Talk:Applied behavior analysis

ABA is, in fact, controversial

In a recent reversion of an edit I'd made to reflect the fact that ABA is controversial, not just 'considered controversial within the autistic rights movement, Barbarbarty asserted "It has been widely established that there are no “weasel words,” and that the evidence of controversy outside of the austism rights movement is scant. This was already decided upon last year."

This is false, and it certainly was not "decided upon last year" in the Wikipedia sense of reaching something resembling a consensus.

Here is a selection of articles on the controversy from the last few years, found through a quick Google News search, none of which back up the claim that ABA is only controversial in "the autism rights movement" - a claim for which no evidence has ever been supplied, to the best of my recollection:

• https://childmind.org/article/controversy-around-applied-behavior-analysis/
• https://www.dutchnews.nl/2023/05/parents-call-for-action-on-controversial-autism-therapy-aba/
• https://nursingclio.org/2022/05/05/the-applied-behavior-analysis-controversy-normalizing-or-cruel/
• https://nltimes.nl/2023/05/25/parents-want-ban-controversial-autism-treatment-children
• https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/08/aba-autism-controversy/495272/

For good measure, here is a paper I previously linked, from defenders of ABA, which acknowledges unambiguously that "controversy and division remain among researchers, clinicians, and within the autism community."

• https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40474-021-00237-x

Oolong (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

You clearly seem to be mischaracterizing what was decided upon last year. Multiple editors stated the belief that the language of the lead was sufficient. Merely because you feel that the language does not match the passion you have for this topic does not mean that the language is somehow in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. You have provided no evidence of widespread, notable controversy outside the autism rights movement, and vague references to a few parties outside the autistic community in scattered articles does not count as notable controversy in neurotypical circles in any respect whatsoever. As for your articles, two of them mention a single incident in the Netherlands, and none of them show any consistent controversy outside of circles strongly connected to either autistic individuals or autism advocacy groups. It is a strange definition to claim that the autism rights movement does not include parents of autistic individuals who advocate for their children as well. Even then, none of your articles show any notable controversy outside of groups intrinsically linked to autistic individuals.

Some of your past edits to this article have even included links to blogposts, which are definitely not authoritative sources that would belong here, and to that extent would not justify completely reframing what is put in the lead. If you want to change significant parts of the lead, you should seek consensus, which I may add you have not accomplished a single time to my knowledge. And if you specifically Googled controversy surrounding ABA and you cannot get even five articles without linking an article published nearly a decade ago, it is simply not convincing that there is notable controversy “outside the autism rights movement.” You seem to be conflating “autistic individuals” with the “autism rights movement,” when many autistic individuals do not consider themselves autism rights advocates or have strong opinions on ABA, and some neurotypical people fancy themselves members of the autism rights movement, in the same way other progressive movements had members of outgroups lend support. Nothing you have provided would make the language you have issue with categorically wrong.

You made these same points last year and, just like now, they remained wholly unconvincing to many people who contributed to those discussions. One thing that was agreed upon was that any major rewrites of the lead should achieve consensus. Once you achieve that, feel free to change it to what was agreed upon. Until then, however, relitigating these discussions will get us nowhere. Barbarbarty (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

You are mis-characterising last year's discussions yourself, which were lengthy but largely inconclusive, as well as the contents of these articles (here's another one while I'm here).

You have still produced not a single source which backs up the claim that ABA is only controversial in the "autism rights movement", or that the controversy is limited to "a perception that it emphasizes normalization instead of acceptance, and a history of, in some forms of ABA and its predecessors, the use of aversives". Indeed, I see that there has backsliding in the lede without any seeking of consensus - one thing we did agree on last year was that the lede ought to mention the weak evidence base. Oolong (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Every argument you have made so far were the same arguments you brought, unconvincingly, last year. If you actually believe you can achieve a consensus to change the lede, you should do so. But if you are simply going to relitigate old complaints that were already thoroughly addressed and refuted elsewhere, then nothing productive will arise from this discourse. Your points, including those on what counts as the “autism rights movement,” are those I have already addressed, quite definitively in my view. However, I am obviously not going to convince you, so I humbly suggest you take your concerns to other users who may contribute to a consensus. So far you have shown little intention of doing so. Barbarbarty (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I stand by the assertion that this article will only be “improved” by having more eyes on it. It is clear certain parties have very passionate, but not widely accepted, views on this article and talking in circles will not go anywhere. Barbarbarty (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Barbarbarty, you are going against what the references state is the scope of the controversy. It is controversial - full stop. There are plenty of academic papers from the field of psychology that point this out. 1Veertje (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The references make it very clear that it is controversial within the autism rights movement. They absolutely do not state what you are claiming it states. Barbarbarty (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

And by “consensus” I mean consensus among editors. You cannot waive something that has been agreed upon by editors of this page simply because you have a personal disagreement. Barbarbarty (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

You are the one standing there by yourself. You have not taken on the evidence provided to you in the discussion last year. The intro as it's written now is misleading as it unjustly minimizes the scope of the controversy as something outside of the field of psychology, when there are quite clearly critics from within the field itself. Consensus doesn't mean everyone agrees. There's no convincing you, but you don't own this article. 1Veertje (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

No, many other users in the discussion other than myself raised concerns about the language you are proposing, and others as well found that the articles provided were insufficient. I am not claiming to “own” any article, I am simply asking that a consensus be reached. Nothing in this talk page discussion has approached anything close to a consensus that Wikipedia would dictate is proper. I also don’t understand where you are getting that anything is “minimizing” anything. You are free to think that conversations last year convinced you, but I do not think that anyone would agree a “consensus” was reached, despite how you may personally feel about the sources.

