Відео

Positive she did.. the documentary she referred to said “the facilitator was devastated”.. and I have to say bravo to her for continuing this fight.. 30 years she could have moved on but on the whole realized this was dangerous business. It takes guts to face yourself… to take responsibility for your actions especially when it involves your career. Good human being there.

@@prawnstar9213 Thank you for your kind words. That means a lot.

Yes.

Yes. It seems strange to me as well. I believe facilitators confuse teaching someone to point on cue with the independent ability to point to letters in meaningful ways. It appears in many of these videos that the individuals point without comprehending what's being spelled on their behalf.

Thank you.

Thank you for your insights. It wouldn't surprise me if she had a movement for "space." I've seen that in other videos as well--the facilitator might, for example, close their fist and the person being facilitated stops hovering their finger over the letter board. This type of cueing/behavior modification might have started by accident, but, with time becomes part of the "communicating" process (e.g., the facilitator controlling letter selection with body movements).

They do

Thank you. I am familiar with the misuse of this term in the FC/S2C/RPM literature. Many people being subject to its use are able to perform gross and fine motor tasks (e.g., picking up a chip from a plate, tying their shoes, using a paintbrush, shaving) that would also enable them to select letters on a keyboard. We've covered this topic on our website. Here is a link to some of this information: www.facilitatedcommunication.org/search?q=apraxia

There is no transfer of thought. FC/S2C/RPM and all facilitator-controlled techniques "work" because the facilitator provides visual, auditory, or physical cues that show the person being facilitated where to point. For example, the facilitator controls what is spelled by moving the letter board in the air, selecting stencils that contain the desired letter(s) in the word being spelled. All the person being subjected to FC has to do is extend a finger (or pencil, in the case of S2C or RPM) in the direction of the board and the facilitator does the rest. The cues can become very subtle over time and the facilitator often has little to no awareness of the extent to which he or she is controlling letter selection. More information about the Ideomotor Response or the Clever Hans Effect can be found on our website: www.facilitatedcommunication.org

There are plenty of anecdotes and testimonials regarding independent communication, but no reliably controlled studies to back up this claim. Cueing can and does occur even without physical touch. When facilitators control access to the letter board and/or hold it in the air, they are susceptible to facilitator cueing, even when they are unaware of the extent to which this occurs. FMI, please check out our website at www.facilitatedcommunication.org

This is a great opportunity to see how facilitators provide visual, auditory and physical cues that aid in letter selection. And, though these are supposedly exemplars of "successful" FC/S2C/RPM sessions, there are examples of facilitators calling out letters while their client or loved one is not looking at the letter board. I suggest familiarizing yourself with these questions before watching the film. www.facilitatedcommunication.org/blog/questions-to-ask-facilitators-and-yourself-while-observing-fc-s2c-rpm-sessions There are also reviews of the movie on our website www.facilitatedcommunication.org

It's just an odd thing to say too. The kids in the film where very philosophical in the answers.

FC/S2C/RPM have not substantially changed since I was involved with it. Reliably controlled studies demonstrate that facilitators, not their clients or loved ones, are not just influencing but controlling the messages. More information about controlled studies are available on our website: www.facilitatedcommunication.org. My advice is not to get involved with FC/S2C/RPM or any facilitator-dependent techniques, but, given that it sounds like you've already made up. your mind, you might be interested in familiarizing yourself with the questions found on this blog post: www.facilitatedcommunication.org/blog/questions-to-ask-facilitators-and-yourself-while-observing-fc-s2c-rpm-sessions

While facilitator/assistant cueing is always a concern, at least PECS is evidence based. There are no reliably controlled studies proving proponent claims that FC/S2C/RPM (or other facilitator-dependent techniques) lead to independent communication. The Jaswal studies coming out of the University of Virginia did not control for facilitator influence/control of the letter board, which negates some, if not all of the claims made by the researchers. Reviews of the eye-tracking study (and more) are available on our website: www.facilitatedcommunication.org

The problem in FC/S2C/RPM is not high or low-tech technology. Letter boards can be used as a legitimate tool. Many AAC devices include a full letter board/keyboard. Rather, the problem is facilitator influence and control over letter selection, which comes in the form of physical, visual, and auditory cues. There are many articles and blog posts about this issue on our website: www.facilitatedcommunication.org

They have an easier time believing that these "cognitively impaired" individuals can pick up on these subtle cues that SAT test proctors, college professors, doctors miss in order to accurately point, letter by letter, to spell out paragraphs of information. Or that the communication partner is somehow telepathically telling them what letters to poke. That makes more sense to them then nonspeakers being intelligent and learning how to point to letters in order to spell out their thoughts. This isn't a grand conspiracy, it's just an alphabet.

