Guest guest Posted September 15, 2004 Report Share Posted September 15, 2004 > > Gutstein charges $4,000/day (he said loudly at IMFAR, interrupting > > me as I tried to study a poster). This would be for a workshop. > > > > > > > >Hi , > > Hope you're well. $4000 a day! My stomach is churning at the > thought of this man taking from struggling, vulnerable parents and I > am very appreciative of your input on this. That figure is truly > outrageous! I feel as though he's insulting the intelligence of many > to assume he can actually get away with charging these hefty amounts > despite using readily available approaches so easily found on the > internet and in texts as mentioned before. It's not a good feeling > knowing that people are getting swept up in this so quickly and so > easily and are so excited by it. > > Thanks again, > > > I would love to see somebody challenge Gutstein to provide a significant number of actual people who have benifited from RDI. Then, we will never know what happened to Ivar's 9 out of 19, will we? Last I heard, two attempted suicide, one tried for a sex change and several were coming back to UCLA for therapy because Lovaas ( it is so hard to spell correctly a name you want to forget brainwashed their parents into thinking they are cured and " autism " is not allowed in family discussions. As for parents getting swept up, many newbies are so desperate they stampede for anything. Anything but being a real parent. Keeps those DAN conferences SRO. Jerry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2004 Report Share Posted September 16, 2004 Thanks for explaining, Marria, I feel a little more informed on the subject. It does sound interesting, and the best approach I've heard of so far. I think it's good that they mainly teach the parent how to interact with their children, and not charge for providing a therapist to do so for 40 hrs a week. I agree with (gprobs) that there's too much opportunity for abuse that way. And abuse is inherent is some of these systems, because of the level of force used to get or keep a child's attention. I only know that it's counter-productive to grab and hold a child's face and say, " LOOK at me when I'm talking to you! " That's one thing that was done to me, by my mother, and the memory of my feelings at the time is a blend of defiance and contempt. It didn't help our relationship any. Anyway, I'm sure we could all use some improvement in our quality of life. Clay Marria wrote: > Well I will try to explain this as best I can .. although in terms of > how this is done with children, my knowledge is quite theoretical. > > RDI is a " developmental model " in that it is heavily based on typical > (NT) childhood development. One of the things about typical children > (babies) is that they receive genuine " payoffs " from interacting with > say, > parents ... things like excitement, joy, soothing or comfort when > distressed, etc. So they feel inherent internal motivation to connect > with their parents. So that would happen right from birth and > obviously continue and develop in the first few months of life. Any > of these types of inherent internal motivations, RDI would call > " Functions " .. the WHY-BOTHERS? RDI seeks to develop the WHY- > BOTHERS *before* developing any skills .. that is one big departure > from ABA, for example. (And one reason it attracted me.. it wasn't > about " fake " skills, which I had spent a lifetime perfecting, for very > little " payoff. " So, from my perspective as a person with autism, RDI > is a lot about PAYOFFS! and Payoffs for ME !! YAY.) > > So one of the things about RDI is that it tries to provide firm > foundations, before moving onto any " skills. " It is very much a > step-by-step program, with over 100 Why-Bothers (functions) and > probably a couple hundred Skills, all organized into a structure. > For example, the first Function is " Seeks out face-to-face gazing > to intensify joy and excitement, sooth distress and attend to > Coach's (parent's) communication. Just that one Function is broken > into 6 " sub-functions " so parents can work on one manageable > thing at a time. It is very family-oriented and done by parents, not > therapists. The last Function in the whole program is " Values close > friendships because of their history and potential future of shared > trust, deep mutual concern and common beliefs. " > > RDI provides a rather large " structure " or framework with all these > objectives, functions and skills, and basically outlines everything > from " birth " to adult relationships. Within the framework, though, > there's a LOT of room for customization and creativity. It is VERY > much about the Coach " going to " the child and referencing the child > to see what the child is about, and where the child is at. > > In terms of " methods " I would say in general it is about taking > things step-by-step, that it is definitely a family-based program, > with a large emphasis on " lifetstyle " activities, an emphasis on > declarative communication (ie NOT asking a lot of stupid > questions!) and a big reduction in imperative communication, > a focus on simplifying life and meeting the child/person at the > level where they're at; reducing a lot of unreasonable DEMANDS > on the person with autism, positive memory development, through > " spot-lighting " positive emotional moments, (which can be done > through words, photos, etc). and small, *manageable* challenges > (they call it " productive uncertainty " and btw, that's manageable > from the perspective of the child/person with autism) which give > payoffs like feelings of genuine competence and confidence. > > Most importantly, fundamentally it is all about improving the quality > of life for those on the