Criticisms of ABA with special guest Chloe Everett, autistic advocate & TEDTalk presenter Part 1

While ABA rightfully touts empirical validation, social validity may not always reflect as strongly. One need not go further than Google to find a plethora of harsh criticism against ABA. Such a vocal critic is found in Chloe Everett and her TEDTalk entitled "The Problem with Applied Behavior Analysis" (https://youtu.be/pCqEb0aG7tg). Chloe is a well-spoken young woman who shares her experience as a 'patient' of ABA intervention given her diagnostic experience. In her talk, Chloe gives honest and useful criticism but also lends a number of misconceptions that warrant discussion, correction and ultimately, resolution. In what promises to be the first of many episodes dedicated to criticisms of ABA, we give Chloe the floor first and explore and explain her concerns. Stay tuned for Part II of episdoe 7, where we further explore her criticism and offer solutions for future practice, in addition to our humble corrections of some of the more egregious claims relayed in her talk. 

Transcript

SPEAKER_01: 0:00

Welcome to ABA on Tap, where our goal is to find the best recipe to brew the smoothest, coldest, and best tasting ABA around. I'm Dan Lowry with Mike Rubio and join us on our journey as we look back into the ingredients to form the best concoction of ABA on tap. In this podcast, we will talk about the history of the ABA brew, how much to consume to achieve the optimum buzz while not getting too drunk, and the recommended pairings to bring to the table. So without further ado, sit back, relax, and always analyze responsibly.

SPEAKER_03: 0:54

All right. Welcome back once again to ABA on Tap. I am your co-host, Mike Rubio, along with my esteemed colleague, Daniel Lowry. Dan, how you doing?

SPEAKER_01: 1:07

Doing great, Mike. How are you doing, brother?

SPEAKER_03: 1:09

Doing good, man. It's really good to be back. It's been a little bit of a hiatus for us. It's been a while since our last episode, and though we haven't committed to sort of a weekly routine, we do take pride in taking our time to explore our topics and then come back with a nice chunk of discussion for people to digest. Today, I'm super excited to... look at our next topic here. It's really going to be maybe one of the first of many episodes that we dedicate to a little self-inspection, meaning dealing with criticisms of ABA as we come across them out in the field, out in practice, out in popular media. And believe me, there are plenty of criticisms to entertain. So some people might ask us, you know, what are you guys, gluttons for punishment? No, the idea here is self-improvement. The idea here is that we have to entertain different perspectives to understand where ABA has failed, fallen short, so that we can hope to avoid those circumstances in our treatment and our efforts in the future. So it's actually a very important exercise that we are engaging in today. And to start, what Mr. Dan and I did is a very, very intensive YouTube research, everybody's modern day library. And we just went on there and plugged in some keywords in terms of criticisms of ABA and whatnot, and came up with several videos, but a couple of which we are gonna use to focus our conversation today, namely, a YouTube TED Talk by a young, very impressive young woman whose name is Chloe Everett. And Chloe, again, had an opportunity to do a TED Talk, I think, being hosted at the University of Tennessee, Nashville. And we'll certainly put up the link to her video in our description for our podcast. But you can probably punch in her name and get her. And she had some very, very interesting things to say about her experience with ABA. Again, being somebody who's very eloquent, indicated that she is on the spectrum or has a diagnosis, although that's been sort of a confusing journey for her. But she, again, had some very interesting criticisms of ABA that we would like to analyze and certainly elucidate and shed light on today. And we're going to focus on the criticisms before we give ourselves an opportunity next week episode or next installment of this particular series to answer those criticisms. So, Mr. Dan, anything you want to throw in there as we get started?

SPEAKER_01: 3:50

Yeah, yeah. I think it's really important that we do address this. It's funny, even in times like this, I feel like people are kind of picking sides and things like that, and no different with the ABA pro and con ABA sides. I think the ABA maybe has been a little bit guilty in the past since we do have so much scientific validity um kind of digging into our trench and saying well it will work you just need to do it um and it will work correctly if you do it that way and not really taking into the whole consideration of everything that's going on and the pragmatism is you know it's on our new ethics code uh and the practicality of what we're doing So I think it's really important that we not only talk about them, but acknowledge some of the validity to them because it's really easy to say, well, yeah, this is true, but it doesn't matter. Or, yeah, this is true, but look what your kid does now. So basically that then just plateaus us and makes it so we can't improve because we can never self-reflect. So without further ado, we can get into some of the criticisms, but I think it's important that we acknowledge some of the validity to them, maybe some of the misinterpretation that some of these people have had through ABA programs services that have not been delivered exceptionally. So part of it is going to be from ABA itself maybe needing improvement. Part of it's going to be from the practitioners delivering it needing improvement. And then part of it may or may not be accurate at all. But let's talk about it. Let's acknowledge so we can move forward and make a better field and make the clients that we serve have much better experiences with our service delivery, which at the end of the day is what's important.