To date, there are no reliably controlled studies showing independent typing on the part of individuals using FC/S2C/RPM, though there are anecdotes and testimonials claiming this to be true. Independent typing means that the facilitator does not have to hover over their client, hold the letter board in the air, or provide visual, auditory, or physical cues during letter selection. If I've missed reliably controlled studies that demonstrate a lack of facilitator influence and control, please share a link. I'm more than happy to review the information.

Most people focus on the person being facilitated and not the facilitator, so they miss the physical, visual, and auditory cues provided by the facilitator. Slowing down the video, paying close attention to the facilitator's behaviors (as well as the person being subjected to FC) is helpful, though cues can be subtle and not easily picked up by the naked eye. That's why reliably controlled testing to rule out facilitator influence is important.

Keep going with S2C with your son and refuse to listen to these naysayers who are nothing more than self appointed trolls …. Our grandson sits happily through lessons 90 minutes long ….the lessons are broken up in 5 minute slots. It has been a slow process but there is no doubt we are now moving forward after years of stagnation before we introduced this method. God bless you and your son and may you reap a rich reward for all your efforts!

What science based method? Cause this is not evidence based.

​@@bobwishart8780 parental delusions hurt your child from living fully as who they are. U are forcing a lie because of your own desperation for a normal kid. Accept your child and recognize the faulty scam of this S2C and look at evidence based communication programs if you truly care about your child and not yourself.

It's is heartbreaking, especially when you consider that FC was discredited in the mid-1990s. It speaks to the power of the illusion of FC/S2C/RPM. To date, there is no reliably controlled evidence to prove FC-generated messages are independent and free from facilitator control. Most, if not all, facilitators are unaware of the extent to which they influence and control letter selection. FMI about testing, opposition statements, systematic reviews, critiques of FC: www.facilitatedcommunication.org

@@fcisnotscience it's honestly just an ouiji board, so I honestly can't wrap my head around people being so on board with these methods. The video of Temple Grandin saying these methods don't work is full of parents and grandparents of non verbal children criticising her for not accepting the methods are effective. It's just sad to see. As you say, it seems most people are just unaware it's them who are talking, not their children.

@@balalaika852 Agreed. I've come to see FC/S2C/RPM as a coping strategy, not a communication technique. Every facilitator in the world thinks they're the only one who's capable of "supporting" their clients arm (or the letter board) without influencing or controlling letter selection. Facilitators are taught not to test the technique (questioning the technique is considered ableism) and to disregard their clients' verbal and non-verbal behaviors. I think Daniel Wegner in his article "Clever Hands: Uncontrolled Intelligences in facilitated communication" was onto something when he said that a belief that FC could work increased the chances that it would work in those facilitators. I'd love to see more studies that address facilitator belief systems and behaviors.

@@fcisnotscience you're right on the money saying it's a coping strategy, that's exactly what it is. And the sad thing is, FC and other similar methods are the definition of ableism - instead of actually supporting the person who needs help, we're using them to soothe our own anxieties. A study into psychology of the proponents of FC/RPM would be fascinating.

@@balalaika852 Agreed.

Would love to see a video with a user typing without a facilitator near them! Please share if you have any!

@@rebeccacapes5881 Just curious why does it matter whether a facilitator is "near" them?

You'll find more information about FC/S2C/RPM at www.facilitatedcommunication.org Much of what's listed there are resources are omitted from pro-FC/S2C/RPM websites.

Thank you for your kind comments. If you read the comments on my blog posts, you'll find not everyone feels the way you do. LOL! Still, if I can help educate people about the problems of facilitator influence and control (e.g., visual, physical, and auditory cueing) in FC/S2C/RPM, then it's worth the pushback I often get from proponents. Also, thank you for speaking out and educating your current (and future) clients. Every bit helps.