spectrum. > > For me personally, it has meant the freedom for me to cater to my > own autistic needs. I see it as very much about meeting my needs... > the more that happens, then the more it becomes about deciding > what *I* want to experience in life. > > I hope this helps explain it a bit. Or at least my own understanding > of it. > > Marria > > > > > > > > > > I haven't visited much lately, but this post caught my eye. > > > I consider Dr Gutstein my friend, so this is obviously biased. > > > > > > Just to keep the facts straight, his 2-day Introductory Workshops > > are > > > usually around $250 US. And his 4-day Parent Training Intensives > > > are $1950. I think the $4,000 mentioned might be his day rate for > > an > > > organization hiring him for a speaking engagement, (although > > > I dont know.) > > > > > > I first met Dr Gutstein on-line a few years ago. I was astounded > by > > > how he understood my experience as a person with autism. When I > > have > > > met him in person he has been very sensitive regarding my sensory > > > issues, without my bringing it up. > > > > > > I am an adult who has greatly benefitted from his RDI work. > > > While most of his work does center on children, he has been very > > > generous with his advice as to how it would work for adults. > > > The whole point of RDI is to improve the quality of life for > > > those on the spectrum. > > > > > > In terms of his results .. he want rigorous proof probably more > than > > > anyone. His initial research has recently been accepted for > > > publication by the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. > > > According to his latest newsletter, he sees this as simply the > first > > > step towards > > > multi-site studies and large-scale studies. He also wants to > > > continue formal research so RDI can become as he says, " 10 times > > more > > > effective. " If anyone wants to read his initial research it is > > > available on his web site at > > > http://www.rdiconnect.com. > > > > > > He would be the first to say it > > > is a very small scale study, retrospective research and important > > > to limit conclusions based on this one study. > > > > > > He is a pioneer. RDI is still a work in progress. > > > His work has touched me very deeply. > > > I think the world of him. > > > > > > Marria Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2004 Report Share Posted September 16, 2004 You're welcome, Clay. > " LOOK at me when I'm talking to you! " I'm sorry that happened to you. What I like about RDI is that it basically says to parents: DO NOT DO THAT !! (well, a titch more politely). Grabbing and holding a child's face is the most un-RDI like thing imaginable. Instead, RDI gives children a REASON to look, based on the *child's developmental level*. For example, there is this part in Dr Gutstein's book that I liked: " At each level of development we introduce to the child new reasons to care, new aspects of experience that can be shared. At Henry's level of development he might care because if he walks ahead of me he doesn't get to see all of the silly faces I make, which he finds so funny. " I heard Dr Gutstein say IN PUBLIC that he felt that teaching autistic children " eye contact " was cruel. That is why I love him. ) Marria > > > > I haven't visited much lately, but this post caught my eye. > > > > I consider Dr Gutstein my friend, so this is obviously biased. > > > > > > > > Just to keep the facts straight, his 2-day Introductory > Workshops > > > are > > > > usually around $250 US. And his 4-day Parent Training > Intensives > > > > are $1950. I think the $4,000 mentioned might be his day rate > for > > > an > > > > organization hiring him for a speaking engagement, (although > > > > I dont know.) > > > > > > > > I first met Dr Gutstein on-line a few years ago. I was astounded > > by > > > > how he understood my experience as a person with autism. When I > > > have > > > > met him in person he has been very sensitive regarding my > sensory > > > > issues, without my bringing it up. > > > > > > > > I am an adult who has greatly benefitted from his RDI work. > > > > While most of his work does center on children, he has been > very > > > > generous with his advice as to how it would work for adults. > > > > The whole point of RDI is to improve the quality of life for > > > > those on the spectrum. > > > > > > > > In terms of his results .. he want rigorous proof probably more > > than > > > > anyone. His initial research has recently been accepted for > > > > publication by the Journal of Autism and Developmental > Disorders. > > > > According to his latest newsletter, he sees this as simply the > > first > > > > step towards > > > > multi-site studies and large-scale studies. He also wants to > > > > continue formal research so RDI can become as he says, " 10 > times > > > more > > > > effective. " If anyone wants to read his initial research it is > > > > available on his web site at > > > > http://www.rdiconnect.com. > > > > > > > > He would be the first to say it > > > > is a very small scale study, retrospective research and > important > > > > to limit conclusions based on this one study. > > > > > > > > He is a pioneer. RDI is still a work in progress. > > > > His work has touched me very deeply. > > > > I think the world of him. > > > > > > > > Marria Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2004 Report Share Posted September 16, 2004 > What I like about RDI is that it basically says > to parents: DO NOT DO THAT !! > (well, a titch more politely). > Grabbing and holding a child's face is the most > un-RDI like thing imaginable. > Instead, RDI gives children a REASON to look, > based on the *child's developmental level*. But... why is it so important that