The article discusses at length many research articles both in favor of and critiquing ABA, if you want to expand that section you are free to do so. But modifying the lead is best left to a definitive consensus, as it would avoid conversations such as these. Barbarbarty (talk) 06:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

There are review studies like the Cochrane review that are described in the article that point out that there is no significant benefit to ABA. A single paper where a single case study is discussed is not of equal weight. It shouldn't be controversial to call a treatment method controversial when the benefits haven't been substantiated and it quite commonly causing harm. 1Veertje (talk) 09:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It had already been widely agreed upon that any dramatic changes to the lede are to have consensus first. Arbitrarily changing more than half of the lede when there is no consensus is blatantly a violation of NPOV. Either follow Wikipedia’s guidelines or leave the article in the hands of competent editors. Barbarbarty (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You don't even want to remove the paragraph that is based on a single paper that was written by a single author who is part of a Department of Philosophy and Theology. The intro has changed to falsely represent what it is that makes it controversial: it's not only its because some use adversives, because positive reinforcements used to force neurotypical behavior are just as damaging. The intro is bad because in two places it needlessly unsubstantiated claims that there are more aspects that it is applied in. 1Veertje (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The only one who has dramatically altered the lede has been you. If you have issues with the lede, take it to this talk page and gain consensus. Simply because you have certain perspectives on what the lede should be does not give you the prerogative to dramatically alter longstanding language at your whim. Barbarbarty (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Interesting that you had no problem with @ATC or @EJA94 (who I didn't even realize was the same person) altering the lede and deleting mainstream journalistic citations without consensus. Is there some reason you're holding them to a different standard? DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring the unusual insinuation that you are casting on me, I do not actively monitor this article, so I fail to see how I am holding anyone to a different standard. I have not edited the article in months, as evidenced by some of the users who have disagreed with me on this article in the past making extensive edits to the article since I last edited it. I don’t have any objections to raise about what they or others have added because frankly I have not paid attention to this article for a while and do not intend to do so for the immediate future. If you have issues with the current state of this article then I am not the one you should be having a dispute with at this juncture. Barbarbarty (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I see that the mention of controversies has now been removed entirely from the lead.

This is ridiculous. @Gamma1138 is absolutely right to say that this is a disgrace for Wikipedia. Oolong (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

That is not true. I only removed news/media articles related to perspectives on ABA and some blogs viewpoints on it written by people high functioning on the autism spectrum as well (and I don't fully remember but I believe I might've removed some journal articles that the Wiki community agreed went against WP:POV, though that was all). And I also added valid literature reviews and the first large multi-site RCT of 164 participants which successfully reproduced the Lovaas (1987) study of 45% of kids with lower receptive language skills gaining spoken language from DTT/EIBI; the Pediatrics journal and literature reviews that it's "well established"; as well as the recent research literature reviews (i.e., Cochrane) emphasizing the need for more large RCTs and pointing out the research on the different learning styles). But, randomized control trials are not the only robust form of research (especially when it's not a drug treatment) and they're all based on over 50 years of valid data collection.

But, yes more research is evolving to incorporate large multi-site RCTs (which is good for showing how it outperforms other less intensive services on a larger wide scale). And yes I was locked out of my User:ATC account (I need to reset the password on the computer but I'm having trouble doing so) and I use User:EJA94 to log in to Wikipedia via my mobile phone. EJA94 (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• I haven't surveyed the field lately but Wikipedia needs to be careful to contextualize any controversy. Some things are "controversial" in the wider world (vaccines, climate change, the age of the Earth) but established & settled amongst relevant experts. I don't know whether ABA is controversial these days in its scientific field(s): are there recent sources that directly address this? Bon courage (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  When this was last discussed, the use of the phrase “controversial among those in the autism rights movement” was seen as a possible compromise given how some Austism rights advocates have been outspoken about what theh perceive to be the harms of this practice. But whether it is “generally” controversial is a bigger stretch, given how most articles related to ABA controversies only focus on autism rights advocates, with little or no detail on critics outside those communities. Barbarbarty (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  They focus on the controversy in its application as a treatment for autistic kids because that's practically the only group being subjected to this kind of treatment. It is controversial because of its high potency to cause harm and review studies have only shown a marginal benefit. Kids grow up, so improvements can be in spite of treatment. Citing a single paper by a philosopher who is talking about their own kid as if they're an authority on a therapy they're not even trained in themselves for an entire paragraph that claims to reflect the benefits is a disgrace. 1Veertje (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  That is all well and good, but again, this sounds more like a personal view rather than any dispute as to the content of the article. The articles in the “benefit” section can stay out pending any consensus on whether to include them, but please seek consensus, either through an RfC or other means, before dramatically altering the lede. Unilateral actions such as yours will only make a contentious article such as this even more toxic to editors. Barbarbarty (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  you should read the paragraph "Views of the autistic community" again. Does it emphasize its historic use of electroshock or, like I phrased it, its potential for harm, which is elsewhere in the article substantiated by research showing its potency to cause PTSD symptoms? 1Veertje (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  The article does mention the electric shock treatments performed by the JRT, as well as having a 2023 survey which showed a majority of autistic adults have “painful lived experiences” from treatments described as ABA. I do not think the article neglects to mention or downplay those aspects. Barbarbarty (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  The lead downplays why it is being opposed, making the harms caused by ABA out to be historic and the basis of a misunderstanding of current practices. It's not just negative reinforcement that is the cause of distress, it's the current practice of manipulating behavior with operant conditioning to extinguish signs of distress. 1Veertje (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I dispute that characterization. The lede discusses the controversies ABA has in the present tense, as well as it being perceived as causing harm. If you have other sources you would like to present, please bring them here and there can be an open discussion on how to frame the lede. Barbarbarty (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Also, it doesn’t “emphasize” electric shocks in the lede, it mentions “aversives” and in mentioning that gives the example

  of electric shocks. The article goes into detail on how the use of aversives such as those practiced by the JRC are a point of consistent criticism against practitioners of ABA. I think it is fair to state that the article presents this as a source of controversy, and I have no issue with it being described as such. Barbarbarty (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, it's not fair to make criticism of ABA out to be some sort of misunderstanding of adversives being a thing that only a historical aspect of ABA. For one: they're not. Rewarding a kid by giving it back its favorite toy is no different than taking it away until they comply. If you would read the position statement of EUCAP it also emphasizes that they published that statement last April because its current and demonstrated extent potential to cause harm. I therefore propose changing the closing paragraph of the opening to "there is substantial opposition from autism rights movement to its application due to a perception that it emphasizes normalization instead of acceptance and its potential for causing harm" 1Veertje (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Barbarbarty Are you going to change the intro or shall I? The way it's written now is quite a dishonest representation of why ABA is being opposed. 1Veertje (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  I fail to see how it is dishonest in the slightest, but again my position is that if you are seeking to dramatically change the lede you should seek consensus on here first before you make changes. That has been my consistent position throughout all of this. I don’t understand why you are asking me when it has already been established that individual editors do not “own” pages. So far, you have failed to provide a single convincing argument, in my view, that the lede is inaccurate, but if you wish to change the lede then seek consensus first. Barbarbarty (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  