SPEAKER_03: 5:28

Yeah, no, very true. I think, again, we're not glens for punishment as much as even being out in the field sometimes. We come across these criticisms. I'm going to take a few minutes here to actually explain what inspired this prospective series of our podcast and entertaining criticisms of ABA. Over the past couple of months, I actually encountered prospective clients through an evaluation. And to make a very long story short, the parent proceeded to explain to me how she had been deliberating over starting ABA services or inquiring about ABA services for, I think it was a couple years now, primarily because of what she had read and then the information she had accessed through parent groups. So apparently there are parent groups out there that I've yet to identify by name, but who are concerned enough about ABA practice that they've encountered or heard about that they don't allow any discussion of ABA in their parent groups. They don't want parents inquiring about such treatment. We're sort of blacklisted in certain circles and I do understand sort of from a John Watson perspective, historically speaking, where ABA, as you said, has maybe touted itself a little bit too highly. Maybe not minded its social validity as much as its empirical validity. And yeah, I agree with you that it's a very important topic to address to make sure that we're marketable, that we're user-friendly, that our ergonomics are accessible because we do have a strong empirical validity behind us that says that our procedures work. And the idea that clients would have some notion that our procedures are harmful and not beneficial is certainly something that you and I are going to combat and address for sure. So again, no reason to make this a fight or anything like that. It's going to be a healthy debate because we stand to learn a lot from these criticisms and hopefully only improve our efforts. So let's jump right into what this very impressive young woman, Chloe Everett, was able to communicate as her concerns and given her personal experience with ABA. And one of the things, she opens up right away in talking about things that she's always hiding, that she's always hiding the fact that she's always angry. And she proceeds to talk about how behavior therapy has really worked tirelessly to try to make her mask her true self or her true emotions. And let's start off right there. What about that idea of masking or this notion that somehow ABA works toward correcting this idea of neurodivergence? So Chloe talks about people... with ASD as presenting a spectrum of neurodivergence or different abilities. And she makes a very poignant statement that at the heart of ABA is this idea that neurodivergence needs to be corrected.

SPEAKER_01: 8:55

Yeah, I think the first thing when we talk about the masking, that's something that ABA struggles with because we want to operationally define things and to discuss what one's true self is is pretty difficult to operationally define and is also pretty variable or fluid for different environments, different times of day, different times of whatever. So that's a tough one when we talk about masking. But I absolutely can understand where she's coming from of that somebody that doesn't know her, doesn't really know her family, has probably a college degree, probably doesn't have kids, is coming in and telling her, this is how you need to act and this is what you need to do. So, again, there's probably some validity to that. And that maybe sometimes we lose our social significance in trying to fit within a Vineland or some sort of standardized test and be able to check off certain skills differently. as being able to be met. Like you talk about, and I won't go down this road too much, but the decontextualization of a lot of the programs that we run might lead to that kind of masking. So you're no longer really playing a game. You're no longer interacting. You're just running rote skills to check off boxes. So with the masking, we struggle with that, maybe some validity to that. Your second question specifically, Mike, was about the neurodivergence. What was that specifically?

SPEAKER_03: 10:26

So she makes sort of an assertion that at the heart of ABA is a need to correct neurodivergence. And I thought that was a very interesting statement because, well, there's a lot to interpret from it. And I think your initial answer is saying, yeah, yeah, we do struggle with that. Maybe we do come in as ABA practitioners with this idea of correcting something. What are your thoughts on that?

SPEAKER_01: 10:48

Yes, good point. So it's tough, right? Because everything's on a spectrum, right? So... I think the first thing is the parents are asking us to correct that. So without a parent, we can't just come in and work with a five-year-old. I just can't randomly show up on Jane Doe's steps and say, let's do services. So before they get mad at us with trying to correct them, maybe they should look at the parents who are asking for us to come and correct them. So that's the first thing. The second thing is with everything being on a spectrum, Everyone's quirky, and that's where the diagnosis kind of comes in, is that all of a sudden quirks turn into problems that need correction once you have a diagnosis, right? You talk about that with your stimming, and let me actually pass it back to you. With your hand flapping and your stimming, you have a good analogy there that would kind of be relevant in terms of how we need to correct people on the spectrum, but maybe if they don't have a diagnosis, we'd respond different.