the child look in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 marriakeith wrote: > By the way, I forgot to say (cut and forgot to paste it back in) > that referencing is about gaining information from the face and > not about looking at someone's eyeballs, and RDI is categorically > against teaching " eye contact. " > > Marria To me it feels like *too much* information gained from looking at someone while talking. When I look at someone I " fall into their gaze " and can't really think clearly. All I can do is watch their face moving (and " watch' my thoughts follow the words they're saying). I had a conversation with someone recently - we were talking for about 45 minutes - and I realized after a while that I haven't looked at her. So I briefly looked and, yep, she was still there She was seated directly facing me and while my legs were pointed towards her, I was looking straight ahead. So I guess she was talking to my profile most of the time. That must have been kinda strange for her. I believe she knows I'm autistic so maybe that's why she wasn't offended or anything. I think most people would think I wasn't interested in talking. I only looked at her maybe 2-3 times during the talk (and on this occassion I _did_ want to talk). June Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 i have thoughts about this. one is that looking at someone can be as much for another person's benefit as the person who does not benefit from facial observations eg i work with a profoundly autistic, largely nonverbal 9 year old. One day i went in and he was obviously not in a mood to do his schoolwork and to try was going to provoke upset so i sat next to him and just started to read to myself. lol reading RDI manual (which had been leant to me) actually. after about 10 minutes a face appeared between me and the book making the most intense eye contact that could be imagined. well, i dropped book and shrieked. it was too intense for me. the boy laughed and said ms r is autistic. that was an immense breakthrough in our communication and from that, i know an enormous amount about his awareness and level of processing that he had never been able to communicate to me before. i also know that he wants my attention, and i had not been sure about that before. i think that boy and i can use the rdi exercises to extend mutual communication. i showed him what i was reading and talked about it. he was very absorbed and took the book, read quietly and then gave it back when my half hour was up. anyway, i bought the book with school finance even though i cannot do the training, because it can be a guide. > > > By the way, I forgot to say (cut and forgot to paste it > > back in) that referencing is about gaining information from > > the face and not about looking at someone's eyeballs, and > > RDI is categorically against teaching " eye contact. " > > As I understand it, this may not work for everyone, as some > of us are not able even to recognize their own relatives, let > alone interpret meanings from expressions. There seems to be > a " disconnect " when it comes to faces for people with proso- > pagnosia. It may be that only a small percentage of autistics > have prosopagnosia, but many more have difficulty interpreting > expressions. And I should say that I'm not really the one to > be talking about this, because I'm exceptionally good at it. > This is just what I understand from those who have written > about it. > > Clay > > " Less Bush, more trees " > (seen on a bumper sticker) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 actually connection can be created in other ways, as long as the communication system is shared. it could be a touch, a sound or an action. as long as both parties have a shared understanding, it doesn't matter. the point about looking is that skill even if used briefly can connect him with more people than those who understand his personal referencing. > > > > But... why is it so important that the child look in the first place? > > > Quite simple, looking creates connection. Looking away creates separation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 maybe rdi also involves a desensitizing process. i dont have a problem with that as long as people can take their time. no punishment or negative consequences for non-compliance. actually, i hope compliance is not a part of the process. > > > > But... why is it so important that the child look in the first > > > place? > > > Quite simple, looking creates connection. Looking away creates > > separation. > > If that were true, I'd agree with you. But there are plenty of ways > of connecting with someone without looking at them. If what you say > were true, then blind people would be unable to form true connections > with others. I consider autistic sensory issues to be often (not > always) a sort of equivalent to blindness in that regard, and consider > my ability to connect to people no less (and often *more*) when I'm > not looking at them. Some of the most wonderful time I've spent with > people, with a mutual connection totally acknowledged, has involved > having our backs to each other, or else neither of us looking at the > other. Some of the most disconnected time I've spent with people has > involved looking at them. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 a big part of the problem is that children do not know the possiblities of what they could be, and then when they do begin to know, they have difficulty in communicating that to other people. it seems a bit unfair if for example i do not always receive the message people are trying to communicate to me, to then be annoyed if they dont receive my messages. it is 2 different communication systems missing each other to varying degrees. i was in a school with a deaf unit, and had experienced a high level of shared communication because the school culture was one of difference, not disability. i have moved to a place where that is not the norm and i am having to help people understand the communication styles that can be mutually beneficial. i cannot get angry with them, because i am upsetting their concept of a school manager. it will be a steep learning curve, that some cannot achieve. i want them to be more patiient with children who cannot communicate in standard forms, so i have to be tolerant of adults who have great difficulty accepting non standard forms. > > > > > > > But... why is it so important that the child look in the first place? > > > > > > Quite simple, looking creates connection. Looking away creates > separation. > > I hear what you're saying, but autistic children/adults can and do > learn without making harsh, intrusive eye contact that can leave them > anything but comfortable. Autistic people, even those with very > severe intellectual impairments, learn very quickly and with minimal > trials, if given stable structure. They do not need hundreds of > learning trials either. I believe that many if not all of the > " recipe book " approaches are designed to appeal to the sentiments and > perceptions of parents and teachers. However it is the autistic > child or adult being treated, often suffering the treatments, based on > the normal perceptions of NTs, no matter how well-intentioned. There > are all sorts of half-baked " treatments " out there: foetal cellular > injections, pyramid power, kinesiology and crystal power, deep sleep > therapy, Doman-Delacato method, etc etc and never has there been > positive outcomes seen, but lots of money spent. > > I am all for intensive behavioural interventions, i.e. the behaviour > method, but the use(or mis-use!) of that method is my concern. What > also bothers me is that in this day and age we are supposed to have > left the old medical(illness focused) model behind. Professionals > are supposed to be adhering to a developmental model that respects the > reality of the individual from the start. If only there could be > more autistics in the disability field, making the necessary changes. > > As we all know, autistics deserve respect for who they are, not what > NTs want them to be. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 > > Quite simple, looking creates connection. Looking > away creates > > separation. > > But there > are plenty of ways > of connecting with someone without looking at them. You can be unconnected while looking at someone. I remember my father angerily demanding I look him in the eye. (This was at a time Asperger's was unrecognized.) Everybody's eyes emitted more energy than my 6-yr-old brain could manage; my father's eyes would laser into my brain. I looked at his chin and his mouth but he was not satisfied so I looked at the bridge of his nose or his temple which he took for eye contact. There was no connection. Is there anyone here who has done study in comparative cultures? Is there a society that does not look each other in the eye? ~Bonnie __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 > actually people can be desensitized to an extent to tactile > defensiveness. To an extent. I've never been able to fully desensitize myself past a certain point, and mine isn't as constant as some people's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 Actually, RDI has also drawn from the field of cultural anthropology, and in terms of social referencing, " peek-a-boo " which at later stages becomes " flirting " is universal across cultures. There are also other 'frameworks' in RDI which appear in all cultures, such as " hider-finder " , " parallel actions " and many others. Marria > Is there anyone here who has done study in comparative > cultures? > Is there a society that does not look each other in > the eye? > > ~Bonnie > > > __________________________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 Marria wrote: > Actually, RDI has also drawn from the field of cultural > anthropology, and in terms of social referencing, " peek- > a-boo " which at later stages becomes " flirting " is univ- > ersal across cultures. Uhh, I can remember getting very upset at the " peek-a-boo " game. Maybe because I was startled by it, whatever, but I wasn't having any of it. I can also remember getting really annoyed by people using " baby-talk " to me. It just seemed patronizing. I didn't want someone to " get my nose " , be tossed up in the air, or otherwise " messed with " ; what I really wanted was to be left alone. I can remember being taken to the coffee shop across the street from the factory where my mother worked, when I was about 2 or 3. The owner was a charming sort, a really ex- troverted guy. He always used to wink at me, and I always became upset, because I sensed that there was some implic- ation there that I didn't understand, but objected to any- how. Why would he be winking at ME? I wish I could have said, " Hey, I don't understand these games, and don't want to play. Just leave me OUT of it! " I'm just not sure if Dr. Gutstein could accomodate someone like me, as I was at the time. :-) Clay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 > I'm just not sure if Dr. Gutstein could accomodate someone > like me, as I was at the time. :-) Oh, I'm sure he could .. You probably weren't ready for " peek-a-boo " so it was actually aversive to you, rather than inviting. The whole key to RDI is being at the right developmental level, where the baby/ toddler/child/adult on the spectrum, experiences the payoff appropriate to where they're at .. NOT where someone else wants them to be or at a so-called " age-appropriate " level. The thing is, RDI requires that the *coach* reference the individual on the spectrum carefully, to see if they are have gone " too far " or alternatively, are doing something too " babyish. " The coach has to see what the child is available for. Clearly, you were not available for " peek-a-boo " or the other " games " others wanted you to play at that time. That is why there is such an emphasis on starting at the right place in RDI, and such a detailed listing of " why-bothers " and skills which make up the program. And they ALWAYS start with the why-bothers, before anything else. It is also really important for the COACH (most always the parents) to be good at referencing, in the moment. It can be a subtle thing, what a particular person is available for, at a particular moment in time. Marria > > > Actually, RDI has also drawn from the field of cultural > > anthropology, and in terms of social referencing, " peek- > > a-boo " which at later stages becomes " flirting " is univ- > > ersal across cultures. > > Uhh, I can remember getting very upset at the " peek-a-boo " > game. Maybe because I was startled by it, whatever, but I > wasn't having any of it. I can also remember getting really > annoyed by people using " baby-talk " to me. It just seemed > patronizing. I didn't want someone to " get my nose " , be > tossed up in the air, or otherwise " messed with " ; what I > really wanted was to be left alone. > > I can remember being taken to the coffee shop across the > street from the factory where my mother worked, when I was > about 2 or 3. The owner was a charming sort, a really ex- > troverted guy. He always used to wink at me, and I always > became upset, because I sensed that there was some implic- > ation there that I didn't understand, but objected to any- > how. Why would he be winking at ME? I wish I could have > said, " Hey, I don't understand these games, and don't want > to play. Just leave me OUT of it! " > > I'm just not sure if Dr. Gutstein could accomodate someone > like me, as I was at the time. :-) > > Clay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 You could be right, my parents were just doing these things at the wrong time. I was the last of 5 children, and my folks probably thought they had enough experience by then. I know I criticize my mother a lot, but I do realize that Her mother died when she was 2 yrs. old, during childbirth. So it's not like she had much of an example to go by. I wonder if, after being " rubbed the wrong way " so often, I became generally aversive to *anything* they might say and do? Looking back, it does seem that way. Clay Marria wrote: > Oh, I'm sure he could .. > You probably weren't ready for " peek-a-boo " so it was actually > aversive to you, rather than inviting. The whole key to RDI > is being at the right developmental level, where the baby/ > toddler/child/adult on the spectrum, experiences the payoff > appropriate to where they're at .. NOT where someone else > wants them to be or at a so-called " age-appropriate " level. > The thing is, RDI requires that the *coach* reference the > individual on the spectrum carefully, to see if they are have > gone " too far " or alternatively, are doing something too " babyish. " > The coach has to see what the child is available for. Clearly, > you were not available for " peek-a-boo " or the other > " games " others wanted you to play at that time. > > That is why there is such an emphasis on starting at the > right place in RDI, and such a detailed listing of " why-bothers " > and skills which make up the program. And they ALWAYS > start with the why-bothers, before anything else. > > It is also really important for the COACH (most always the > parents) to be good at referencing, in the moment. It can > be a subtle thing, what a particular person is available > for, at a particular moment in time. > > Marria Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2004 Report Share Posted September 19, 2004 acsnag wrote: >> Would you suggest that there should be more pregnant doulas to make >> birthing easier? Would you suggest more Doctors with cancer would >> help improve cancer treatment? and responded: >Listening to cancer survivors might, at the very least. I have known >childhood cancer survivors whose continuing symptoms afterwards (such >as chronic pain) were not considered " real " until very recently >because of the doctors-never-make-mistakes rule. Also, I've noticed (n my enirely second-hand, so far) experience of cancer treatment that doctors often neglect to mention consequences or " side-effects " of cancer and/or treatments for cancer that may be experienced by the patient as more disturbing than the effects of the cancer itself. It's a cruel shock to discover on one's own that one is going to have to get used to living with a burden that seems huge but wasn't considered important enough (from the doctor's POV) to mention. Jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2004 Report Share Posted September 19, 2004 Well Clay, I think that was my experience too. I was the youngest of 4 children and I actually " blame " my mother for a lot of stuff, even though I know it wasn't really her fault. I even told my psychiatrist that I believed in the " refrigerator mother " theory. Luckily, he's a smart (and funny) guy and just said, " Like a GE? or a Maytag? " He knew I was just mad and frustrated that day. I became generally aversive too, I think. Even as a teenager I knew I trusted my parents less than anyone else in the world. It seems bizarre now, but it was very real. I don't know exactly where " peek-a-boo " is, in the long list of developmental stages of RDI. But the very first function is " Shares excited gazes during pleasurable activities. " Which means the parent has to know when the child is even feeling pleasure ... Maybe that was beyond the referencing skills of my own parents .. don't know. Actually, there are some motivations (what they call " meta-functions " ) even BEFORE that very first function, and one of them is TRUST. For adults on the spectrum that is a huge deal. Dr Gutstein says that posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is really common in adults on the spectrum, and I sometimes feel the PTSD has been just as big a problem for me as the autism itself. I think we have been " rubbed the wrong way " as you say for so long, by so many people, that people in general become aversive. Well I think that happened to me. Anyway one of the first bits of advice that Dr Gutstein gave me was to avoid as many aversive (people) experiences as possible, even if that meant isolating myself completely. That one was a real relief to me. Marria > > > Oh, I'm sure he could .. > > You probably weren't ready for " peek-a-boo " so it was actually > > aversive to you, rather than inviting. The whole key to RDI > > is being at the right developmental level, where the baby/ > > toddler/child/adult on the spectrum, experiences the payoff > > appropriate to where they're at .. NOT where someone else > > wants them to be or at a so-called " age-appropriate " level. > > The thing is, RDI requires that the *coach* reference the > > individual on the spectrum carefully, to see if they are have > > gone " too far " or alternatively, are doing something too " babyish. " > > The coach has to see what the child is available for. Clearly, > > you were not available for " peek-a-boo " or the other > > " games " others wanted you to play at that time. > > > > That is why there is such an emphasis on starting at the > > right place in RDI, and such a detailed listing of " why-bothers " > > and skills which make up the program. And they ALWAYS > > start with the why-bothers, before anything else. > > > > It is also really important for the COACH (most always the > > parents) to be good at referencing, in the moment. It can > > be a subtle thing, what a particular person is available > > for, at a particular moment in time. > > > > Marria Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2004 Report Share Posted September 19, 2004 i cannot 'connect' with a lot of eye contact. its disturbing because i don't listen as fully w/ eye contact. even those straight on commercials on tv bother me and i mute the tv or look away-where the person looks right at u (seems to) kim On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:36:53 -0700 acsnag@... writes: alfamanda wrote: > But... why is it so important that the child look in the first place? Quite simple, looking creates connection. Looking away creates separation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2004 Report Share Posted September 19, 2004 , my husband does not like eye contact ,and people think hes not listening , yet he can repeat every word they have said. He will look away from the tv also, he says eye contact makes him feel uneasy and he cannot concentrate, he prefers not to make eye contact. Wich some people dont understand , and take offence that hes not giving them full on , as they see it attention, when actually he is. D Tucker wrote: i cannot 'connect' with a lot of eye contact. its disturbing because i don't listen as fully w/ eye contact. even those straight on commercials on tv bother me and i mute the tv or look away-where the person looks right at u (seems to) kim On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:36:53 -0700 acsnag@... writes: alfamanda wrote: > But... why is it so important that the child look in the first place? Quite simple, looking creates connection. Looking away creates separation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2004 Report Share Posted September 19, 2004 > i cannot 'connect' with a lot of eye contact. its disturbing because i > don't listen as fully w/ eye contact. even those straight on > commercials > on tv bother me and i mute the tv or look away-where the person looks > right at u (seems to) I have eye contact issues pretty severely myself. It's difficult for me to look at myself in a mirror, and even in magazines or the like, if there's a photo of someone looking directly into the lens, I usually have to cover the photo to continue reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2004 Report Share Posted September 19, 2004 julie_euston wrote: > >Acsnag, I love that you are so argumentative - don't change! >I'm afraid, I'll have to beg to differ on your view of eye contact. >Even at home, I use minimum eye contact with those closest to me and I >know this to be true for other aspies. > Certainly for me. > I know of others who would >agree that at work the necessity to engage people and make learned > " professional " eye contact which is very powerful and direct, >intrusive and definitely not warm/social is exactly all that comfortable. > > In software engineering, they're pretty used to people carrying on a conversation with someone (in the room) while staring into a computer screen. I think our limitations in eye-contact and other NT forms of non-verbal communication may actually help us when we communicate by email (which I do more than face-to-face communication in my job). We are used to communicating with no non-verbal " backup " . Ride the Music AndyTiedye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2004 Report Share Posted September 19, 2004 > In software engineering, they're pretty used to people carrying on a > conversation with > someone (in the room) while staring into a computer screen. I think our > limitations in > eye-contact and other