The purpose of this video is to provide consumers of therapeutic services with all of the facts. When you go buy a car, do you do a bit of research on the vehicle you are about to purchase? Where do you get your information from? Would you trust the word of a car salesman who, as we all know, are more motivated for themselves than to help the customers? Or would you look into reputable, unbiased reviews?

@@pardonmyfrench4760 of course you’re right … why listen to the salesman that is motivated in promoting himself … fits this video to a tee

@bobwishart8780 mmm... that didn't really make any sense. It's interesting how, instead of providing intelligent conversation, you try to turn it around with no proof. I don't see the monetary gain for this guy pointing out that a particular method is fake. He's not getting money. You know who is? These people selling books about FC, and bogus stencils that don't work. Why do you want people to be fooled that their loved ones are actually communicating?

Anecdotally, but these individuals require a facilitator to be within auditory, physical, and verbal range, presumably to receive cues for letter selection. There is no reliably controlled evidence proving facilitator-dependent techniques such as FC/S2C/RPM ultimately result in independent communication (e.g., free from facilitator influence and control). I'd love to see those studies done.

Check out VCA Visual Communication Analysis. Evidence based research for teaching independent keyboard typing. Based in San Diego.

​@fcisnotscience what about just communicating with some of those that type now and claim RPM etc led to this. Some have gone onto college and lived on their own without any facilitator to author their words? Genuinely interested as looking at trying this

Anecdotally, but there is no reliably controlled evidence demonstrating that facilitator-generated messages (aka FC/S2C/RPM) produce messages that are independent (e.g., free from facilitator control). You might want to check out the American Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA) website for information on evidence-based Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) techniques and methods. You'll find that FC/S2C/RPM are not listed. In fact, they have position statements opposing their use. www.asha.org/public/speech/disorders/aac/ www.asha.org/policy/ps2018-00352/ www.asha.org/policy/ps2018-00351/

@@fcisnotscience l note you begin your response with the word Anecdotally- as if the experience of people is of no consequence. The vaccine for Rubella was created because of the anecdotal evidence of two mothers comparing their pregnancy experience of having Rubella - their two babies both were blind - they brought this to the attention of the doctor they both were attending who thankfully followed it up. The same could be said of the smallpox vaccine on the anecdotal evidence that noted dairymaids never caught smallpox. I have also noted that a university study has been done, proving the person’s eyes are focused on the letter before he points. There is ample recorded evidence that spelling to communicate does indeed work for many individuals- why you should continue to denigrate the method, unless it is to promote your on assertions and dare l say it, self importance, is beyond me.

I'll take anecdotal evidence over the NOTHING that you offer. I have the anecdotal evidence of what has happened in my family. My son is finally happy. @@fcisnotscience

If you have questions about facilitated communication and its variants, you might want to visit www.facilitatedcommunication.org, which is a resource for controlled studies, systematic reviews, opposition statements, critiques of FC, and more.

@@fcisnotscience I have no questions I am well versed in autism and i know children and adults with autism are much more capable then you keep implying them not to be

@@soulstarseeking9 The problem is with facilitator-dependent techniques (FC/S2C/RPM) and not those being subjected to its use. I refer you to www.facilitatedcommunication.org for more information about FC/S2C/RPM, including controlled studies, systematic reviews, opposition statements, critiques of FC/S2C/RPM and more.

@@fcisnotscience There is great research out of Rutgers (Elizabeth Torres) and University of Virginia (literacy and eye tracking studies). You should be informed yourself if you are providing others with information.

@@dawnjennings-os4ho The Jaswal studies have major flaws--particularly when it comes to ruling out facilitator influence and control. Reviews are available on our website: www.facilitatedcommunication.org. I/we will check out the Torres studies.

I am not making those assumptions.

@@fcisnotscience oh you certainly have

@@soulstarseeking9 A tired and unfounded claim often made by individuals unfamiliar with the dozens of reliably controlled tests that show facilitators, not those being subjected to FC, are controlling the messages. Again, I refer you to www.facilitated.communication.org for controlled studies, systematic reviews, opposition statements, critiques of FC/S2C/RPM, and more. The problem is the technique itself and not those being subjected to it.