UNKNOWN: 11:47

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03: 11:49

You bring up a lot of rich examples there in terms of what's disruptive to the individual who is the learner, and then how their behavior impacts the environment around them or disrupts other people. And I think that's kind of, this is hard to explain because you make the best point We don't just show up in people's doorsteps and say, hey, we're here to correct your child. There's an evaluation process. There's a referral. People come to us to ask us for assistance, just like in the case of this parent that I recently encountered who was very candid about the criticisms that she'd come across with regard to ABA. So it is interesting, this idea of correction. We do work sometimes in a very linear fashion toward one correct response, behavioral response that we're looking for because we've operationally defined it to be able to access one correct or desired consequence or some sort of reinforcement. So it is really tricky to understand then what is our role coming in. If it's not to provide some level of correction because a diagnostic has told us that, developmentally speaking, somebody is, to use a phrase loosely, off course or delayed. Many terms that we try to conjure up to be sensitive but be precise at the same time. So if it's not to come in to correct, what is our role there? And that might be something that will allow us to decipher this criticism a little further.

SPEAKER_01: 13:28

I think where we can do a better job as ABA practitioners is probably on the response generality aspect of, like you were alluding to, we're really stringent on what we accept as correct or incorrect, and that might be where that masking comes in, because maybe we could find a happy medium where we say, what's your address, and the kid says, 1902-5- Champaign Street or whatever every single time. But maybe it could be like I live in La Mesa or I live over there. Like there's some sort of response generality that could probably allow people to express themselves. And the address is probably a terrible one because that's a rote answer. But you can kind of see what I'm getting at with interactions and things like that, even with turn taking and whatever it is, these social things that we could allow for a little bit more response generality. So then people would be a little bit less. feel like they're being pigeonholed, and she called it masks, and we can call it pigeonholed into somebody that they're not.

SPEAKER_03: 14:30

So you're always able to regurgitate the right answer and therefore receive reinforcement, at least from that little environment, little treatment environment, and then as we know, we deal with generality problems and whether or not that will actually be reinforced outside of the environment because it doesn't have a lot of diversity. So we can kind of think of this as a relational frame. I think your address was a your address example is a good one, and saying if you ask somebody where they live, they can give you their address, they can give you their zip code, they can give you their city name, they can give you a street name. Any of those, excuse me, are acceptable introverbals, if you will, in that relational frame of where do you live. And oftentimes, say in discrete trial fashion, we're going to have one correct answer for that question based on this linear contingency that we've created. Now, That in and of itself isn't a problem if, as practitioners, we then diversify the answer, knowing that we've got these pluses and minuses in our data that we have to fulfill, and that maybe the answer we're looking for is the full street address, where do you live, but knowing that from a reinforcement perspective, vocally and verbally, if the child says, you know, I live in they name a city as opposed to their address, we can say, that's right, that's your city. Now, what's your street name? And sort of string them along in the correct answer where oftentimes a young practitioner might say, no, that's not where you live. And suddenly... That's an incorrect answer, and yes, again, we're back to what Chloe might be saying, which is one correct answer for one SD, and if you don't get it, you don't get the M&M, you don't get the praise, you don't get the good job, which is probably overused anyway and pretty powerless at this point in terms of reinforcement, and maybe that's what Chloe's talking about or one of the things she's talking about.

