Guest guest Posted September 14, 2004 Report Share Posted September 14, 2004 > Hi everyone, > > Hope you're all doing well. Enjoyed hearing about the 'Surfin' on > Lake Ontario' Clay! What is it with the weather lately? > Personally, I'm starting to miss the Aussie surf this time of year. > The weather here in the U.K. is really chilling down just now and I > blinked and almost missed Summer! > Just wondering whether anyone here knows of R.D.I(Relationship > Development Intervention). It's stimulating my adrenal gland at the > moment as I'm hearing of more and more Aussie parents falling under > Professor Gutstein's spell! For more info on this, the website is > www.rdiconnect.com. The claims and jargon seem like many other > recipe book aproaches that can easily be found in texts and on the > internet. I have had a look and read the following: > > * " about the joy in connecting: a path for people on the Autism > Spectrum to learn friendship, empathy, and a love of sharing their > world and experiences with others. > *about changing neurology: a way for people on the spectrum to become > flexible thinkers and creative problem solvers who enjoy the > challenges and who desire to expand their world. " > > I have many problems with such claims, especially " change neurology " . > Autism is a permanent neurological difference. Sure, we can learn > to behave in ways that look normal so as to be able to " pass " in NT > society. (They may defend their method by claiming that any learning > results in neurological change, but that is not what is implied.) > Similarly empathy cannot be " learned " . Just seems imho that these > methods are designed to attract the attention of desperate parents who > fail to understand that cure, recovery and so on is not possible. > Better to train autistic children and adolescents in how to behave in > a socially acceptable manner, while accepting and respecting their > underlying and innate difference. > > Perhaps the only benefit of any of the trendy " methods " of treatment > available is that the implementation of such methods generally results > in all people interacting with the ASD child in a consistent, > structured manner which would otherwise not have occurred. It is not > the so-called special content of such programs that does the job, but > the consistency of approach which allows the ASD child to see a > standard pattern of relating across all carers and thus learn a > consistent set of rules of social responding. > > I know of parents who are running the RDI program in conjunction with > ABA, parents who are flying from Australia to Vancouver in October > this year, forking out a fortune for the books/videos/etc etc and > others eager to meet with Professor Gutstein when he visits Oz in Feb > next year. > > Anyone here with any experience with their own children in this > program or who share my negative vibes? My head's getting a little > sore from all that banging against that same old brick wall! Putting > the message across to parents of newly diagnosed children of the > dangers that ABA and other programs can cause to their children and > the long-term resulting damage/depression that can occur never gets > any easier. > > Thanks for your time. > > , I share your concerns about RDI. My exposure to Gutstein is as a fellow speaker several times. He seemed long on charm and short on content. He charges incredible amounts to people who want to be certified as RDI providers though I am at a loss to identify more than one of our peers whom he actually helped and even that result was mixed. I also don't like his ethics. He did a book with my publisher and got on the Future Horizons conference circuit. It sold very well and he got a lot more speaking dates than most authors with that company. Then, a couple of months later, he put out a second book with one of our competitors without ever telling my publisher of his intention. He had to know that when he got started with Future Horizons and just hid it. Talk about milking every cow in a very little barn at once!! Heck, I am doing a book with another publisher but I didn't hide that fact from a publisher that has kept me busy for eight years. So for my own reasons, I share your suspicion. We all know about over-rated programs and unprincipaled pitch men. Jerry Newport Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2004 Report Share Posted September 14, 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. >> > , I share your concerns about RDI. My exposure to Gutstein > is as a fellow speaker several times. He seemed long on charm and > short on content. He charges incredible amounts to people who want to > be certified as RDI providers though I am at a loss to identify more > than one of our peers whom he actually helped and even that result > was mixed. > > I also don't like his ethics. He did a book with my publisher > and got on the Future Horizons conference circuit. It sold very well > and he got a lot more speaking dates than most authors with that > company. Then, a couple of months later, he put out a second book > with one of our competitors without ever telling > my publisher of his intention. He had to know that when he got > started with Future Horizons and just hid it. Talk about milking > every cow in a very little barn at once!! Heck, I am doing a book > with another publisher but I didn't hide that fact from a publisher > that has kept me busy for eight years. > > So for my own reasons, I share your suspicion. We all know about > over-rated programs and unprincipaled pitch men. > > Jerry