Some clarifications about message passing research for FC and its variants

 In a recent comment on FacilitatedCommunication.org, I wrote:

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:

  1. The facilitator/parent agrees to participate in rigorous message-passing and double-blind testing, i.e., testing in which the individuals being subjected to FC are asked a large set of questions (a) that the facilitator has not seen ahead of time, (b) to which the facilitator cannot possibly know the answers, and (c) to which the FCed individual is unable to produce answers without FC.
  2. The facilitator/parent is willing to provide (or allow me to conduct) a (recent) detailed linguistic and literacy assessment of the FCed child without their facilitator present in order to provide a basis for meeting condition (c).
  3. The facilitator/parent lives in the greater Philadelphia area or in some place easily accessible from Philadelphia (say New York City or Washington DC)

In fact, I have offered to do precisely this sort of testing with a couple of families local to me whose children use a variant of FC known as RPM/S2C. But, alas, no takers.

For reasons that should be obvious, an assessment of FC that doesn’t ensure that conditions 1-2 are unequivocally met is an unreliable assessment.

As for condition 3, I would be happy to help people who are interested in testing that involves conditions 1-2 and who live outside the geographic area I’ve specified find someone local to them who can arrange for such testing.

I should add that, for me personally, there is one final condition:

    4. Paranormal phenomena like ESP and spiritualism are not part of what we are exploring.

7 thoughts on “Some clarifications about message passing research for FC and its variants

  1. In case there is a problem with my longer comment that I then emailed to you, I am trying to post a short comment.

    Like

  2. My short comment posted so there seems to be a problem with my longer comment that I tried to post twice and then emailed to you. I hope later to write a reply to your post but I will state that I accept your offer.

    Like

  3. Testing whether it’s possible to post a long comment to this blog post–in the form of a mise en abyme.
    In a recent comment on FacilitatedCommunication.org, I wrote:

    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:

    The facilitator/parent agrees to participate in rigorous message-passing and double-blind testing, i.e., testing in which the individuals being subjected to FC are asked a large set of questions (a) that the facilitator has not seen ahead of time, (b) to which the facilitator cannot possibly know the answers, and (c) to which the FCed individual is unable to produce answers without FC.
    The facilitator/parent is willing to provide (or allow me to conduct) a (recent) detailed linguistic and literacy assessment of the FCed child without their facilitator present in order to provide a basis for meeting condition (c).
    The facilitator/parent lives in the greater Philadelphia area or in some place easily accessible from Philadelphia (say New York City or Washington DC)
    In fact, I have offered to do precisely this sort of testing with a couple of families local to me whose children use a variant of FC known as RPM/S2C. But, alas, no takers.

    For reasons that should be obvious, an assessment of FC that doesn’t ensure that conditions 1-2 are unequivocally met is an unreliable assessment.

    As for condition 3, I would be happy to help people who are interested in testing that involves conditions 1-2 and who live outside the geographic area I’ve specified find someone local to them who can arrange for such testing.

    I should add that, for me personally, there is one final condition:

    4. Paranormal phenomena like ESP and spiritualism are not part of what we are exploring.

    Like

  4. I accept your offer. The replication site I found in 2016 was between New York City and Washington D.C. but I need to get them to agree to your terms. Since then there is new site that I think is appropriate also between New York City and Washington D.C. and I plan to contact them too. Also, as I publicly stated about 20 years ago, before you and i were in contact, I personally do not believe in “Paranormal phenomena like ESP” and now I will explicitly add I do not believe in “spiritualism.” These statements also apply to our entire group centered in Israel. I should add that I personally and our group centered in Israel do believe in One God, the Creator of everything Who actively controls everything. I do not see how my religious beliefs are relevant to being involved in good science. Besides finding a site to do the research between New York City and Washington D.C., I believe that anyone involved in scientific research should be properly compensated and back in 2016 I had a funding source which I will check if it is still available which I believe it is. I look forward to cooperating with you in this matter of doing good science.

    Like

  5. Just noting that I have not received any reply from you Katharine Beals to my comment of August 4, 2022 which started with “I accept your offer.” In the meantime, I have been very involved in trying to help the mother of 10 year twins who is trying to implement the use of Spelling to Communicate (S2C) and I expect I will not have any available time to devote to this research for the foreseeable future. I will try to contact you when I am able to proceed with this research.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s