In which I dispute the idea I am a shill for an industry I no longer work for
Tomorrow evening I will be talking to Royal Tunbridge Wells Skeptics on the topic of Autism treatments. My talk briefly focuses on a treatment that I term as ‘good’, rather than ‘bad’ or ‘ugly’.
buy Lyrica pills Update: added definition of ABA, after suggestion in comments.
This treatment is Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA). It is described by Wikipedia as:
“ a psychological approach that uses the theory of behaviorism to modify human behaviors as part of a learning or treatment process. Behavior analysts focus on the observable relationship of behavior to the environment to the exclusion of what they call “hypothetical constructs”.[1] By functionally assessing the relationship between a targeted behavior and the environment, the methods of ABA can be used to change that behavior. Research in applied behavior analysis ranges from behavioral intervention methods to basic research which investigates the rules by which humans adapt and maintain behavior.”
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_behavior_analysis
I have been accused of being a shill for ABA and aspersions have been cast over the impartiality of host Tom Bruce and his relationship with me. These have come from a member of the group who has taken exception to my talk being put on. I do not have a problem with healthy debate and questioning, but I do have a problem with what an administrator of the page has (in my opinion) quite rightly described as ‘uniformed conjecture’. Bear in mind that none of the Tunbridge Wells Skeptics (including the hosts) have seen my talk yet – they have simply read the talk summary (linked at the end of the post).
The specific, baseless accusations about my motives can be found here (Facebook). I do not post the link to encourage anyone to fight my battles for me, just for some context.
I would like to say here, so it is on record, that I am parisons. not an ABA tutor. I made it clear in my talk descriptions that I am a former ABA tutor. I last worked as a tutor for 8 months in 2010. Before that, for a year or so in 2004 whilst at university.
I currently work as a proofreader, writer and editor as well as a day job for an insurance company while I save to further my education. Education in science, in case you wish to know.
The topic of Autism is one that has fascinated me since I was young and learned about it a little at Reigate college in 2001-2003. I then saw a posting for an ABA tutor at uni one day and, as I was studying behaviourism as part of a BSc in Psychology, I jumped at the chance to see it work in practice and make a worthwhile contribution to someone’s life. I stand by that decision as I know that the child benefited immensely from the coaching that I and others provided. However, I am not saying that it will work for every child nor that it is right for every family.
When I worked as a tutor I was coached by UKYAP and PEACH. I did not work directly for them, but for families. I was paid £10 an hour. This was about the going rate. I was part-time. in 2010 I was paid £12 an hour. Again, the going rate.
To accuse me of being a shill for ABA and to create other strawman (e.g. I am going around the country selling ABA whilst denigrating other treatments) is a complete lie.
Those who have actually seen my talk will know that ABA is tacked on to the end of my talk: I am primarily concerned with the harm of treatments with no evidence base. I am not interested in selling anything, nor do I need to. ABA stands upon its own evidence. Google has a wide selection of information on the topic.
I am solely concerned with raising awareness of quacks who seek to gain from treatments that cause harm. This is approximately more than 50% of my talk.
I also wish to make it clear that I will never and never have discredited parents and carers who have worked to make their children’s lives better – whatever treatment they choose. I understand (and talk about) the reasons that people choose the treatments they do. I believe that parents of autistic children have a hard enough job already and I do not seek to make it harder.
My sole aim is to let people know how to look out for harmful treatments and examine the evidence.
I will not tolerate lies about my motives. Skeptics in the Pub speakers (in my experience as a speaker and host of Guildford Skeptics) are never paid for their talks: they receive expenses only. I estimate that I have spent around 30 hours researching and putting together my talk. But not to gain from it financially. The topic of Autism is under constant research and I do my best to stay abreast of the latest evidence and scientific research.
I have also never posited myself as an ‘expert’ on the subject of Autism. When a speaker didn’t show for a talk at my Skeptics in the Pub group I decided I should make one myself. Autism has been a hot topic since the MMR hoax and I thought I should lend my experience in ABA to a talk focusing on bad treatments. Don’t criticise if you can’t provide a better solution, was what I was always told.
I’ll leave you with a definition of skepticism that I and some friends have worked on – the one I adhere to:
“Skepticism” is the practice of
- critically evaluating claims against the available evidence
- suspending judgement until there is sufficient evidence (my emphasis)
- when the balance of evidence indicates that the claim should be held as valid, provisionally accepting it as true until such time as further evidence demonstrates it to be otherwise.
This sequence of doubt, inquiry and provisional acceptance is a method, not a position. Application of this method is more likely to determine what is true, or at least arrive at answers that are as close to the truth as currently possible.
Crucially, all conclusions remain modifiable in the light of new evidence, but the more a particular claim flies in the face of our current understanding, the greater the weight of evidence is required to accept the claim.
The practice of skepticism often includes reference to “bias”; biases are tendencies that we all have toward certain types of belief, or certain ways of thinking that are contrary to logic. Skeptics strive to identify and overcome these biases where possible.
“…the aim of rational debate is not for us to win, but for the truth to win” – Julian Baggini
Skeptics often refer to “Logical Fallacies” (although they are often referring to informal fallacies). A fallacy is a form of argument that is invalid because its conclusions do not follow from its premise, or it is a diversionary tactic away from the actual issue at hand. Skeptics aim to argue without resort to fallacy, and to counter fallacies in others’ arguments, as they indicate poor reasoning.
If you want to know more about my talk tomorrow, here is the information:
Hi Tannice
You refer to “ABA” but don’t mention what it is!
I know I could ask my friend Google but maybe you’d like to add it to your article for the benefit of others who don’t know it either.
Cheers John. Done! :)
When I see your blog in my inbox I know that I will be treated to a perspective of cleverness and intellect. Thank you
I shall save this sentiment for the bad days. Thank you. So much.