Newport Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2004 Report Share Posted September 15, 2004 Hi Jerry, Thanks for your time in replying. Really enjoyed your input and found it very interesting. I have had one breakthrough amongst a group of 4 parents in effectively getting my point across on this issue and I can only hope that others will follow suit. Not good at mind reading, so not certain what the others are thinking at this point! Sorry to say, I had not heard of you till coming on board here recently and am very interested in learning more through your books. Have put the word out about " Mozart and the Whale " and there are some pretty eager Aussies awaiting a release date which I understand may be next Spring in the US, not sure about Australia though. Expect an increase in sales of your books downunder!!! Hope you're one of the more restrained taxi drivers unlike those I've encountered in Sydney! They're lunatics there, much like the ice cream van that I catch a glympse of here in our small village of Beare Green - drives like a madman at what looks to be 50mph, doesn't seem to quite understand the act of stopping and selling the product! Perhaps he missed out on his dream to be a formula 1 driver! Thanks again. I value your input! > , I share your concerns about RDI. My exposure to Gutstein > is as a fellow speaker several times. He seemed long on charm and > short on content. He charges incredible amounts to people who want to > be certified as RDI providers though I am at a loss to identify more > than one of our peers whom he actually helped and even that result > was mixed. > > I also don't like his ethics. He did a book with my publisher > and got on the Future Horizons conference circuit. It sold very well > and he got a lot more speaking dates than most authors with that > company. Then, a couple of months later, he put out a second book > with one of our competitors without ever telling > my publisher of his intention. He had to know that when he got > started with Future Horizons and just hid it. Talk about milking > every cow in a very little barn at once!! Heck, I am doing a book > with another publisher but I didn't hide that fact from a publisher > that has kept me busy for eight years. > > So for my own reasons, I share your suspicion. We all know about > over-rated programs and unprincipaled pitch men. > > Jerry Newport Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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, > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2004 Report Share Posted September 15, 2004 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 15, 2004 Report Share Posted September 15, 2004 Hi Marria, I clicked the link and read about it, at least all that was contained in " What is RDI? " I have to say that it didn't sound bad. Of course, the question I had running in my mind was, " Just how do they accomplish their objectives? " I read through the " RDI FAQs " section, and didn't see that answered. I couldn't be for it or against it without knowing what their methods were. Maybe you can answer the question? Clay > 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 i have the rdi program. there are some aspects that I am concerned about, and part of that is that the relationship between tutor and student is very one sided in the sense that there is no equality between trainer and student. a positive about the program is that they report the best progress in families that incorporate RDI into the lifestyle. this is a positive because the student is practising in many situations and is immersed in a communication style. I also like that it is not as ruinously expensive as some programs and helps parents to learn how to communicate with their own child. I think it is a big plus that the child does not have to sit in a room with a therapist for so much of the time. that terrifies me. the potential for abuse is enormous. It does concern me that poor families still do not ahve access to support. I think that people also need a fairly high level of cognitive functioning for parents to be effective. That is another group that will continue to be disadvantaged. a negative in a way is that gutstein believes that RDI replaces scripting. I am not so sure. i think it gives the student many scripts and many opportunities to practice, so it is easier to deliver rapid, appropriate responses. I feel very nervous about the strategies to ensure the person is attending. That is a potential area for abuse, but hopefully people will do this very gently and not hold faces etc. I have joined his list, and he is very strong in the face of criticism. most of his answers make sense, but some are very autocratic, and i think he misses the mark a bit at times. overall, i wish i could implement the program because it is so thorough and because it can be tailored to the individual. I cannot access the training, so i will probably use ideas more informally. > > 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 each parent doesnt pay $4000 a day. that is what he gets. The cost to individuals is US$275 for the Australian workshops. In this state we bring speakers over. we estimate the number of participants and charge enough to cover the fee. parents are usually charged less than professionals and people on spectrum get a further discount. if the costs are high, we apply for grants eg for canberra conference we have enough to send 6 people with asd. we tend to make a profit from professionals who attend training courses, and that is used for funding support