“I’m a scientist I don’t care about the science” 🤦♂️ Since she “knows” Sid is talking it would be very easy to preform a double-blind test and prove that he actually is. If S2C works there would be no reason for science to not confirm that. I doubt she would take belief as evidence in any other circumstance.
Holy cow, it all breaks apart when you point out almost everyone would answer that question with a simple "no"... especially someone who must go thru great lengths to spell every letter, you'd think he would especially choose to answer more succinctly. But OF COURSE mom has him answer with an abstract metaphorical pseudo poem "I'm a rudderless ship ....etc" instead of just "no". Wow 😅😅
WOW the mother is not making any sense at all - she does not care about the science ... get a life. With that attitude someone should look at her credentials. If she wants to work with Sid on his own and just believe what she chooses, fine. But don't go onto a film and not expect criticism. No one forced you to go public. No one forced you to film it like it was. They had choices of what to release, and if this is what they choose as "quality" then I hate to think of what "bad" would look like.
The facilitator might look at him and think he is looking at the board ... BUT THIS IS THEIR VIDEO!!! If they look at the video they can see he is NOT looking at the board! WHY IS THIS STILL A THING???
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.
@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?
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.
Yes. This is what is available for analysis in this movie. If there is a single video with no jump cuts, I'd be happy to review that as well. In both the outside and inside sections of the video, there is evidence that he is not looking while the facilitator is calling out letters.
Tell me again - what is the purpose of your video? Who are you aiming to help? For the life of me - l can’t see the purpose of uploading this video….except for your own self aggrandisement
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?
@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?
The purpose of this video is to educate people about the problems of facilitator cueing in facilitator-dependent techniques like Facilitated Communication, Spelling to Communicate, Rapid Prompting Method, etc. To date, there is no reliably controlled evidence to prove proponent claims of independent communication. Rather, testing shows that facilitators, not their clients, are influencing and controlling letter selection. If you know of reliably controlled evidence that proves independence in facilitator-dependent techniques, I would be happy to review the study/studies.
Yes, many former facilitators and victims of FC that I've spoken with report that they were surprised to learn of the evidence against the use of FC and its variants. They are not given access to this information in training workshops. And/or are told to downplay or ignore this evidence.
This channel does nothing to actually help these kids or people who want to communicate. Thank god there are people like these facilitators who are actually trying to help these people communicate. There are plenty of people who get to a point where they are communicating on a keyboard without a facilitators help. It is not hard to find the proof. Have a great day!
If it's so helpful of a method and so easy to prove it works, how come not one single controlled scientific test in the entire world has proven it even 1 single time? You'd think there would be at least 1 study that had a positive fc result, right? Buy not even 1 in the entire 40-60 year history? Not 1? Literally not even 1.
@@matthewstevens4155 it matters because it’s the only way in a video format to have strong evidence of independent communication. Studies have shown that facilitators can inadvertently, not on purpose, give subtle cues that influence message selection. Keep in mind that it would be actually very easy to prove that this method works, with a blinded study where the facilitator is blinded to the what the speller is supposed to type. But this has not been done, despite the method being around for quite a while. The proponents of this method actively discourage this type of testing
There are many anecdotes and testimonials about individuals being subjected to FC/S2C/RPM reaching "independent" communication, but sadly no reliably controlled testing to prove this point. Rather, reliably controlled testing (where facilitators are sufficiently blinded from test protocols) indicates that they--and not the individuals being subjected to FC) are influence and controlling letter selection. These visual, auditory, and physical cues can range from very subtle to more pronounced, but facilitators are often unaware of the extent to which they're controlling letter selection. My criticism is directed toward FC/S2C/RPM, not the individuals being subjected to the technique(s). I believe everyone has the potential to obtain independent communication.
“I’m a scientist I don’t care about the science” 🤦♂️
Since she “knows” Sid is talking it would be very easy to preform a double-blind test and prove that he actually is. If S2C works there would be no reason for science to not confirm that. I doubt she would take belief as evidence in any other circumstance.
Good point. It would be interesting to see what would happen if she didn't know the content of discussion.