  Harm caused by ABA

  As I've stated before: the lead now makes the objections from the autism rights movement against ABA because of its use of adversives, and makes those out to be something only some forms of ABA use and specifically electro shock a thing of the past. It's not accurate: it's opposed because of its potential to cause harm. The way it causes harm goes much deeper than just those times when adversives were used. ABA has also been used to suppress self soothing behavior such as stimming and to enforce neurotypical levels of eye contact. The use of positive reinforcement can also be harmful in that it can be detrimental to intrinsic motivation. See How much compliance is too much compliance: Is long-term ABA therapy abuse? (Q66742693) 1Veertje (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  Again, I think you are misreading the lede, because the lede very blatantly states that there is controversy because it enforces normalization instead of acceptance. You seem to be contriving an interpretation of the lede in order to find fault with it. But regardless, my position is still that you should gain the consensus of other editors before radically altering the lede. If you have actual issues with the lede, you should seek out the opinions of other editors instead of trying to convince me when I’ve already told you I have no ultimate control over the direction of the article. Barbarbarty (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for trying, 1Veertje. I see that the lead, at least, has now pretty much been reverted wholesale to the state it was in before I started trying to make it accurate.

  It's glaringly unencyclopaedic as it stands, and we obviously need another dispute resolution here, since my previous attempt stalled and the same people are still digging their heels in with the same spurious arguments. I just don't have the energy to pursue this right now, but will support anyone who does. Oolong (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  This source:

  • Callahan MM, Fodstad JC, Moore JW (2023). "History of Applied Behavior Analysis". In Matson JL (ed.). Handbook of Applied Behavior Analysis. Autism and Child Psychopathology Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-19964-6_1.

  says that the idea this is an autism-specific treatment is a misconception. It is also useful for the question at hand: maybe "controversial" is just too reductive a word. While Lovaas' work is described as controverial, the field as a whole is characterized as one which is subject to criticism for overreaching claims. Bon courage (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  "there is substantial opposition from autism rights movement to its application due to a perception that it emphasizes normalization instead of acceptance and its potential for causing harm." 1Veertje (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have appealed to to WikiProject Psychology for help here, for what it's worth. Oolong (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Bon courage, what do you think about trying something like "rejected by the autism rights movement"? I suspect we could find sources that support this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  From what I've seen of the sourcing that seems about right, yes. Bon courage (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  If nobody objects during the next day, then let's make that change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  There being no objections, I have re-written that paragraph. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@ATC @EJA94 Please don't misrepresent what you did. You deleted a citation from a mainstream journalistic source because it quoted critics of ABA and bafflingly tried to claim that citing mainstream journalistic sources violated Wikipedia policy. You even admitted in your above reply that you felt it was appropriate to delete it because the article discussed "perspectives on ABA." Do you honestly believe that societal views of ABA (including those from the Autistic community) are irrelevant to this article or are only citable if they appear in a published scientific paper? That isn't how Wikipedia functions, and, as someone who has apparently been editing for nearly two decades, you should know that.

Additionally, the fact that you used the term "high-functioning" in the above comment to describe other Autistic individuals is truly abhorrent. "High-functioning" is a reductive, scientifically meaningless signifier typically slapped on Autistics who are high-masking. It has never been an officially adopted scientific or medical term (probably because it grossly misrepresents how the autistic spectrum is structured) and is derogatory in its implication that autistic traits are impediments to being a "fully functioning" human being. Further, you seem to use the label as partial justification for deleting a citation, which comes off to me as parroting the ABA industry talking point that those capable of voicing criticism of ABA are not disabled enough to have a (negative) opinion on it. There are Autistic (and allistic) critics of ABA from all walks of life, including Autistic people who were traumatized by it. All they (traumatized survivors) get from your industry is gaslighting about how the ABA of 5 minutes ago bears no resemblance to ABA now or how whomever performed ABA on them must have been incompetent.

As for RCTs, I have never seen a single one related to ABA that used a non-ABA control group. The very few RCTs (we're talking single digits) that have been performed by the ABA industry since its formation in the 1960s have all boiled down to comparing one group that received a certain type or duration of ABA to another group that received another type or duration. That proves absolutely nothing, because you aren't removing ABA as a variable; you're merely comparing one form or duration of ABA to another. Further, the entire "evidence base" of ABA is questionable because efficacy is usually measured by how well someone masks, performs in a traditional academic setting, etc. after undergoing ABA. ABA practitioners can't be bothered to study or even acknowledge inconvenient things like the longterm impact of ABA on mental health, because supporting Autistic people is not and has never been the goal of ABA. It has always been to traumatize Autistic people into submission, compliance and conformity and always will be. You can slap a fresh coat of paint on ABA as many times as you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the wood underneath is rotten. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 06:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@DoItFastDoItUrgent, some uses of "mainstream journalistic sources" violate WP:MEDRS. To give only one example, mainstream journalistic sources may not be used to say whether ABA is effective.

Since you are interested in RCTs, here are a few that compare ABA to a non-ABA control group:

• PMID 27807755 – compares ABA vs no treatment for social skills
• PMID 27449267 – compares ABA vs modified sequential oral sensory approach for feeding
• PMID 31642526 – compares ABA vs no treatment for feeding
• PMID 25953148 and PMID 24840596 – compares ABA vs pivotal response treatment for disruptive behavior at school

The WP:MEDRS rules discourage (but do not completely ban) citing RCTs in articles. Instead, editors are encouraged to cite review articles, meta analyses, and graduate-level textbooks for most WP:Biomedical information. If you see RCTs cited in an article, and you believe that use is inappropriate for the claim being made, then please consider tagging it with {{primary source inline}}. Most information in most articles should not come directly from RCTs. Instead, they should come from sources that combine information from multiple RCTs.

I see that you disagree with the Outcome measures that are often used. That is a matter of Point of view (philosophy) or human values. For example, one family might think it is important for everyone to learn how to cook. That family is not wrong or bad as a result of their choice, even if you would make a different choice. Similarly, one researcher might think that the short-term behavior is the most important thing to measure. That researcher is not wrong or bad as a result of their choice, even if you would make a different choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I liked your response, @WhatamIdoing. However, that study compared PRT (Naturalistic ABA) to Structured ABA (DTT), so I wanted to clarify that they're comparing two different forms of the same science (which are both forms of ABA). Also, @DoItFastDoItUrgent, as of present, ABA doesn't always target decreasing stereotypic body movements ("stims") unless it's self-injurious or a time when it's distracting someone else from doing their work or watching a film/show (I think the autism subfield is starting to head towards that direction). So, it wouldn't belong in the lead, but if there are reliable studies, we could probably include it in a subsection of a "Neurodiversity perspectives in the treatment of autism" section, as long as the context and sources don't go against WP:POV. What do you think, @WhatamIdoing? EJA94 (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

In principle, we should usually (but not always) avoid having separate sections for criticism. It's usually best to say something integrated like this:

==Treatment goals==

"As of 2022, the most common treatment goals are to get school-age children to use the toilet, to keep their hands to themselves, and to use their voices. These goals are criticized by the Infantilizing Parents Association, who think that self-toileting is overrated, and by the Self-Advocates Club, which says that being non-speaking is perfectly fine."

instead of separating like this:

==Treatment goals==

"As of 2022, the most common treatment goals are to get school-age children to use the toilet, to keep their hands to themselves, and to use their voices."