services. tracy bester charges $1600 for a workshop and her workshops are very general, so that is an indication of the going rate for speakers. I am not willing to pay that amount because I have some doubts about the program. it is too much for a speculative sort of participation. for professionals who are really interested, its a bit expensive, but they would make money out of being accredited. for parents, it is a lot cheaper than something like ABA, and less invasive hopefully. > > 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, > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2004 Report Share Posted September 16, 2004 Hi Clay, 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 > > > 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? > > I join with you in asking this question. May I just say, thankyou for all the feedback. I have really appreciated the comments and have taken in all that Marria has kindly shared, though despite all that has been said, I would still undeniably refuse RDI even if it were offered to my children free of charge. I have a friend in Australia who has two children on the spectrum. She had plans to involve her family in this program but after a closer, more in depth look, she came to realise that the methods on offer are exactly those she is currently using, under the guidance of her child's therapist. , my 5 year old son is ill just now with high temp and when he gets sick, he really gets sick. Last time he required hospitalisation, so not sure what the week ahead shall bring. As I say, just wanted to say thanks again, it's been enlightening. Must add, I did enjoy Jerry's feedback immensely - on both Gutstein and that dreaded Lovaas character! Take care and have a great weekend everyone! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2004 Report Share Posted September 17, 2004 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 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 > > 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 > > > > 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 , you asked a good question, and I have been mulling it over. I think you have actually asked the " why " question: like WHY BOTHER?! Why bother looking (which RDI calls " referencing " ). Those are the " why-bother " answers which RDI tries so hard to provide. " Why look " is different at different stages of development. And as I mentioned, RDI is very much a developmental model. " Why is it important to look? " you ask ... And I think the simplest answer is: to make life better. To give more PAYOFFS. But the *specifics* of what the payoffs are, are different for each individual at their stage of development. In acsnag's example, looking to connect better is one " why-bother " BUT is only important for someone at that stage of development. My experience has been more like yours .. I have felt most connected when I have not been looking. For me, this is the beauty of Dr Gutstein as a clinician and as a human being. The first time I met him, I didn't know him. I was prepared to " give him " the eye contact thing, because I thought he would expect it. The first thing he says to me is " let's not sit across from each other... let's sit kind of beside each other .. that way there's no 'pressure' for you to look at me. " However, I digress a little. At any rate, connecting is only one of MANY why-bothers and is not a good reason at my level of development. (Nor, apparently at your stage of development either. It doesn't mean anything POSITIVE to you... there's no payoff there for you.) The fact is, RDI is supposed to " reference " what individuals need, not fit us into some cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all approach. At my stage of development (and perhaps at yours ?) Dr Gutstein has actually told me to reference other people as little as possible ! Because that is more where I'm at ... that the greater connection for me is in NOT-looking, so he has ENCOURAGED me to increase the connection and decrease my aversion to being with people, by NOT-referencing. So that is how RDI is working for me.. And that is why I really love Dr Gutstein. But that is just me and where I'm at, at this time, as an INDIVIDUAL on the spectrum with my own unique needs. And, this will change, as I develop and grow. But, there is no hurry. Back to our theoretical discussion of " why-bother " however, at each level of development, the " why " can take many different forms. There are lots of " why-bothers " for " looking " (referencing) at every stage of the RDI program and I've come up with a little list ... a lot has to do with gaining information from the face (is my understanding) but it can be used for lots of different things... for a baby who is upset, it can be about getting soothed; for a child who doesn't know what something means, it can be about understanding something better; for a teenager or adult who wants a relationship, it can be about how to flirt (!); it can be about negotiating better; it can be about reducing misunderstandings; or about being more confident in dealing with people, etc. Also, referencing is one of the precursors for a good " episodic memory " (emotional memory) which is a precursor for good executive functioning, which includes motivation. AND early referencing makes later SELF-referencing easier: developing a solid sense of our own selves and what we like and don't like including how to nurture ourselves and how to meet our own needs better is very critical stuff for making life easier and having a higher quality of