NT forms of non-verbal communication may actually > help us when > we communicate by email (which I do more than face-to-face communication > in my job). > We are used to communicating with no non-verbal " backup " . > > Ride the Music > > AndyTiedye Absolutely Andy. I definitely feel more relaxed and better able to communicate via email than person to person. It's a good deal less exhausting too! Takes the pressure off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2004 Report Share Posted September 20, 2004 i am autistic and a teacher and i would never inflict intense behavioural approaches on any child. if we used those intensive approaches on nt children, we would be prosecuted for child abuse. ABA infringes upon the rights of the child. it sickens me that lovaas and his therapists cannot be charged with child abuse because their therapies were acceptable practice for disabled people at the time when they used electric shock aversives etc. > Acsnag, I love that you are so argumentative - don't change! > I'm afraid, I'll have to beg to differ on your view of eye contact. > Even at home, I use minimum eye contact with those closest to me and I > know this to be true for other aspies. I know of others who would > agree that at work the necessity to engage people and make learned > " professional " eye contact which is very powerful and direct, > intrusive and definitely not warm/social is exactly all that comfortable. > > My comment re having more people with autism working in the field of > helping others with autism was made because I believe that to develop > and implement intensive behavioural interventions from an autistic > perspective definitely has its bonuses. > The reason why I brought other treatments in, and these I must say are > not unknowns, is because this thread is about RDI and I was trying to > make the point that there are many half-baked " treatments " out there > like those mentioned. RDI, imho is yet another " recipe " book > approach and this is backed up by a friend who has worked with those > with autism for the past 28 years. The only benefit of such > approaches is that their implementation leads to a degree of increased > structure and organisation of the behaviour of parents and teachers in > the life of an autistic child which facilitates and enables(but does > not cause) more coherent or systematic learning in the autistic > person. It is the coherent structure that makes the difference. > > By the way, have you any children and if so, what approaches do you > use with them? > > > > > > > > Eye contact is not harsh or intrusive. It is one of the most gentle > > loving actions we can ever learn. Yes it may be uncomfortable for some > > in the beginning, I know, I find eye contact very difficult but I also > > know the rewards of getting past that discomfort. > > > > Would you suggest that there should be more pregnant doulas to make > > birthing easier? Would you suggest more Doctors with cancer would help > > improve cancer treatment? > > > > You go of on a tangent about all kinds of unknown treatments, what do > > any of them have to do with eye contact? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2004 Report Share Posted September 20, 2004 I'm not sure what you mean by RDI being a " recipe " book approach. It has got a definite structure in terms of it being based on developmental levels and going in a step-by-step fashion, but it is also heavily based on referencing the individual on the spectrum and seeing what brings them trust, joy, pleasure, excitement, competence and confidence, etc. It is not a behavioral approach designed for the comfort of NTs, but an emotion-sharing and cognitive approach designed for learning in safety and comfort, for the purpose of increasing the quality of life for those on the spectrum. It is lead by parents, not therapists and is very individualized. I think it demands a very high level of creativity and referencing ability from the parents. (BTW, any " recipe book " approach that tells me as a first step to start avoiding aversive social experiences and then, to reference others as little as possible, has enough flexibility and customization for me!) If by " recipe book " you are referring to the two books of RDI " activities " you might suggest your friend look into the latest information about RDI, where Dr Gustein continually makes the point that the " activities " are the least important part of the whole program. Rather, he suggests parents use the books to get ideas if they want .. in my own case, he told me he doesn't care if I EVER do any activities " out of the book. " I hope this helps clarifies things a little who are unfamiliar with RDI. Dr Gutstein told me once that he didn't want to be like some other professionals who treat people on the spectrum without knowing anything about them. He really tries hard to understand us and I think he deserves a lot of credit for that. Incidentally, he's said about families who have gone from ABA to RDI .. that those children " feel like they've died and gone to heaven " . There's an interesting post on the RDI discussion board ( " RDI vrs ABA " ) from a therapist who did ABA for 17 years, who only does RDI now. (AND he had personally worked with Lovaas.) Marria >RDI, imho is yet another " recipe " book > approach and this is backed up by a friend who has worked with those > with autism for the past 28 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2004 Report Share Posted September 20, 2004 > i am autistic and a teacher and i would never inflict intense > behavioural approaches on any child. if we used those intensive > approaches on nt children, we would be prosecuted for child abuse. > ABA infringes upon the rights of the child. > > it