SPEAKER_01: 16:22

Absolutely. Yeah, I think that's, yeah, it all comes back to reinforcement. I think there's a couple more things that are relevant to masking. I won't harp too much because we can talk about it on our next episode, but I think it all starts from what our objective criterion for success is. And I'll just share a brief example that one of my coworkers, who's another BCBA, their parent actually sent them an email after a rough telehealth session, because that's what we're doing now is telehealth. As they were pulling them out of the telehealth service, thanking us for our patience and basically allowing the kid child-centered approach. That's the word I'm looking for, child-centered approach. The reason I bring that up is that she said in that email, I believe, and I quote, you guys really do your best to allow my child to be happy. I think that objective criterion is really important when we talk about masking. rather than hitting certain criteria and hitting 80% of opportunities for X, Y, and Z program is our goal allowing this person to be happy. Now with that, in order to be happy like you and I, we have to mask certain times. When we're at work, you can't just wear your pajamas. And when we're talking about be your true self, you do have to be able to mask certain things. You can't always be your true self. A great example would be like a first date, right? Nobody's their true self on a first date. And is it the person that they're on the date with? Is it their fault that they're masking their emotions? So it kind of goes into a concept that I call being like a social chameleon. And that's what I think the two things I want to refer to with masking is, number one, what is our criteria for success? Is it happiness or some sort of objective criterion and skill set? And the second one goes to the social chameleon aspect of how much is it on us to change for the environment and how much is it on the environment to change for us? Because that's where I think where the masking is. But I also think that sometimes we do have to change. You know, you and I talked about the kid who's screaming on an airplane ride. Yeah, you know, for four hours. Yeah, that child might have special needs. And maybe it isn't who that child is to yell for that long period of time. But it's also disrupting 300 other people on that plane. So is it incumbent on the parent and the child to change their behavior or the people on the plane to be more accommodating? So that's a difficult question, but I think those are the two things when it comes to masking. What is our criterion for success, and do we need to change or do they need to change that lead us down one path or another with

SPEAKER_03: 18:58

masking? That's a really good way to put it, and I think that one of the things that we'll have to circle back to and come back to in the next installment here as we look at solutions or we dissect these criticisms is sort of our impetus to change to then create change, right? So to kind of give one answer to your question is, yeah, it's probably going to have to be us to some extent in looking at more multiple exemplar training and looking at more of our differential reinforcement techniques and approaches so that we move further and further away from singular linear contingencies where there's only one correct behavior for one particular antecedent or SD, and then, you know, given one particular consequence, you know, something else we can talk about in terms of our uniformity in ABA sometimes, our diversity is limited, and then the idea of satiety goes out the window, and, you know, we think that M&Ms are going to be reinforcing forever, where in fact...

SPEAKER_01: 20:00

M&M is reinforcing.

SPEAKER_03: 20:02

Where in fact one good meal. Yeah, you get my point, though. So that's a really good question, and that's something that I think we're entertaining here is We've had a great deal of success as, say, a field in autism intervention, you know, for several decades now. Have we changed enough? Have we progressed? Or can you walk into any given home-based treatment, say, here in California, and still see, you know, Lova circa 1972... being carried out? And I think that unfortunately the answer is yes. You still see this very laboratory-oriented, not very child-oriented piece. And Chloe talks about that. So let me actually jump right into that because she makes some really strong assertions. And I'm going to go ahead and be a little bit critical about of very impressive young woman, Chloe Everett. I can't say that enough. Some of the assertions she makes, and then you and I can take a minute to kind of talk about the temporal or chronological relativity of those comments, and then we'll take more time next installment to dissect those further, but when she starts mentioning in her TED Talk about the abuse potential of ABA and some of the early implementation of electric shock. And I don't know enough about this historically, she makes an allusion to Lovaas actually being involved in that very early efforts in the young autism project and electric shock being used as a way to modify treatment. She also talks a little bit about the extension of that into mental health areas, and then even things like gay conversion therapy, which definitely don't have the scope or knowledge to go into that topic, but to associate what we do every day with those approaches obviously is going to be of concern to us. I don't consider what we do every day anywhere close to What these are, although I know that our methods have been used for such efforts, and of course, you and I both know that aversive stimuli as consequences aren't outside of our scope of practice, although our liability pretty much eliminates our possibility of implementing those.

SPEAKER_01: 22:39

Yeah. Yeah. I think the gay conversion therapy, again, just goes back to the masking as well. Somebody's coming in, and I think she... I forget the exact term she used, but she said, like, the case manager sits on her chair and barks orders and tells the... 20-somethings. Yeah, there was a 20-something and then a 50-something-year-old person who was barking orders and telling me what I needed to become when I got older. So, yeah, I think that's kind of where she was going at with the gay conversion therapy, the reference, basically, or the analogy. saying that just like in gay conversion therapy, which I know nothing about, but I assume it's somebody telling you you need to be something that you don't feel like you need to be. She was using that analogy to say there was this case manager telling her that she needed to be somebody that she didn't want to be. But again, it's tough, man, and we can talk about it. Another episode, if you prefer. But we're talking about somebody who at a younger age probably had very limited social skills and maybe limited vocal skills. So it's very tough to be introspective and say, yeah, I didn't want to be there at that time. Just no different than an elementary school kid doesn't want to do their homework. But when they're 30 years older, they glad they did their homework and got their college education and got a good job. Probably so. So yeah, maybe at the time she looks at it and maybe she even has resentment. And I'm sure it could have been done differently because it could still be done differently and we're 15 years more advanced than we were when she did it. But there also is probably some validity or some benefit that she may not be seeing that she's living now from the therapy that she received.

