News

Well you’re obviously being sarcastic but to expound on the point

ABA is a difficult thing because of consent issues, obviously. But the article portrays it solely as torture, as do you. I have worked with children who literally bash their head into the wall until they give themselves concussions. One kid did it so hard he detached a fucking retina. I have worked with people that have done so much property damage to their homes their houses are condemnable. I have worked with people that become violent when presented with stimuli that they consider aversive, like a song comes on the radio they don’t like. And when I say violent I don’t mean they are “mean”, I mean they fuck people up, they send people to the hospital.

To further confound things research shows the absolute best thing that can be done to avoid the above scenarios is early intervention to work on issues like frustration tolerance and toleration of denied access.

What do we do in these cases? Contingent reinforcement is evidenced, effective, and when applied effectively can be balanced against the cost. These people have serious quality of life issues and ABA can alleviate that when not much else, if anything, can, aside from just giving them what they want all the time and creating a sterile environment free from any stressor, which is unrealistic and foolish.

The article is presenting it in terms of “ABA is bad because people implementing it have misused it”. This is why I say it’s one sided. I should have elaborated this in my first comment probably. But so many people, you included, seem to have no interest in having a more nuanced discussion on this. It’s demonized because of practitioner misuse. This is understandable. But I will continue to make the point that all ABA is is the science of operant conditioning, nothing more, nothing less. How it is implemented is up to the practitioner. It is up to the social norms surrounding to dictate that

To that point I would argue your real beef is with capitalistic systems. These practitioners are generally well intentioned but they are misguided. They are doing what they and the parents of the individual often think is “right”, to make you “work” within such frameworks. This is where the article starts to come into play and this is where bad application of ABA comes in.

Utilizing ABA to encourage a child to stay seated, to discourage stereotypy, etc. of note is that this application is generally discouraged although to your point there is nothing strictly disallowing it. Parents and education environments ultimately have the most power here although many practitioners, myself included, will refuse to “work” on behaviors that don’t need to be worked on when they can be accommodated instead or simply just ignored, eg hand flapping doesn’t bother anyone so who cares? And getting up from their seat during class may be disruptive but can we possibly accommodate somehow, like changing seating or directing to the back of classroom so they can pace freely?

Further the article completely glosses over things like functional communication training. So never mind that utilization of ABA has led to me giving communication skills to many clients who otherwise had either none at all or very limited skills. And never mind that it’s not just contingent reinforcement in a bubble, it’s generally operant conditioning paired with functional communication.

And never mind that operant conditioning is in many ways naturalized consequences of real world conditions made safer and more artificial so that they can be practiced and learned without more serious cost

The issue I ultimately take here is that yes, there are issues with ABA. I outlined them above but will explicitly say them again: it’s in the application. Contingent reinforcement is a powerful tool and misusing it means you can attempt to shape behavior in flawed ways that are harmful. Conversion therapy is not ABA but is based in somewhat similar principles of behavior conditioning (classical vs operant conditioning), and yet I still don’t think the gross misuse by those clinicians nullifies the applicability of classical conditioning based therapies for similar reasons.

But to respond in such an obviously biased way steers people away without providing a balanced view. It reeks of tactics that anti science zealots utilize. it puts families in a position that makes the susceptible to dangerous treatment options. Etc

I mean see the much more involved reply I gave to the to other person but in addition to that the difference here is that ABA does work. It’s evidenced based to do so. It is not kooky bullshit of people stealing your money with snake oil.

The issue surrounding it is one of consent, which is a very worthwhile discussion to have. This is another issue with the way the article is presented. It confounds the actual issue! Now you are conflating it with snake oil when there is an astoundingly large body of evidence in support of its efficacy. To be clear, this is not a flimsy “it works sometimes under some scenarios maybe” thing. This is decades of evidence

So when you come into my practice and say you want to change a behavior that bothers you and negatively impacts your quality of life I can present you with operant conditioning. You want to change something about yourself, which is sometimes a thing that people do. It will likely be effective if done correctly. If I present it to you clearly and you consent to it, what’s the problem? But the moment I call it ABA you are far more likely to simply reject it now. That’s your right of course, but it’s sad

Now we can discuss the ethics of treating those who cannot reliably consent, children, people who cannot reliably communicate, etc. but frankly is ABA the issue here? Again I argue your issue is with programming direction being forced upon someone who cannot advocate for themselves. This is not ABAs fault. But it is an easier thing to scapegoat