== Criticisms==

"The Infantilizing Parents Association has criticized the common treatment goal of self-toileting, which they think is overrated."

"The Self-Advocates Club has criticized the common treatment goal of speaking because they think that being non-speaking is perfectly fine."

This model would likely work better for specifics (e.g., "Rewarding compliance and punishing non-compliance can result in excessive deference to authorities") than for vague complaints of the sort you can find on social media (e.g., "It's basically just torture"), but which don't give enough information to differentiate the complaint about ABA from complaints about, say, chemotherapy, putting hens in battery cages, sitting next to a crying baby on an airplane, declawing cats, cooking lobsters, etc. Consequently, people who believe the article needs to include their favorite smear word will often find the fact-centered model unsatisfactory. For example, if an editor believes that the word traumatizing really needs to be in the article, then reporting the facts about things that might be experienced as traumatizing (e.g., "If the goal includes learning to endure the sound of thunder, fireworks, or other frightening noises, the children may be repeatedly subjected to loud noises") is not going to feel sufficient to you. "It is traumatizing" is judgemental. "It might involve loud noises" is factual. For an editor who wants the Wikipedia article to pass judgment, then this model may not meet their personal goals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing You accuse others of injecting bias into the article via its language or structure, while deliberately disrespecting and invalidating critics of ABA by contemptuously referring to them as "the Infantilizing Parents Association" and "the Self-Advocates Club" in your above hypotheticals. You also conflate respect for forms of communication that don't utilize traditional speech (e.g., AAC-assisted speech or sign language) with a general opposition to teaching Autistic people with speech delays to communicate and conflate opposition to ABA with a general opposition to toilet-training Autistic people who are able to learn (but haven't been able to learn through traditional methods). Show me one real-world example of an Autistic person or a parent/caregiver saying, "I oppose toilet-training Autistic people," or, "I oppose teaching Autistic people with speech delays how to communicate." If you think those are hidden messages contained in the words of the average ABA critic, then, again, examine your own bias before lecturing others on theirs.

Regarding your unease with the word "torture," two different U.N. special rapporteurs on torture have explicitly called the type of ABA practiced at the Judge Rotenberg Center torture, so perhaps you should be less dismissive of critics (including survivors) who use the same language. (Oh, yes, I know, we're supposed to ignore the JRC as an aberration and a bunch of bad apples, despite the fact that the organization that licenses them and every other ABA practitioner in the United States has refused to pull their credentials and the largest ABA professional association in the world officially defended them until 2022.) Should a Wikipedia article break neutrality by saying, "ABA is a type of torture?" From a purely encyclopedic standpoint (not a moral one), no. But, neither should an article go out of its way to omit well cited descriptions of ABA as torture by survivors, experts or other interested parties. The same goes for your unease around the word "traumatizing."

You're also being dismissive when you invalidate any criticism of ABA that appears on social media (I'm speaking generally, not in relation to Wikipedia policy surrounding citations). What do you recommend the average ABA survivor who feels traumatized by their experience (or an ally of theirs) does to speak out? Publish a book? Go on "The Today Show" to tell their story? Conduct a scientific study? Most survivors don't have the connections or resources to do any of those things and are further hampered by the fact that society at large infantilizes and ignores the opinions of Autistic people in favor of the opinions of "the experts" (like ABA practitioners, who declare themselves experts on Autistic people, despite having no formal training in autistic neurology). Thus, even when they do express their criticism in a way that you have arbitrarily deemed more legitimate than posting on social media (including in any of the ways I mentioned above), they're still ignored.

As for your prior comment specifically directed to me, I make no apologies for judging ABA proponents and practitioners (including researchers with a pro-ABA bias) as harshly as I do. Again, you are reducing opposition to ABA to opposition to any kind of therapy, accommodation or support that would enable an individual to achieve their greatest possible degree of autonomy. I am not opposed to legitimate therapies, accommodations or supports (I think those things should be free and easily accessible); I am opposed to ableist, pseudoscientific grifts, like ABA (which actually strips individuals of their autonomy). I also won't excuse arbitrary goals of ABA practitioners (like suppressing stims, forcing eye contact or bottling in discomfort for the convenience of others) as merely an academic or cultural disagreement with no correct POV. (And, no, I don't buy the "kinder, gentler, we-don't-do-that-anymore" line of BS that most ABA practitioners are trained from day one to spout.)

Regarding the papers you cited, congratulations, you found three examples of RCTs using non-ABA control groups conducted in the last 60 years (as @ATC/@EJA94 pointed out, the fourth example was comparing one form of ABA to another). That doesn't validate ABA as a science or excuse its deeply unethical means of practice (both past and present) or the systemic bias present within ABA research (which is outlined within this Wikipedia article). Just as an example from two of the RCTs you cited involving eating disorders, do you think it's ethical to force a child's mouth open by shoving a spoon in there and twisting to confirm they swallowed their food? Do you have any idea how violating and dehumanizing that is, or are you going to fall back on your cultural relativism argument again? Further, there's a difference between helping a child overcome a severely restrictive eating disorder in a healthy way and just conditioning them to eat whatever they're given (including foods that cause severe sensory discomfort) through praise or other rewards. You may not be aware of this, but Autistic people can't just "get used to" sensory discomfort. A distressing sensory stimulus may be just as distressing the thousandth time someone is exposed to it as the first. A neuroaffirming approach would be to provide an individual with accommodations to block out or lessen their exposure to that stimulus. The ABA approach is to condition the individual to merely suppress any visible signs of discomfort through punishments and/or rewards. You don't see the stark and disturbing difference between those two approaches? You don't see the problem with declaring ABA more effective at curing an eating disorder if the "cure" is just coercing someone into suppressing their discomfort for life? Will the "cure" even last decades after they don't have an ABA practitioner or parent standing over them, dangling a tangible or intangible reward (or threatening a punishment)? Who knows, because ABA researchers generally aren't interested in conducting longterm studies that stretch into adulthood. They're not interested in conducting any studies likely to reflect badly on their industry or methods.