SPEAKER_03: 24:23

So interestingly enough, right, let's say you're a parent who It's looking into ABA services for your child. You come across the stream of criticisms online. You come across Chloe's TED Talk, and maybe you've already initiated services. And she says, yeah, all ABA is is this 50-something lady sitting on my couch as this 20-something plays board games. If you're that parent and you started services, that description might ring rather true in terms of the setup. So I think it's also important for people to understand what ABA is and what it isn't with regard to what it looks like or what it can look like. And unfortunately, I'm going to have to agree with part of that criticism in terms of the uniformity of our services and what they look like. thing, phrases like, good job, or just even the tone I used to say that, right, the up-speak. It's become

SPEAKER_01: 25:25

just... What's your name? Good job. What's your name? Good job.

SPEAKER_03: 25:28

Oh, thank you for doing this. And I was actually doing a session today, and I stopped myself from saying that I've been working on it and going, you know, how many times would I want, like, somebody looking over my shoulder at work and being like, oh, good job for typing. Probably not. So thinking about how to make our reinforcement much more naturalized and related to what the actual action is, you and I talk a lot about the informative function, which I borrowed from one of my gurus, Albert Bandura, and his explanation of that and how a lot of times our verbal responses serve to inform, and that can be very reinforcing in terms of learning something new and understanding what it is. So when Chloe talks about that, as much as I shirk and I'm like, really, are you going to go there? Unfortunately, you know, she's not that off the mark. We have fallen into this sort of uniformity and this need to, in many ways, standardize curriculum, right, so that it's easy, it's accessible. And I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that as much as then if we look at it, then some of Chloe's criticisms in terms of how it's implemented are can become very true. Yeah, some lady sitting on the couch, some 20-something doing board games. Yep, okay, yikes. And again, not that I agree with her in its full conception, but if you're a parent listening to her TED Talk and you've got your own skepticism, that might ring true immediately, and suddenly everything else she's saying is also ringing true. Now, we have to admit, yes, electric shock... John Watson, very, very large blemishes in our ABA past, in our experimental past. But we also have to acknowledge the fact that we've come a long way from that. And if you are listening to this podcast or you saw Chloe Everett and you're offended by some of the things she says, you might want to stop and think about what your practice is. and your implementation looks like right now. Because it is up to us. Lovaas was in his time and did what he knew with the tools he knew. We've got much more knowledge, many more tools, many more resources than he did, even legally and socioeconomically speaking in many ways, just in terms of access and how the world works. regards individuals with autism and how they did in 1971, that's hugely different. The whole world now supports treatment, and we see the possibility of integrating these individuals into quote-unquote regular life. Somewhere in there, our efforts are taken by somebody like a Chloe Everett and construed as masking, as trying to really squelch somebody and make them something they're not. So again, I know I threw a lot out there, but as much as I want to disagree with her criticisms, like we've been saying throughout this podcast, there's certainly a semblance of truth, as uncomfortable as it might be, that we have to recognize in what she's saying.

SPEAKER_01: 28:30

Absolutely, absolutely. Yeah, I mean, I guess to put a bow on... To put a bow on it, I think, man, as much as it pains me to have it be compared to gay conversion therapy, because we try not to stay very politicized, but I've got to say I'm pretty against gay conversion therapy. I'm pretty pro-ABA. I think what happens is there are just some objective measures that people have to, for insurance companies and things like that, to determine what happiness is and what success is in life, and a lot of that's around independence and Those are the skills that we target. So if some of those skills are masking, then maybe we can work on it on our end as well. I think that's the importance, too, of the initial treatment plan being reviewed with the parent and making sure they're on board. Because really the client should never be upset at us. They should be upset, if anything, at the parent because they agreed to everything and they're their guardian. But yeah, let's maybe move on to another one. I know there's a lot of other criticisms we have. I can think of a few as well, but I know you have a nice list over there. So I'll pass the ball back to your court, sir.

