This post is the fifth in a series of critiques of articles co-authored by Morton Gernsbacher. As I noted earlier, these articles collectively attempt to present evidence for the drastic redefinition of autism upon which the plausibility of FC depends: namely, the notion that autism is not (despite eight decades of research to the contrary) a socio-cognitive disorder, but rather a motor disorder. More specifically, autism is, purportedly, a disorder in which intentional motor movements, including speaking and pointing, are difficult or impossible to perform.
Today’s Gernsbacher article, “Infant and toddler oral- and manual-motor skills predict later speech fluency in autism,” relates more directly to the motor take on autism than the articles I have discussed already.
Every so often my Twitter suspension comes up on social media, with various detractors of mine voicing different theories about why I was suspended from Twitter.
FC/RPM/S2C proponents seem to think I was suspended for “bullying” remarks and/or “violent threats” against autistic individuals and/or autistic advocates.
Structured Word Inquiry proponents prefer to think I was suspended because I called SWI a “cult” run by a shadowy man in France with no formal linguistic credentials.
Progressive math proponents may think I was suspended for harassing them and finding fault with “social justice math.”
As for Twitter itself, once it suspends an account, it feeds such sundry impressions by one’s sundry detractors with canned messages about the account’s suspension that are automatically sent to anyone who “reported” the account for any reason.
People, naturally, report Twitter accounts for all sorts of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with Twitter’s rules. Some people, for example, prefer to eliminate their critics rather than debate them.
Ongoing claims that schools need an overhaul because they’re based on 19th century models reminded me of this post from 7 years ago.
At this point, I’d take Alfred North Whitehead’s observation one step further. When over an extended period of time a variety of people with compelling credentials and affiliations proclaim repeatedly in mainstream media outlets that we need a certain type of revolution (whether in education, in priorities, and/or in how we think or act), there’s a good chance that this revolution is long over and that the ideas that support it are old hat.
I’ve never questioned it; no psychiatric or psychological professional who has ever evaluated J has ever questioned it; no one who has actually met J has ever questioned it.
But a couple of non-autism experts who haven’t met him have questioned J’s autism. They’ve either wondered whether J is at the functioning level I report him at, or (!) whether he’s autistic at all. Surprisingly, these folks are themselves autism parents.
Any experienced facilitators who are interested in exploring the possibility of ideomotor effects during facilitation will find researchers eager to work with them. Unfortunately, facilitators since the early 1990s have been instructed “don’t test,” and nearly all are compliant with that maxim.
Could it be that the facilitators and parents of facilitated individuals are no longer interested in/curious about exploring the ideomotor effects in FC?
Of course I’m not saying that there are no facilitators/parents who consider themselves to be interested in exploring the ideomotor effects in FC. Indeed, there are such people out there, though in some cases they have alienated potential research partners so much that those particular researchers have no interest in having anything to do with them. Nonetheless, if such a parent/facilitator really wants to, they can certainly find other research partners whom they haven’t alienated.
As for my interest in such research, I’m game–provided that: