA that you have claimed to be a professional, qualified practicioner within. Almost all services of this nature delivered to the public/schools now have an online presence. Had such a link been provided perhaps it would have made clear your responses but after 2 requests nothing has materialised.

The problem is that your question makes absolutely no sense. What do you mean by "the kind of ABA that you have claimed to be a professional.. within"? There aren't different kinds of ABA, there is just ABA.

I know what I know believe regarding your claims, other readers will make up their own minds. You are clearly well practised on the net, in forum world, I suspect that is where the life blood of your success lies.

Look, I understand that you initially stated you don't want to take part in a discussion like this, but traditionally when you get your ass fucking handed to you through demonstration of a complete lack of knowledge on your part, the polite thing to do is to either concede, or slink away quietly in the night. I graciously tried to give you the latter option because you tried to keep beating your ignorance drum as if you knew what the fuck you were talking about but obviously that wasn't good enough for you. Who gives a fuck what "other readers" think? Are we playing to the crowd? I thought we were having a discussion, instead you wanted to make this personal and you tried to throw around your experiences as if it gave you authority over the subject from the start. I didn't want to bring up my qualifications or experience precisely because it leads to childish bullshit like you've shown in your replies, but I brought them up because they were relevant to your attacks on me (i.e. you trying to tell me to get some formal study in the area and go to conferences). When it turned out that I was qualified in the area and far more knowledgeable than you, you packed a big sulk and started throwing around incoherent demands for links to organisations that have a particular "kind" of ABA, as if that made any sense whatsoever.

Look, here's the international association for behavior analysis, go fucking nuts: http://www.abainternational.org/

[floppit]

I care what other readers think. I care particularly when a person is very plausible in terms of their manner of delivery, quotes, subquotes etc but less so in terms of substance and I care deeply about something which gives internet an often undeservedly bad name.

You claim this:

I've already earned my qualifications in ABA. I've done work in the area (both in homes and schools, with developmentally disabled people and with "normal" people and with animals), I've met people running these programmes because they are my colleagues, I've been to conferences and presented at conferences, I've read the research and published my own research.

And yet seem unable to offer a simple answer to the question 'What do/or did you do?'. There's a member of this forum who is a private tutor, I'd lay a considerable bet that if asked the same question the answer would roll off his fingertips without hesitation and without the need to say no more was required than the answer 'teach' or 'educate'. Ask me about any job I've do and I can describe with fluent ease to anyone what process it contains, and in any detail required. I could find easily similar current jobs online, people still doing the same things that represent their actions over the internet.

If offering the it's international organisations web page it would be second nature to underline which special interest had been my own, which BTW I have already done - not a problem, nor is it a problem to discuss the realities of that interest as I experienced them.

It is implausible in the extreme to me that, the person you describe yourself as online, would find such a request so difficult to understand and even harder to respond to.

I suppose, now you are aware of the special interests pages above you can surf through and find something, if so, and if that matches all that's been said so far I will be the very first to concede some level of plausibility - it, at this stage, would not be enough for me to see you as what you claim to be to the extent I would be guided by your advice though.

Of all the people I've met on line this is the first time I genuinely feel I'm talking to a Walter Mitty. Yes - I do bloody care, enough to risk being wrong openly.