life. There are some really good video clips on Referencing on the RDI web site. There is Referencing for Uncertainty, Referencing for Meaning, the Mall (which is about non-verbal " negotiation " .. note how the mother is not even TOUCHING the child and they are negotiating completely without words), plus Referencing to share more excitement and fun (several video examples). I personally, am not ready for those stages, but they're interesting to look at. Hope this helps answer your original Q a little... (Oh, also just to be clear.. RDI is not a BEHAVIORAL approach. It considers itself a developmental and cognitive approach.) Marria > > > > 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 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 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. > > If that were true, I'd agree with you. But there are plenty of ways > of connecting with someone without looking at them. I did not say it was the only way of connecting. It is however one of the most basic ones. There are lots of other ways to connect. It's a little like traveling. I can travel from one city to another by car, bus, train, (sometimes) airplane or walk. However walking is not usually the first choice because there are easier ways. For short distances car or bus is usually the first choice but that does not preclude any of the others. Some people don't drive or have a car so they use a bus. If however they need to travel often they may find it most expedient to learn to drive and buy a car. That would be the equivalent to looking at people to make a connection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 julie_euston wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. If only there could be > more autistics in the disability field, making the necessary changes. > 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 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 Marria 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. " 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 for me, the why bother with referencing is about choices. if you can do it, you can choose to communicate in that way or not. if you do not know it exists, then you have no choice. that is all i care about. i care that a person can make his or her own choices and can truly choose the least restrictive life that suits that individual. i dont mind if that choice is a whole in the wall, as long as the person knows what else is available that would be a good life for him or her and determines that the hole is the best. > > > > > > 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 > Eye contact is not harsh or intrusive. Not for some. For others, it is. > It is one of the most gentle loving actions we can ever learn. For some. For others, it is not. > 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. That's great for you (I'm not being snide, here... I really mean that). However, eye contact is not for everyone. Making eye contact was something that had been drilled into me from a fairly young edge as part of the de facto " behavior modification " that I was subjected to. It always made me miserable. Once I learned that I was on the spectrum and that eye contact was a big issue for autistics, I stopped trying to do what made everyone else comfortable and started doing what made *me* comfortable, what is compatible with my neurology. If others don't like my not making eye contact with them, well... I'm sorry, but tough luck. They're *my* eyes, after all, so it should be my decision how I use them. (Besides which, no one would ever say that anyone in a wheelchair should make a greater effort to walk because they're uncomfortable seeing someone rolling around instead of walking...) > 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 weren't asking me, but I'll offer my opinion anyway... If it made any difference in treatment, it would be from having doctors who were better able to empathize with the condition, having gone thru it themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 Hi acsnag , my little one didnt give me eye contact till he was around 5 years. I used to spend hours just smoothing him and talking very quietly ,and gradually he would focus on me for a brief second or two , and smiles at me now too. acsnag@... wrote: 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. > > If that were true, I'd agree with you. But there are plenty of ways > of connecting with someone without looking at them. I did not say it was the only way of connecting. It is however one of the most basic ones. There are lots of other ways to connect. It's a little like traveling. I can travel from one city to another by car, bus, train, (sometimes) airplane or walk. However walking is not usually the first choice because there are easier ways. For short distances car or bus is usually the first choice but that does not preclude any of the others. Some people don't drive or have a car so they use a bus. If however they need to travel often they may find it most expedient to learn to drive and buy a car. That would be the equivalent to looking at people to make a connection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 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 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 > > > Eye contact is not harsh or intrusive. > > Not for some. For others, it is. Agreed. > > It is one of the most gentle loving actions we can ever learn. > > For some. For others, it is not. Agreed. > > 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. > > That's great