For the record, I strongly disagree with your proposal to restructure the article and recommend you seek broad consensus from the rest of the editors here (e.g., more than just the agreement of @ATC/@EJA94) before making any fundamental alterations to that structure, particularly considering the substantial editing conflicts that have occurred here over the past year or two. It would be nice to go more than a few weeks without having an edit war break out here. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@DoItFastDoItUrgent, For one, no school (including JRC) belongs in the ABA article (as it's unrelated). Two, most behavior analysts today are against electric shocks that the JRC continued to employ for a number of years (even if it hasn't been fully abolished at that one particular school). Third, Pediatric Feeding Therapy is non-coercive and is an evidence based practice used by speech pathologists and behavior analysts alike. Lastly, ABA and positive behavior support emphasizes only using differential reinforcement contingencies to replace or teach new skills, not punishment or aversives, and all forms and subfields of ABA are empirically validated, beyond just autism. EJA94 (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@EJA94 You didn't even know the JRC was still using electric shocks until I told you they were on this talk page, so forgive me if I don't trust that you have your finger on the pulse of what most ABA practitioners currently do or don't believe (especially in regard to the JRC). If you're referring to the ABAI vote, that proves nothing about majority attitudes toward the JRC, because not every (or even most) ABA practitioners are dues-paying members of ABAI. Of course, if you have some measure of relevant expertise (e.g., you're a working RBT or BCBA), feel free to volunteer that (and also to review Wikipedia's official policy surrounding COI). DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Having an ordinary job related to the topic of discussion is not a COI, just like being an ordinary patient/client related to the topic of discussion is not a COI. We do not ban surgeons from editing articles about surgery or psychologists from editing articles about therapy techniques, so we would not ban ABA practitioners from editing articles about ABA. We also do not ban surgery patients or therapy clients or ABA subjects from editing the related articles.

Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine) explains the usual application of generic COI rules to healthcare practitioners and also to patient advocates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

For one, @WhatamIdoing is absolutely right. Second, I am neither a behavior analyst or behavior technician. EJA94 (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC) EJA94 (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Dolt, I hope you can imagine me saying this gently: Calling someone a self-advocate is not an insult.

I think you have significantly misunderstood the point of the structural example. It is bad to put the proponents' claims in a separate section than the critics' claims about the same subject.

Good approach: "Proponent says ____, but critic says ____" in the same paragraph.

Bad approach: "Proponent says ____" all by itself, unless you scroll almost to the end of the article, in whicih case you will see "Critic says ____".

If you want people to read the criticism of each point, then that criticism should be delivered in the same place as the proponents' parts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I have yet again edited the part of the lead talking about controversies, on the extremely clear grounds that it is not just considered controversial, but is in fact verifiably controversial; and that this controversy is not confined to the autism rights movement.

"ABA is controversial, especially within the autism rights movement, due to a perception that it emphasizes normalization instead of acceptance, and a history of, in some forms of ABA and its predecessors, the use of aversives, such as electric shocks."

If anyone would like to contest this, please provide citations from reliable sources that you believe contradict the well-established facts above.

- Oolong (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Reverted. The onus is on you to establish consensus and find sources that support your desired re-write. The consensus text seems good and policy compliant per the above discussion. Bon courage (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

If something is often contended, then it is in fact controversial. Writing it is "considered" controversial downplays the issues, which is further exacerbated by "some in the autism rights movement", where there is a near unanimous consensus in the autism rights movement to reject ABA. LogicalLens (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bon courage, the fact that it is controversial, and not only in the 'autism rights movement', has long been comprehensively established by reliable citations above.

Asserting that it is merely considered controversial, or implying that it is only controversial among "some in the autism rights movement", is actively misleading. This phrasing seems to have been re-inserted repeatedly, apparently without explanation in the edit summaries? I see from the edit history that numerous editors have changed it at different times, including @WhatamIdoing in October. As @DoItFastDoItUrgent said in one edit summary: "ABA is controversial by the definition of the word (specifically, the presence of public dispute or debate). One cannot change the meaning of the word to question critics' perceptions."

As far as I can see, the current framing is not supported by any reliable source; if you believe that there are in fact reliable sources supporting it, please clarify. Oolong (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

See above discussion. This just seems like gaslighting. Bon courage (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I think we can separate the is/considered part from the some/especially part.

The first bit (i.e., should Wikipedia article say something "is" controversial vs "is considered to be" controversial) is a question we could ask at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. At either page, we'll find people who care about encyclopedic writing style. We could ask them for a subject-neutral statement about whether it's better to write:

• It is controversial.
• It is considered controversial.
• It is considered to be controversial.

I usually feel like we get more responses at WT:MOS, but either page will work. Whatever they recommend (assuming they develop a consensus that one is better than the others) is what we (and other articles) can do. Does that sound okay to you two? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Don't mind which formulation is used, so long as it's plain this controversy is rooted in autism/rights objections. Bon courage (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Oolong, would you object to the "is controversial" language? That is definitely the most common on wiki (3,362 articles for the shortest version, vs 102 articles and 10 articles). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The phrasing "is controversial" is clearly entirely accurate.

The implication that it's only controversial among the "autism rights movement" still isn't. As this pro-ABA paper notes, "controversy and division remain among researchers, clinicians, and within the autism community". The Child Mind Institute discusses the controversy among parents. Here's a more recent article, from Salon, talking quite a lot about the controversy among researchers.

It is controversial in many groups, and it's outright rejected by the autism rights movement. @Bon courage previously agreed to the phrasing "rejected by the autism rights movement" - which glosses over the controversy outside of the movement, but is at least more honest than the current framing - which, as I say, appears to have been re-inserted without explanation or discussion (possibly by @EJA94/@ATC?). I find edit histories quite confusing to navigate though, so I may be missing something here. Oolong (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Oolong You appear to be correct regarding the edit history. @EJA94 (a.k.a. @ATC) rephrased that paragraph (including adding back the problematic phrasing "is considered controversial") on Jan. 27, 2025 without a detailed edit summary and without any apparent attempt to discuss the change or reach consensus. Now that those frequenting this talk page have officially reached consensus to remove the word "considered," if they attempt to change it back again without any new discussion, I would interpret that as edit warring. Since both you and I have tagged them here with both of their usernames, they should be well aware this discussion has gone on (and that the appropriate course of action if they disagree is to join said discussion, rather than re-attempt the same edit over and over again).