SPEAKER_03: 29:47

She made a lot of key points, used a lot of good phrases. So another premise at the heart of ABA, according to Chloe Everett, is that we aim to make our clients... indistinguishable from their peers. Now, on one end, what is wrong with that? On the other end, what is wrong with that, right? So, you get my point, is where in there can we take Chloe's criticism and go, yeah, that's true, we are kinda squashing the individuality of person based on these diagnostic traits. And then you've been asking the question, so where do we change and where do we expect all the change from the individual? So as professionals in the field, it's easy for us to think about, it's easy for us to showcase a certain tolerance. And I'll use that word very specifically because that's what it is, right? I'm a teacher in a classroom and I've got Billy in the corner who likes to call out and raise his hand and go, ooh, ooh, me, teacher, me, me, me. And I'm able to ignore him. and call on somebody else and show him that you've got to raise your hand but do so quietly, where teacher B might tear into Billy and say, you have to sit quietly and you have to da-da-da. So where in there do we fall or is it both of those extremes and everything in the middle? Where is Chloe right? Where are we right? What you have on that for me, Dan?

SPEAKER_01: 31:23

Well, that again just comes down, I think, to response generality and being indistinguishable from your peers. So everybody has to be able to read. Everyone should know one plus one is two. Everyone should know what their address is. So in terms of that, am I indistinguishable from you? Yes. If you were to take 50 of my friends, we all would know what our address is. So if you want to look at– if you want to just boil it down to a sheet, an assessment tool, then– in some ways we're going to be very indistinguishable because we have a certain skill set. But I think that response generality is the importance of how those answers are delivered with a little bit of pizzazz or a little bit of quirkiness or funk or whatever you want to call it, allows us to be distinguishable and undistinguishable. So we're undistinguishable on paper, but we're distinguishable in person, if that makes sense. That's how I would look at it. And I know you have a, you know, we work with, Some therapists sometimes that want answers delivered in a certain way all the time. And then, yes, sometimes we can almost force kids to be robotic or clients to be robotic because we're only accepting a certain answer. But with some level of response generality, then we can be indistinguishable with a similar skill set.

SPEAKER_03: 32:40

That's really well described. It reminds me of a situation earlier in my career where I was working on a school consult at a high school. And kiddo, we use the phrase high-functioning. He's actually taking a calculus class, so I would say it qualifies as high-functioning. And every time this particular student would get an answer correct, he would go into this sort of bout of stereotypy. He'd get very excited, and he'd get off his seat, and he would jump up and down and sort of make these vocalizations and flap his hands up and down. And the IEP team, everybody was, how are we going to change? We need to stop this behavior. And we kind of went at it for probably longer than we should have. I don't remember how long. But finally, everybody came to the realization that it wasn't really the kids' behavior that had to change in that instance. It was everybody else that had to accept the fact that that's the way he responded when he was excited to getting a correct answer, excited from getting a correct answer. And again, then it became a matter of not stopping the behavior but containing it, meaning, okay, we're going to give it five seconds so you can cheer, and then you do have to sit down and be like everybody else, indistinguishable from everybody else, because then after that, your behavior does become disruptive to the rest of the group. So where some people might say, well, then you might be picking on that student or discriminating against them for their behavior, one could also say, well, actually, no, we're helping to teach them and progress their learning, so that they're able to access this environment like everybody else and then go and access their own privacy and at that point, you know, do what they, whatever they wish, again, within certain legal and social parameters. So, you know, it is an ongoing discussion to figure out what is, in trying to give somebody socially significant new learning, how often are we inadvertently infringing on their individuality?

SPEAKER_01: 34:47

Yeah, no, that absolutely makes a lot of sense, man. I agree. Again, it's always a spectrum, right? So you're talking about infringing on your peers. You can do it within a spectrum, and then it becomes a nuisance to the peers, and then socially significant, or you might want to take ABA therapy out of it. They're at a school or something. Their peer might say something or act on it because now they're getting annoyed. So there's a spectrum of people's tolerance that, yeah, it probably should be respected. And then once you exceed that spectrum, and so the ASD, right, there's a spectrum of individuals that might just be considered introverted or a little antisocial, and then at some point it becomes ASD. Same thing with what you're saying. There's a spectrum of, you know, this individual hand-flapping and being quote-unquote disruptive that's acceptable, and then it becomes too disruptive, right? And with that, too, you know, there's a perspective. So when we say address, right, there's kind of like socially appropriate ways of saying it, right? We usually say the number, the street name, the city name, the state, and the zip code. But we could say the zip code first, but there's just certain ways that we do things. And is that infringing on my individuality that I can't say I live California 92117, San Diego 2867?

