It's so creepy how parents will use their own reciprocal communication prowess to fake reciprocity, violate consent & use someone as a puppet just so they can insert their own thoughts into a fantasy of their child behaving in the way the parent wants. I've never seen this level of manipulation before. Ironically, it seems like something only allistic ppl would be pragmatically capable of pulling off.
The research indicates most facilitators are unaware of the extent to which they influence the communications. In addition, they are encouraged not to investigate their own behaviors by employing double blind testing (e.g., where the facilitators are unaware of the content being discussed and/or where they are blinded from seeing the keyboard). One of the primary guidelines of FC/S2C/RPM is not to test. FC/S2C/RPM can be viewed as a coping strategy rather than evidence-based communication techniques. The leaders are fully aware that parents seek out FC/S2C/RPM as a "technique of last resort." History is full of examples where people are fooled into believing what they want to believe. In the case of FC/S2C/RPM, people remember the "hits" or times where it seems like the messages are correct and forget the "misses" or times when the answers are wrong, intelligible, or just plain don't make sense. In addition, they are told in workshops that people who don't believe in FC/S2C/RPM are against people with disabilities. There is a lot of (emotional) incentive to make FC "work" despite the evidence against it.
this phenomenon is a wild rabbithole & surely it's only a matter of time before the story of all these people & FC is blown out of the water and the general public becomes aware of their lies & manipulation. at least i hope so. pseudosciences never die they just keep coming around, making us have to continuously try to stamp them out.
In the case of Sara chan i think she knows what she's doing. ITim chans communication device imay also be rigged in some way. In one part of one of these videos the word he is about to write comes up as a predictive before he even types the first letter of it (just a space). its quick and easy to miss but pretty damning. I believe his mother uses a combination of techniques to achieve this illusion, as you point out. Anyway, this video is great. I could really see her hand movements on his leg matching his movements on the keyboard, in the clip at 7:48. amazing. did it kinda look like she had a movement for "space" where she kinda resets the position of her hand? that may just be me.
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).
Well done - so interesting to see how these cues and a lot of practice make it appear that he is typing alone. She should sit with a blind fold on - or turn her head and look elsewhere if they want to show how she is not cueing. Or better yet, just leave the room and let her son type.
Thank you for your feedback. Cuing can be very subtle. Facilitators should check to make sure they are not controlling the messages, but, unfortunately, they are trained not to.
Do you know what it is like to be autistic or what an autistic individual is capable of? To assume these children or adults can not understand is the downfall for these beautiful beings in the first place.
@@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?
There are really obvious controls that could be done in this scenario. She could have her view of the keyboard taken away, she could take her hands away, Do they never test their own methodology in this way?
Facilitators are taught not to test for competence (e.g., facilitator control). They reject single- and/or double-blind tests, claiming it's "too hard" for their clients if the facilitator does not know the content of what's being discussed. That should be a huge red flag in and of itself, but facilitators are convinced they can "test" for authorship by looking for unusual spellings, unusual or surprising (fc-generated) content, or content the facilitator doesn't know--all of which are insufficient for determining facilitator influence or control.
It's so creepy how parents will use their own reciprocal communication prowess to fake reciprocity, violate consent & use someone as a puppet just so they can insert their own thoughts into a fantasy of their child behaving in the way the parent wants.
I've never seen this level of manipulation before. Ironically, it seems like something only allistic ppl would be pragmatically capable of pulling off.
The research indicates most facilitators are unaware of the extent to which they influence the communications. In addition, they are encouraged not to investigate their own behaviors by employing double blind testing (e.g., where the facilitators are unaware of the content being discussed and/or where they are blinded from seeing the keyboard). One of the primary guidelines of FC/S2C/RPM is not to test.
FC/S2C/RPM can be viewed as a coping strategy rather than evidence-based communication techniques. The leaders are fully aware that parents seek out FC/S2C/RPM as a "technique of last resort."
History is full of examples where people are fooled into believing what they want to believe. In the case of FC/S2C/RPM, people remember the "hits" or times where it seems like the messages are correct and forget the "misses" or times when the answers are wrong, intelligible, or just plain don't make sense. In addition, they are told in workshops that people who don't believe in FC/S2C/RPM are against people with disabilities. There is a lot of (emotional) incentive to make FC "work" despite the evidence against it.
this phenomenon is a wild rabbithole & surely it's only a matter of time before the story of all these people & FC is blown out of the water and the general public becomes aware of their lies & manipulation. at least i hope so. pseudosciences never die they just keep coming around, making us have to continuously try to stamp them out.
In the case of Sara chan i think she knows what she's doing. ITim chans communication device imay also be rigged in some way. In one part of one of these videos the word he is about to write comes up as a predictive before he even types the first letter of it (just a space). its quick and easy to miss but pretty damning.
I believe his mother uses a combination of techniques to achieve this illusion, as you point out. Anyway, this video is great. I could really see her hand movements on his leg matching his movements on the keyboard, in the clip at 7:48. amazing.
did it kinda look like she had a movement for "space" where she kinda resets the position of her hand? that may just be me.
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).
Well done - so interesting to see how these cues and a lot of practice make it appear that he is typing alone.
She should sit with a blind fold on - or turn her head and look elsewhere if they want to show how she is not cueing. Or better yet, just leave the room and let her son type.
Thank you for your feedback. Cuing can be very subtle. Facilitators should check to make sure they are not controlling the messages, but, unfortunately, they are trained not to.
Do you know what it is like to be autistic or what an autistic individual is capable of? To assume these children or adults can not understand is the downfall for these beautiful beings in the first place.
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?
There are really obvious controls that could be done in this scenario. She could have her view of the keyboard taken away, she could take her hands away, Do they never test their own methodology in this way?
Facilitators are taught not to test for competence (e.g., facilitator control). They reject single- and/or double-blind tests, claiming it's "too hard" for their clients if the facilitator does not know the content of what's being discussed. That should be a huge red flag in and of itself, but facilitators are convinced they can "test" for authorship by looking for unusual spellings, unusual or surprising (fc-generated) content, or content the facilitator doesn't know--all of which are insufficient for determining facilitator influence or control.