Thread by @JHMarble

This piece by @UnstrangeMind is foundational to understanding ABA.

ABA assumes the internal thinking of an animal/person largely can’t be known. Marginalizing autistic voices is key to the ABA industry. Once centered, the practice falls apart.

unstrangemind.com/but-what-about…

Behaviorism itself is not bad. It’s a largely outdated field rejected by most psychologists, but we’ve gained insights from it.

Behaviorism (with caveats) largely started as a practice to understand animal intelligence. The basic premise (I’m oversimplifying) was that, since we can’t know what animals are thinking, we can observe their behavior to determine their intelligence and skill ability.

Dr. John Watson laid the foundation of methodological behaviorism beginning in 1903 with his study of rats. Fun fact: I’ve worked alongside his nephew (His nephew is 80. I know a lot of older people). Watson later expanded his work to studying children through behaviorism.

Side note: Watson had three children, whom he raised in behaviorist principals. All of his children attempted suicide. Correlation does not equal causation, but that’s a bit of a red flag.

In the 1930s, B.F. Skinner built on this by establishing Radical Behaviorism, which took into account that thoughts, feelings, and external factors also influenced behavior. He did much of this work with birds. 🐦

Our understanding of animal intelligence and human behavior has advanced significantly since Skinner. He’s seen as important, but a product of his time.

Here’s the quirk though...

Behavior Modification (later Applied Behaviroal Analysis) is still deeply rooted in this view. Most of science has moved-on in regards to human psychology and behavior - except for this field. That’s why most psychologists treat it as a bit fringe.

It also has at its heart concepts that are clearly not true. Under the principals of Radical Behaviorism and ABA, all human behavior (including sexuality) can be conditioned to change. Fun fact: Modern ABA largely started as an “ex-gay” therapy. It’s the same thing.

But, beyond this are two core problems with ABA as applied to autism.

*It assumes the standard for the autistic child is the neurotypical child. Therefore, its application attempts to drive the child towards that end.

*It’s a practice uninformed from the autistic perspective.

Even when some ABA practitioners say “we don’t want to change the autistic child but help them be the best version of themselves,” the problem remains: The practitioner doesn’t know what that is. Therefore, their methods can’t produce results along the lines of that claim.

In general, ABA practitioners do not understand autism. They may think they do, but they don’t. What they understand is a narrative of autism as taught through the false assumptions of a neurotypical perspective. There are no autistic people designing ABA practices or standards.

“But, I have a degree!” Cool. Show me the autistic people who taught you and co-wrote the curriculum you received and we’ll talk.

“But, our ABA practice is ‘not like that’. It’s modern and well-respected.” Awesome. Who are the autistic people who co-own your practice? Where are the autistic people who make up the leadership team? Who are the autistic ABA practitioners your work with?

“But, I have a certificate.” Eh...ABA certificates are largely a money-making racket run by hundreds or universities because they have a huge profit margin. Again, autistic people are completely marginalized from that.

“But, I’m Board Certified.” Ah...yes. ABA certificates are certified by the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BCBA). They’re also the ones who peddle these money-making programs to universities and fly-by-night schools.

Also...

The Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BCBA) leadership team is 100% white, 0% autistic, and - for some strange reason - 50% graduated from (or taught at) the University of Nevada-Reno.

BCBA is largely concerned with promoting the practice of ABA, not understanding autism.

The end result is a practice, already on the scientific fringe, which assumes:

A) That the standard for the autistic child is the neurotupical child, and

B) That the thoughts of the autistic child are largely an unknowable mystery (ahem, a puzzle piece).

In practice, ABA routinely fails to understand autistic communication, autistic thinking & how the autistic person experiences the world.

If only autistic children grew up to be autistic adults who could be centered, learned from & partnered with to build better approaches. 🤷‍♂️