UNKNOWN: 36:05

No.

SPEAKER_01: 36:06

I could do that. That's my individuality. But there's also just certain things that we kind of succumb to for the betterment of others or the more understanding, I guess, for lack of a better term.

SPEAKER_03: 36:17

So-called norms or what we say technology and ABA. We're using a similar set of terms so that we all know what everybody's talking about. Yeah. That's a really good point. And just to kind of use that as a, you know, I hope it's not a mundane example, but The idea that you might give the SD in a session, what is your address? And the kid goes, oh, it's 92741, 3751 X Street. And any given RBT could say, no, that's wrong, the street goes first. Or some of us might say, okay, yeah, you got all the right pieces. Now let's put the street number and name first. And then the city, and then the zip code. And maybe somewhere in there, lies one of the differences between sort of a new progressive ABA and the stuff that Chloe was exposed to. Somewhere this idea of not just multiple exemplar training, but multiple exemplar training along with strong and active differential reinforcement, along with very naturalized verbal reinforcement or feedback, things like that, that maybe given our methods and our techniques, We've become a little bit linear, a little bit stagnant, and those are things that we can start to examine and hopefully improve. So we've covered a lot of ground here, Dan. We are near the end of our usual timeframe here. So just to kind of try to sum up and come up with some closing points, we're talking about Chloe Everett and her TED Talk and criticisms of ABA. And her assertion is talking about things like masking or ABA trying to make individuals hide who they really are. The idea that at the heart of ABA is this premise that neurodivergence needs to be corrected. We talked about that a little bit. They were trying to make individuals indistinguishable from their peers, which could have a lot of value, could have some detriment coming to it. And then we also talked about her allusions to... much more controversial applications of ABA procedures like electric shock and their implementation in much more controversial aspects like gate conversion therapy. So all that said, you and I hear all that and we go, man, I don't go to work and do that every day. That's not what I do. That's far from what I do. But we have to be realistic and we understand that there are people out there who do conceptualize this in that manner. I

SPEAKER_01: 38:52

mean, not to interrupt, but it's a prelude to what we'll talk about in future podcasts later down the road. It's no different than a cop doesn't go to work and shoot people every day, right?

SPEAKER_02: 39:05

Uh-oh. You gave a big highlight there.

SPEAKER_01: 39:09

That's maybe.00001% of what may or may not happen.

SPEAKER_03: 39:14

And, you know, at the heart of it... Did that cop do that every day? So they might have been in that one unfortunate instance. Is that what they've been doing every day of their career? Probably not, hopefully not. But that's a really good point you bring up is that we have to work, despite all this empirical validation and procedural power that we come to the table with, one Chloe Everett can make really strong points and detract many, many families away from ABA which may have otherwise benefited from it, given my recent experience and a very, very bright mom for a family who has literally been waiting about two years to make the call to us, all because of some of the research that's out there. So we do want to address these things. We don't want to just sweep them under the rug and shoo them away and poo-poo them, because there's a lot of valid points that Chloe makes. At the same time, we don't want to just let people run with those, and we want to address these concerns, validate them, where they need to be validated, but then correct them, to use that word very poignantly, where they need to be corrected, which will be our next installment. What are your thoughts on that?

SPEAKER_01: 40:26

Yep. And, yeah, definitely want to address some other criticisms in the next installment. But the last thing I'll ask in this installment is I want to ask you a question, Mike, is that kind of with the masking, you're a parent. You're also a BCBA, so you get a little bit of both fields. You also, you know, we talk about being who you are. You have a lot of your artists, your athlete, so you have a lot of different personalities, a lot of different hats that you wear. If you had a child with ASD, would you want that child to get ABA or would you be really concerned that that ABA would mask them? And if your answer is that you want them to get ABA, what would you look for or look out to avoid from a company like So if you're a parent getting prospective ABA, in terms of that mask.

SPEAKER_03: 41:15

Wow, Dan, that's a great way to close this one. So I think...

SPEAKER_01: 41:22

Bring it home for the parents, brother.