sickens me that lovaas and his therapists cannot be charged with > child abuse because their therapies were acceptable practice for > disabled people at the time when they used electric shock aversives > etc. > > > >Hi " gprobs " , I'm sorry for any misunderstanding here. Believe me, I am just as anti Lovaas and his punishments for undesirable behaviours as I imagine all autistic people are. I have spoken out against the notorious Lovaas method and received support for my views. When I say, I have no problem with intensive behavioural interventions, i.e. the behaviour method, and not the misuse of this method, I need to give you some clear examples and guidelines perhaps so you feel more at ease with where I'm coming from. It is actually a fellow autistic who cleared this same misunderstanding up for me some time ago when I challenged him as you have done me. He is a special educator with an M.Sc in adapted physical education. He has 28 years experience in disability, primarily autism and the development of autism in the blind. He has been class-room and specialist PE teacher in special schools. He has also taught/worked in the early intervention, primary(N,K, 1-6) and high school streams in Australia and the USA and trained student teachers in teaching methods while employed at Madison University in Virginia years ago. He specialises in working with those autistics presenting the most extreme and dangerous patterns of behaviour. He works full time in the Behaviour Intervention Service of Disability Services in , Australia. I apologise for the length of this, but I feel it's important to clearly state who this man is and what he does. In fact, he himself has written to two of the better known Australian ABA specialists acknowledging the value of the behaviour method, but challenging them by asking what was their operational hypothesis explaining being autistic as the normal state of autistics and the meaning of characteristic autistic behaviour(to autistics) as the necessary pre-condition to any systematic intervention program. It is a fundamental principle to establish the meaning and function to that person of behaviour s/he presents before attempting intervention. If one cannot explain the meaning of presented behaviour, then any intervention cannot be said to be systematic. Jim received no answers. His subsequent attempts to identify any statement by ABA people on the Internet or elsewhere acknowledging autism as the natural state of being for him and all other autistics has been to no avail. He says he can only assume they have a mthod, but no model, save perhaps the defect statements of the diagnostic criteria in DSM-IV or ICD-10. Perhaps that is why the terms " cure " and " recovery " are used again and again. Nowadays, a developmental model is supposed to be adhered to, that respects the reality of the individual from the start. I cannot emphasise 'respecting the individual from the start' enough. I have received examples of just how Jim assists in managing the behaviour of those with autism and couldn't be happier. These are totally non-invasive and totally and utterly respectful. He went to the trouble of forwarding me many examples. I'll give you an example to illustate the intervention technique. In the case of an autistic child who has bitten another child - never make a fuss about the biting, but immediately insist the child who bit does some other activity. This only works when the intervening adult is absolutely neutral, i.e. bored-looking, in presentation, AND no mention of biting occurs in the hearing of the child who did the biting. After the child who bit has been cooperative and on-task in an acceptable activity for 15-30 seconds give him reinforcement for his acceptable behaviour. If he resists complying with the task, then keep direct him to comply, allowing him the time to work through any tantrum or avoidance behaviour until he does comply. Just to add, it is fairly common to hear of young ASD children biting women on the body and breasts, but rarely men, in the classroom. One reason is that men(especially professionals) tend to manage young children outside of their own body space, for obvious reasons. However, a visit to any school will see women staff sitting in close physical proximity, often with an arm around the back of ASD children. In such close contact reactive ASD children quickly learn to target the breats and nipples of women to make them go away. Initial biting is purely random, but the strong and consistent responding of carers trains the behaviour into forms of communication and control. It is simple operation learning. When Jim began working with one such 12 year old ASD boy in May 2001 and, in a prolonged tantrum on the first day of the intervention, he jumped up from his chair across the other side of the table and reached straight out taking Jim's left nipple with perfect accuracy through his shirt and began twisting it. He was used to women teaching staff, who always sat next to him, covering up and withdrawing in pain and anger. Jim sat and smiled straight at him and he gave up and never did it again. This lad reportedly had no understanding of gender difference, but had learned over many years that there are spots to target on the fronts of people-objects. He also used to bite people very badly. He no longer does - it took about 24 months to extinguish all his problem behaviour and replace it with acceptable communication. I apologise for the length of this, but I wanted to clearly illustrate the type of intervention, that it is in no way punishing. I am totally against Lovaas' ABA and can't emphasise that enough. I have been on a mission of late in this regard! Warmest Regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.