As for the unresolved part of the discussion, I fully agree with you that trying to paint ABA as only controversial within Autistic circles is not factually accurate and, like the now-removed "is considered" phrasing, attempts to undermine ABA critics by both falsely suggesting that only Autistic people oppose it (and subtly implying Autistic people's viewpoints should carry less weight than the viewpoints of anyone else).

I personally would choose a less biased source than the Child Mind Institute to cite an example of such criticism, as they are themselves ABA providers and the specific piece you linked seems to be refuting any criticism it mentions via the tired "ABA-isn't-like-that-anymore" argument. (I could go on for pages about the toxicity of that organization, including their role advising Sia during the production of the train wreck that is Music, but I don't want to distract from the issue at hand.)

I think the Salon piece you pointed out is a good source. I also think the fact that the Department of Defense's inspector general has consistently claimed in recent years that ABA does not meet any measure of efficacy worthy of TRICARE reimbursement is also worthy of mentioning (both in the "criticisms" section and to corroborate that Autistic activists are not ABA's sole critics). This news article and this news article (although they appear to give more weight to pro-ABA views) mention the DoD's criticism. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Not being covered by health insurance isn't the same as being controversial. Health insurance doesn't cover custodial care (e.g., making sure a disabled person stays safe, eats when they're hungry, etc.). That doesn't mean that babysitting a disabled child is "controversial". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Oolong Indeed I did say that. If you need a vote to reach consensus on if the phrase "is considered controversial" is appropriately used here (or really appropriately used anywhere on Wikipedia, given how indirect and weaselly such language is), you have my vote that it isn't (and that its use here takes on a sinister, ableist tone). This is absolutely not something that should require this level of discussion, of course, given the word "controversial" has a rather uniform and defined meaning in English, but here we are. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

We have agreed to stop fighting over the easy half of the problem. Now let's talk about the more difficult half.

It currently says "ABA is controversial by some within the autism rights movement due to..." IMO this is awkward phrasing. Would anyone actively object to changing this to: "ABA is controversial. It is rejected by some within the autism rights movement due to..."?

I grant that this does not cover absolutely everything, but I think it would be an incremental improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

There are many in the autism rights movement like Temple Grandin who support it so I wouldn't say everyone in the autism rights movement is against it. EJA94 (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC) EJA94 (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

It could still be said "most of the autism rights movement" as there are far more advocates in the movement who oppose ABA. LogicalLens (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Like this? "ABA is controversial. It is rejected by some most within the autism rights movement due to..."

Does anyone object? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

That's worlds better than how it was previously phrased, so I would accept that in the absence of a better suggestion. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

It's overwhelmingly, if not unanimously rejected by the autism rights movement.

Temple Grandin (whose support for ABA is in any case contingent, and somewhat guarded) is really not part of any movement - the assertion in her Wikipedia entry that "Grandin has been an outspoken proponent of autism rights and neurodiversity movements" is unsourced, and her own web site seems to make no mention of neurodiversity at all (or "autism rights", although there is at least one mention of a child's rights within the school system). I very much doubt that she would suggest otherwise. I've done a quick search through a bunch of her books, and the only mention of neurodiversity I've found is in the 'further reading' section of Thinking in Pictures, where she briefly mentions neurodiversity.com. Nothing obvious about rights, or movements, either.

Do we have any evidence of anyone who even claims to be part of the autism rights movement supporting the use of ABA? Are there any autistic-led organisations that support it?

It is certainly possible that such people exist, but they would have to be fringe figures in the context of the movements for autistic rights. If anyone thinks this conclusion is wrong, please provide citations.

@WhatamIdoing's suggested wording (which has been used, more or less, in at least one previous version of this page) is much more accurate than any of the other suggestions made here. ABA is controversial. It is rejected by the autism rights movement. Oolong (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Would this be an improvement over the current text ("ABA is controversial within the autism rights movement due to...")?

"ABA is controversial. It is largely rejected by the autism rights movement due to..."

That would give some wiggle room for the occasional individual supporter or anyone with complex views (e.g., if someone believes it's a bad idea in general but might be okay in a specific instance). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a big improvement - although 'ABA is controversial, and largely rejected by the autism rights movement' would make more sense.

My understanding of Wikipedia policy is that we should not prominently report the views of tiny minorities within any group, and on that basis, 'largely' still seems like unnecessary hedging to me. Oolong (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s hedging at all. You still haven’t provided any sources to say it’s “overwhelmingly” either. The only thing undisputed is that it’s controversial within the autism rights movement. You really need to stop relying on these leaps in logic when the lede is completely sufficient. I actually do think that WhatamIDoing’s version can actually be an improvement. But black-and-white language is whaf got us into this mess in the first place. There’s nothing inaccurate about the inclusion of the word “largely.” Barbarbarty (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Although Grandin's Wikipedia page identifies her as a follower of such a movement, I don't know if she's ever actually self-identified that way (or if her beliefs are consistent enough with said movement that it could be reliably inferred). However, it would be disingenuous for me to argue that disproves your point, as I know plenty of Autistic public figures who style themselves as fighting for their rights and the rights of their fellow Autistics, but, unfortunately (and hypocritically), either support ABA outright or equivocate on the harm it causes. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

I also don't think we should be glossing over the conversion therapy links here. Lovaas, a hugely influential figure to this day, is notorious not just for his unethical and abusive practices, but also for his participation in the so-called 'sissy boy' or 'Feminine Boys' project, published in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis with George Rekers as 'Behavioral treatment of deviant sex-role behaviors in a male child'. This history is significant in how ABA is seen today; Steve Silberman discusses it in his highly influential history NeuroTribes, for example.

In a general sense, it seems odd not to include a single mention of sex, gender or conversion therapy in an entry on a discipline so influential in the development of the latter. Lovaas's work in the field surely warrants at least a passing mention.

--Oolong (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

If that's important, then it needs to be in the body of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Oolong (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

History of electroshock

I'd like to add an in-depth history of the use of electroshock in ABA. I'm planning to add this to the controversy section and cover the first uses by Lovaas, its use in gay conversion therapy, the Judge Rotenberg Center, ABAI voting that the use of electoshocks is unacceptable in all circumstances in 2022, and the FDA's recently proposed ban. Is there anything else that this section should cover that I didn't already list? Editor6681067 (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you have a good handle on things. If you weren't already intending on doing so, you might include references to failed legislative attempts to ban or defund the shocks, including in Massachusetts and New York. Plenty of mainstream journalistic sources (as well as official statements from non-profits, like ASAN and AWN) you could cite regarding those pieces of legislation. Mentioning the U.N. condemnations of the shocks as torture is also a must.