Holy cow, it all breaks apart when you point out almost everyone would answer that question with a simple "no"... especially someone who must go thru great lengths to spell every letter, you'd think he would especially choose to answer more succinctly. But OF COURSE mom has him answer with an abstract metaphorical pseudo poem "I'm a rudderless ship ....etc" instead of just "no". Wow 😅😅
WOW the mother is not making any sense at all - she does not care about the science ... get a life. With that attitude someone should look at her credentials. If she wants to work with Sid on his own and just believe what she chooses, fine. But don't go onto a film and not expect criticism. No one forced you to go public. No one forced you to film it like it was. They had choices of what to release, and if this is what they choose as "quality" then I hate to think of what "bad" would look like.
All good points. I wonder the same things.
what is her PhD even in
He's not looking where he is pointing!!!
The facilitator might look at him and think he is looking at the board ... BUT THIS IS THEIR VIDEO!!! If they look at the video they can see he is NOT looking at the board!
WHY IS THIS STILL A THING???
And, yet, this made it into the final cut of the movie "Spellers" of an example that S2C "works."
@@fcisnotsciencethey need not. Thei guage the distance
@@janapa1978 Can you explain more about what you are talking about?
@@janapa1978they gauge the distance of what?
That is funny then tell me why my son uses a keyboard and types his own thoughts and opinions.
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?
if sid authors a book this way and it turns out he can't even spell "potatoe" then who wrote the book? i'm gonna have to say ALIENS!
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.
great questions
Thank you.
Ok but you talk about 20 jump cuts to spell that one phrase but you’re showing two different scenes, one where he is OUTSIDE.
Yes. This is what is available for analysis in this movie. If there is a single video with no jump cuts, I'd be happy to review that as well. In both the outside and inside sections of the video, there is evidence that he is not looking while the facilitator is calling out letters.
Tell me again - what is the purpose of your video? Who are you aiming to help? For the life of me - l can’t see the purpose of uploading this video….except for your own self aggrandisement
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?
The purpose of this video is to educate people about the problems of facilitator cueing in facilitator-dependent techniques like Facilitated Communication, Spelling to Communicate, Rapid Prompting Method, etc. To date, there is no reliably controlled evidence to prove proponent claims of independent communication. Rather, testing shows that facilitators, not their clients, are influencing and controlling letter selection. If you know of reliably controlled evidence that proves independence in facilitator-dependent techniques, I would be happy to review the study/studies.
Yes, many former facilitators and victims of FC that I've spoken with report that they were surprised to learn of the evidence against the use of FC and its variants. They are not given access to this information in training workshops. And/or are told to downplay or ignore this evidence.
This channel does nothing to actually help these kids or people who want to communicate. Thank god there are people like these facilitators who are actually trying to help these people communicate. There are plenty of people who get to a point where they are communicating on a keyboard without a facilitators help. It is not hard to find the proof. Have a great day!
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?
If it's so helpful of a method and so easy to prove it works, how come not one single controlled scientific test in the entire world has proven it even 1 single time? You'd think there would be at least 1 study that had a positive fc result, right? Buy not even 1 in the entire 40-60 year history? Not 1? Literally not even 1.
@@matthewstevens4155 it matters because it’s the only way in a video format to have strong evidence of independent communication. Studies have shown that facilitators can inadvertently, not on purpose, give subtle cues that influence message selection. Keep in mind that it would be actually very easy to prove that this method works, with a blinded study where the facilitator is blinded to the what the speller is supposed to type. But this has not been done, despite the method being around for quite a while. The proponents of this method actively discourage this type of testing
There are many anecdotes and testimonials about individuals being subjected to FC/S2C/RPM reaching "independent" communication, but sadly no reliably controlled testing to prove this point. Rather, reliably controlled testing (where facilitators are sufficiently blinded from test protocols) indicates that they--and not the individuals being subjected to FC) are influence and controlling letter selection. These visual, auditory, and physical cues can range from very subtle to more pronounced, but facilitators are often unaware of the extent to which they're controlling letter selection. My criticism is directed toward FC/S2C/RPM, not the individuals being subjected to the technique(s). I believe everyone has the potential to obtain independent communication.