for you (I'm not being snide, here... I really mean that). Once again, agreed. I don't make eye contact with people. This includes routine encounters with police officers (traffic stops mostly), security personnel, lawyers, customs/immigration agents, job interviewers, friends, shop-keepers, customers of my employer, management, etc. I do believe some people probably do gain something from eye contact, but I don't. That means it is an issue of prejudice if I'm discriminated against, not an issue of me getting something out of it (which will never happen, no matter how much behavior intervention (or drugs or whatever else) I get. I long ago decided that people I want around me are not going to be people who freak out because someone doesn't make proper eye contact. I've found it an excellent pre-screening tool in fact. I have never, as far as I can tell, been denied a job, sent to jail (or otherwise treated unfairly *due to eye contact* by the criminal justice system), or many of the other examples commonly given on why eye contact is such a necessary thing. Simply put, in US society (and probably most western societies) it is absolutely *not* necessary to enjoy the fruits of those societies. I will say that some specific circumstances may be prejudiced against people who don't make eye contact, but honestly I think the people prejudiced against my lack of eye contact are even more prejudiced against other differences I have. Eye contact is minor - in my experience the only group who acts as if it is absolutely critical are parents and people involved with " interventions " , and, sometimes, people who buy into these theories and apply them to themselves. As I said, if you get information from eye contact, fine. If you choose not to fight the prejudice and want to be friends (or otherwise have connections) with people who have this prejudice, that, too, is fine. But it should not be assumed to be the choice a person someone else can't understand would make. Unfortunately, it commonly is assumed to be the case. > However, eye contact is not for everyone. Making eye contact was > something that had been drilled into me from a fairly young edge as > part of the de facto " behavior modification " that I was subjected to. Just count yourself lucky that your behavioral intervention program didn't include the " reward " of getting the crap beat out of you by other students (I really couldn't make that one up - bruises were a *reward* in this program). > It always made me miserable. Once I learned that I was on the spectrum > and that eye contact was a big issue for autistics, I stopped trying to > do what made everyone else comfortable and started doing what made *me* > comfortable, what is compatible with my neurology. Yes, I did that too. I'm also much happier for that and other adaptations to my autistic neurology I've made. The problem with the " I need to act normal to maximize my opportunities " is that while an autistic may be able to get relatively close with great effort, it is great effort and thus exhausting, stressful, and often very damaging over the long-term (exhaustion and stress are bad for you!). It also doesn't work - no matter how many " accomplishments " the autistic person makes, they are still autistic - they will never " blend in, " so trying to compete on the NTs' home turf is rather absurd. It's rather like trying to teach a man to swim so that he can travel the world. After all, some fish swim great distances. But no man will ever be able to swim as easily and with as relatively little effort as those fish - even though he can approximate it to an extent. Rather then trying to be a fish, it would be much better for him to build a boat - even if that means he won't be a good fish imitator or get the opportunities fish get (whatever those might be). -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 > 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? 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. (A friend with severe scoliosis said it also took doctors a long time to listen to people *with* scoliosis about the existence of flatback syndrome in response to the surgery, similarly dismissed. She said the surgery certainly saved her life, but without understanding flatback syndrome, there was no way for the surgeons to improve the surgery to make it less painful and messy until they started actually listening to people.) But I do agree that not all autistic people have a clue about how to deal with other autistics in a professional capacity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 > > > It is one of the most gentle loving actions we can ever learn. > > For some. For others, it is not. > Agreed. Agreed as well, and another example: Many autistics are extremely tactile-defensive. I am only tactile-defensive some of the time, and the degree to which I am varies. I would not tell an extremely tactile-defensive person that touching would be a gentle loving action for them, because I know (and I admittedly have experience with it since I fluctuate in this regard) that it can feel like being burned and scraped, and that being burned and scraped is not a gentle loving action, and is not one that most people who feel that way can just be desensitized to. (I don't tend to like being touched unexpectedly even when I'm not tactile-defensive, though, because of the fact that it is distracting. If someone touches me, it throws everything into confusion, including my ability to tell them " Don't touch me please. " ) 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.