I'm interested to see how your section on the ABAI vote turns out. While some may point to it as proof that the industry is reforming itself (which is not possible, considering its rotten foundation), I see it as nothing more than an Autistic token covering for the industry (the leader of the campaign to force ABAI to issue the condemnation is an Autistic ABA practitioner). Now, whenever the JRC is brought up, ABA practitioners can point to the new ABAI policy position and go, "See, we're listening. It took us awhile, but now even we think what our colleagues at the JRC do is bad." Meanwhile, I don't see any ABA practitioners (Autistic or otherwise) calling out the BACB for not stripping JRC employees of their ABA credentials. Funny that. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Editor6681067, Electroshock is a redirect to Electroconvulsive therapy, which does not seem to be related. I wonder if we need a separate article on the use of electroshock as an aversive. It could include part of Electrical injury#Torture as well. A separate article would be a good place for a broad history that covers non-ABA uses of electrical shock devices.

For this article, gay conversion therapy is off topic, so I would not recommend including that here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, electroconvulsive therapy is definitely unrelated. I think you're right that having a separate article might be a good idea in order to keep the main ABA article from getting too bogged down and allow a more thorough history of the practice than what would be appropriate on this article.

While gay conversion therapy is not evidenced based and shouldn't be considered ABA by modern standards, the historical claims that ABA practitioners conducted research to "correct" homosexual behavior is simply undeniable. Even Lovaas published a study on attempting to convert a transgender girl to her assigned at birth sex which was published in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1901/jaba.1974.7-173 Editor6681067 (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Editor6681067 It's also worth pointing out that the Lovaas/Rekers study you linked above is the one that JABA issued an "expression of concern" for in 2020, claiming that it wouldn't have been ethical to conduct by 2020 research standards, but was ethical by the research standards of its time. Hard for ABA proponents to argue that the industry has changed when the industry won't even admit that it was always unethical to try to physically and psychologically torture a queer child into not being queer. Well, maybe in another 30 years or so, they'll finally retract the article if they need another PR win. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

You'll probably want to include something about the many times ABAI - apparently one of the main professional bodies for the ABA industry? - invited representatives from the JRC to their annual conferences to defend their use of electric torture machines on disabled children.

Obviously you won't want to phrase it like that, you need to find a neutral-sounding way of getting across the same thing.

Using only information from ABAI's own site, I collated a list of these here.

ASAN's response to the ABAI finally voting to condemn this form of torture is good. I've been told not to cite ASAN here before, but as far as I can tell they pass muster as a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. Oolong (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like you're thinking about this in terms of Deplatforming: If I disagree with them, they should not be allowed to talk to others, and others should not be informed about what they are doing. People can only learn about what I agree with. Academic groups should definitely not charge evil people money to talk about their stuff, since there's no difference between taking their money and paying them (except, you know, for who is doing the paying and who is getting the money). Only people and products I approve of should be allowed to pay their own money for advertisements. With this first model, we might say "Look at those evil people, who invited the JRC to promote their approach to experts! The JRC should have been shunned and forced to operate without any knowledgeable people hearing about what they were doing".

The traditional academic model is quite the opposite: If someone is doing something different, they should come and explain it to you, so you have an opportunity to decide whether you agree or disagree, and if you disagree, so you have an opportunity to share your disagreement directly. If you want to pay some money to support the conference, that's convenient for me, but it won't change the fact that I disagree with you. In this second model, we might say "It's a good thing the experts were watching the JRC and asking them uncomfortable questions. It might have taken even longer to get the necessary legal changes if they weren't encouraged to disclose it all".

Either way, that information belongs in Association for Behavior Analysis International, which is not this article.

On your question about ASAN: Like all self-published statements, ASAN's own press releases are primary, self-published, and reliable for very narrow statements mostly in the form of "ASAN said ____", without any statement, or even any implication, that what ASAN said is either true or important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Two different U.N. special rapporteurs on torture labeled what the JRC does as torture many years before their last appearance at an ABAI conference. You are literally saying trade associations should invite people who have been credibly accused of torture for decades to hang out in front of a display table for a few hours handing out pamphlets about how great torture is, make a presentation in an extremely friendly forum about how great torture is and then go get drunk with the other attendees at the hotel bar. The fact that you are even making this argument shows just how prevalent the view of Autistic people as subhuman is. In no other context would you or anyone else be making an argument that torturers deserve a platform (except perhaps in a court of law, where they would be entitled to defend themselves).

When ABAI officially condemned the JRC in 2022, it wasn't because they had, up until that point, not been engaging in torture or that their torture had not been well documented by survivors, government investigators and the media. It's because a token Autistic ABA practitioner who brands himself "the Bearded Behaviorist" convinced a bunch of new members to join ABAI solely to vote to condemn the JRC (something that had no impact on the JRC performing torture, but has given ABA practitioners a "we-condemned-them-back-in-2022" talking point to refute industry criticism). This was not a case where the jury was still out and the ABAI needed to gather more information before concluding that the JRC was engaging in torture. It was also not a case where ABAI had any relevant investigatory, advisory, monitoring or credentialing roles, as they are nothing more than a private trade association that the JRC is not legally beholden to. You are really straining credulity (in a particularly grotesque way) to claim ABAI hosted the JRC for the good of those being tortured by them (as recently as this decade). You are also giving the ABAI and its members too much credit if you think a single person stood up at even one of the JRC's ABAI presentations and asked them anything other than softball questions. Remember, before the Bearded Behaviorist's little coup, the majority of ABAI members (including the ABAI board of directors) unconditionally and unapologetically supported the JRC.

It's also not surprising to me that you don't consider ASAN a generally citable source, as it's both critical of ABA and exclusively run by Autistic individuals. Again, it seems there's no measure of arbitrary legitimacy that an Autistic person (especially an Autistic person critical of ABA) can reach to be considered a reliable or citable source by those with a pro-ABA bias. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying that it is an academic tradition to directly confront people you disagree with. We don't have a List of academic presentations that ended in fisticuffs, but we could probably source one.