SPEAKER_03: 41:23

Yeah, I think that I would want my kid to get ABA. And I know I'm partial, but I would want them to get ABA... from outfits much like you and I are familiar with, from individuals who are very well versed in the ABA technology, and again, I would be an informed parent in this sense, the people who've got a strong foundation in understanding what Lovaas did, for example, toward AST treatment, but then Also, people who are pushing a strong developmental framework. You mentioned assessment earlier, and that's like standardized assessment. Chloe talks about that a little bit. And that's a hard tool to use for an unstandardized situation, right? You're standardizing something that's unorthodox. You're saying, I'm going to apply a tool to something that already says the tool doesn't apply. So I would want somebody to come in with that notion, with that premise, that this isn't a fixed tool. line of treatment as much as we've got procedures that are empirically validated. And then like we like to say on the show, I've got to take their lab power and apply it in your living room. So I'd want to see structure and content and curriculum that was preset. And then I would want to see very clear deviations from that curriculum and content based on my child's individuality. Does that make sense?

SPEAKER_01: 42:51

Absolutely.

SPEAKER_03: 42:52

I'll give you some really clear ones, and I don't like being harshly critical of our field ever. I like to lend ideas and help progress, but my history as a practitioner with things like nonverbal imitation targets and how unnatural they can become. So to answer your question very directly, if on that first day of treatment somebody came in and suddenly gave the SD touch head spontaneously and completely out of context, I may not want that. But if we were doing head, shoulders, knees, and toes, and they paused in that set and touch head, and then they kept the song going, and there was a lot of natural reinforcement, and I'm not saying that there's no room for that target spontaneously and out of context. I'm just saying that that's one of those things that maybe Chloe's referring to, maybe you and I have thought about in terms of these very stereotypic, very common SDs or ABA stimuli that... maybe we're not even sure why we do them anymore. It's just become sort of standard practice. So that's the stuff I'd be looking for is a real, real client, child-centered, play-based approach. Again, thinking this would be a young child because I would be wise enough to start early intervention as soon as possible and as soon as I saw any signs of concern. And then on top of that, to kind of harken back to maybe what our critics are saying is is in seeing that structure, but then that variation from the structure, I'd want to find that humanity, for lack of better phrasing. So the idea being, yes, your child has autism, and yes, we use ABA to treat this condition, but that doesn't mean that there's one treatment for your child who has autism and is like everybody else that has autism. It's one thing we know is that there's much more individuality and variation within ASD communities than there might be even within quote-unquote neurotypical communities, right? So that's kind of the stuff I'd be looking for as a parent. I know that's a lot and maybe not very clear, kind of vague, but I think there's a... What people are criticizing is that very rote, almost very stereotypic mode of ABA that we can... We can all imagine certain examples of, I gave examples of the verbal praise and sort of the tone of it and all those things that we were all trained to do, so they're a part of our foundation, but at the same time, clearly critics, people, the field alike, we're all looking for some level of evolution, and we certainly need to enact that evolution before criticisms of very impressive individuals like Chloe Everett become so true that we can no longer combat them.

SPEAKER_01: 45:42

Makes sense. So I guess in closing, you would want ABA, but you'd be really critical if you delivered it. You'd want it to be as naturalistic as possible. Some structure, so they're just not going off the whim, but delivered naturalistically, fluidly, and allowing your kid to still be who they are within context.

SPEAKER_02: 46:01

Right.

SPEAKER_01: 46:01

I think that's a great way to wrap up this whole Chloe part.

SPEAKER_03: 46:05

I think so, too. This brings our... Latest installment to a close. Thank

SPEAKER_01: 46:12

you so much for listening. We still have episodes two and three on this series as well.

SPEAKER_03: 46:16

Yes, we will be coming back with a second and third part of this installment because it behooves us to address these criticisms. We're not saying that just because we're highlighting the criticisms that Chloe lent. that we believe they're true. We agree that she's impressive. We understand the history that applies in terms of electroshock and gate conversion and all those things, but we also understand that time passes and that 1971 was many decades ago. So we do want to say in closing that for any practitioners out there that this sort of hearkened true, maybe look at progressing or evolving your practice a little bit. And for our next installment, to answer Chloe's criticisms, we'll be excited to highlight some of the things that we like to put forth in terms of our ABA practice that we believe helps this evolution. So thank you for listening. As always, stay safe and be very safe out there, especially now. And cheers, my man. Good talking

SPEAKER_01: 47:12

to you. Always analyze responsibly. Always

SPEAKER_03: 47:14

analyze responsibly. Take care.