@@fcisnotscienceso how do you explain individuals like Elizabeth Bonker and Samual Capozzi and dozens of other nonspeakers attending top universities (and graduating with honors) who use letterboards and keyboards as their main form of communication? Are they fooling the universities and all their professors? Imagine the harm you are causing these individuals by discrediting a reliable form of communication.

@@fcisnotsciencethe link you provided does not work. Have you read the eye tracking study out of the university of Virginia showing the speller's eyes track to their next letter faster than anyone would be able to prompt them?

It's amazing that no regulatory body has closed her down. She holds no Speech/Language Pathology, Medical or Psychologist license and, as far as I know, has no formal education in autism (diagnosing or teaching). She is, I understand, planning to host a live Instagram event this coming Saturday, Sept 30, 2023 starting at 10am CDT to promote RPM.

@@fcisnotscience I would say somebody should get rid of her lee Harvey Oswald style but I don't wanna get banned from commenting on UA-cam again

@@TheSwampChicken-II I can't endorse that, but I would like to see her unscientific and unethical practices be exposed and the families she's harmed to come forward and tell their stories. She claims to have "never failed" in her efforts to make RPM "work", but I know that'd can't possibly be true.

Indeed.

Thank you. Yes. I was involved in the early days--when the first wave of FC hit the United States. It's baffling and tragic that I/we're still talking about FC today. That's the power of a belief system. I totally agree about the overlap with psychics and homeopathy. People (like me) who speak out against FC are accused by proponents of not believing in individuals with disabilities, when it's the facilitator behavior that is and should be the focus of inquiry. I suspect that modern-day proponents of FC don't test because, deep down, they know FC/S2C/RPM can't work as an independent form of communication.

Thank you.

Interesting idea. There are some people who believe FC/S2C/RPM are the result of psychic (perhaps even "alien") powers, but authorship can be attributed to something more terrestrial (e.g., the facilitators). There is a better than chance possibility/probability it's their story being told via FC/S2C/RPM, not those being subjected to it.

No idea. If he is being subjected to FC/S2C/RPM, then you might consider the fact that it is highly likely the facilitator is influencing letter selection by providing verbal, physical, and/or auditory cues.

Using a keyboard to independently communicate is not the issue. The issue is the inherent human flaws that make facilitated communication an unreliable method.

@@fcisnotscienceright first time!! You have no idea!

@bobwishart8780 speaking of not having any idea, notice you went silent in your other post. Not a good sign if you can't answer the questions. What's YOUR skin in the game?

His own thoughts

It's not possible for us to answer this question. We can say that if your son is being subjected to FC/S2C/RPM or any of its variants, it is more likely than not that the facilitator(s) are influencing letter selection. There are no reliably controlled studies that prove proponent claims that messages obtained with FC/S2C/RPM are independently produced. See ASHA statements on FC and RPM for further information or check out our website at www.facilitatedcommunication.org.

Wait. Hold up. Are you using 30 year old studies to discredit something that anybody with functional eyeballs can see is valid and self-generated communication? For real? There’s a paper from 2020 that uses actual 21st century tech that shows the blanket dismissal of these techniques is completely unwarranted. And the harms…prompt dependence? Are you kidding me right now? That’s like saying someone who is re-learning how to walk after a brain injury shouldn’t use a walker, for fear of becoming “walker dependent”. It is easy to see how many individuals can have prompts faded significantly over time. And tell me. What are these “evidence based alternatives” individuals will be missing out on due to the time and money spent on trying a facilitated communication method? Most don’t even consider starting this until grade school, and everyone knows ABA is most effective before that point anyway (if you believe ABA is an ethical autism therapy). I think it’s time that humans see that what we now call “science” is, in reality, so financially and politically fueled that it may as well be another religion. I’m all for healthy skepticism, but blanket statements that a form of communication that clearly helps thousands and could help potentially millions of people is bogus just because nobody’s forked over enough cash for 15 prospective studies so some white guy in a tie can give it the “evidence based” stamp of approval…that’s borderline fascism.

Speller's is now available on UA-cam, amazing documentary about speller's.

@@carefugee533did the FC helped him to type without support, or is he still fully depending on facilitators? Your reply does not give that insight.

Thank you. This one makes me particularly sad.