You sound like you are repeating talking points from an advocacy group. I noticed the non-neutral language you used: The ABAI "invited" them. They "hosted" them. They were "extremely friendly". They "unconditionally and unapologetically supported the JRC". The JRC doesn't "deserve a platform". And in all of these years, not one person ever asked them anything except "softball questions". I wonder how you know that. Were you there? Or are you just repeating exaggerations that you've read on an advocacy group's website? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

ABAI is a professional organisation, not an academic one, and if their claim to be "the primary membership organization for those interested in the philosophy, science, application, and teaching of behavior analysis" is anywhere near accurate, then their tacit support of systematic torture for years after it became apparent absolutely warrants mention in this article. Oolong (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Multiple times I have brought up the fact that the United Nations has twice condemned the JRC for practicing torture, and you keep ignoring that and making baseless arguments that the ABA practitioners who work there are well-intentioned "academics" deserving of the benefit of the doubt. Then, you baselessly accuse me of parroting ASAN and using biased language by stating well documented facts (like the fact that ABAI invited JRC ABA practitioners to give continuing-education presentations at their annual conferences multiple times). None of this is in dispute, despite you apparently very much wanting to portray it as in dispute or as wholly fabricated by me. The fact that you clearly haven't bothered doing any research into the JRC or what has gone on there for decades (apparently not even reading the Wikipedia article dedicated to said facility, which explicitly uses the language "torture" in its lede paragraph) does not change reality. This is the last time I will engage with you on this topic. If you continue with your insistence that the JRC does not engage in torture or that we should give them the benefit of the doubt that they are not engaging in torture, despite the mountains of evidence that they are (including, but not limited to, the United Nations' official findings), I will be happy to solicit an opinion on whether or not your conduct rises to the level of hate speech targeting the Autistic community on the administrators' noticeboard. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@DoItFastDoItUrgent, let's see if we can agree upon some facts. As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. We should be able to agree on what the actual facts are.

For example, I see that an independent expert in human rights (specifically torture, in this case; the job title is "Special Rapporteur") named Manfred Nowak was employed by the United Nations. He asked the US government to investigate a complaint he received (in 2010 [1]) and later (in 2013) he issued a routine report, in which he describes, among many other, unrelated allegations, the initial results of the US government investigation about the JRC. The JRC-related content is about 1.5% of the total report, and the other 98.5% has nothing to do with this. Ultimately, his independent judgment of (specifically and exclusively) "Level III Aversive Interventions by means of electric shock and physical means of restraints" at the JRC is that "any form of corporal punishment is contrary to the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment", and since shocking non-compliant people is certainly corporal punishment, then he says it should be considered a violation of the United Nations Convention Against Torture "in the absence of evidence to the contrary".

I have two thoughts about this that contrast with your statement that the fact that the United Nations has twice condemned the JRC for practicing torture:

1. That looks like "once", not "twice", to me. Are you aware of any other/separate UN-related statement about the JRC? If not, then it looked to me like the fact is that the UN hasn't "twice" condemned the JRC.
2. Generally, when people say "the United Nations condemned" something, they mean something like the UN condemnation of Zionism, in which the members take a vote on a formal resolution. This report is something quite different from that: it's one office holder issuing a routine report describing the status of various allegations his office received. The report itself uses language that says things like ""The Special Rapporteur thanks" and "the Special Rapporteur determines..." and "The Special Rapporteur reminds..." but never anything like "The United Nations says" or "The United Nations condemns" or anything else that sounds like he's speaking for the UN. I therefore question whether it's fair to say that "the United Nations has condemned the JRC", when Special Rapporteur Nowak declined to use that language himself.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Presumably the other time being referred to is this one.

'The spotlight that the UN rapporteur is putting on the school is given added poignancy by the fact that Mendez was himself subjected to torture by electric shock at the hands of the Buenos Aires police in 1975.

He was abused with electric prods.

"I feel very strongly that electricity applied to a person's body creates a very extreme form of pain. There a lot of lingering consequences including mental illness that can be devastating," Mendez said.

This is the second time the UN has intervened over the school. Mendez's predecessor as torture rapporteur, Manfred Nowak, also called for a federal US investigation.

Outrage over the school was taken to a new level in April when for the first time the public was able to see video footage of a child being subjected to the shocks.' Oolong (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Special rapporteurs seem to have brief appointments, and I think this is part of the same complaint.

Also, Mendez may personally feel that "electricity applied to a person's body creates a very extreme form of pain", but Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation is "electricity applied to a person's body", and most people tolerate it or even find it helpful. Electricians get accidentally zapped on the job, and they don't usually report "very extreme" pain, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm very confused by this comment. We're talking about two UN rapporteurs, with years between reports. What makes you think these are part fo the same complaint?

I'm not sure why you're minimising the effects of electrical stimulation used to inflict pain. You can see (very disturbing) footage of one of their machines in use in this video. Here's a former student describing the shocking as 'like being underground in hell', and feeling like she wished she could die to escape the pain. Here's a compilation of clips. Oolong (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I’m not sure posting a bunch of random YouTube videos is responsive to the question. Wikipedia does not rely on sources such as these for fairly obvious reasons. Barbarbarty (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we're talking about two different employees, who are managing a multi-year process. The first one said "Dear US, please investigate and get back to me". That takes time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not "minimising the effects of electrical stimulation used to inflict pain". I'm saying that there's a whole range of experiences here, and that "electricity applied to a person's body creates a very extreme form of pain" is not a universal experience. Some amounts of electricity cause very extreme pain. Other amounts cause no pain at all. The JRC's approach appears to have been deliberately intended to cause extreme pain. But the UN person's quotation is not the full and complete truth here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Downplays Potential Negative Outcomes

The really only negative outcome it says is "makes you act nonautistic" which does not properly emphasize the issues that individuals, including those with higher support needs, could potentially suffer from, including the inability to self advocate or set boundaries, doing things that make you uncomfortable, nad general humilation and dehumanizion, which reflects the original philosophy of Ole Lovaas, who did not view autistic people as people. Ailurophobic (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

"Controversial autism therapy" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Controversial autism therapy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 5 § Controversial autism therapy until a consensus is reached. — Anonymous 03:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Parents

Are there any sources talking about the parents who choose ABA? One of the bits of Wikipedia's articles that I'm most satisfied with is Alternative cancer treatments#People who choose alternative treatments. It explains what drives cancer patients to choose pseudoscientific products instead of evidence-based medicine. (The answers are things like desperation, avoiding side effects, and an internal belief that they could get better.)

So I wonder: What makes a parent choose ABA? If two parents both have autistic kids, and one wants ABA and the other doesn't, what's the difference? Is it driven by the kids' level of impairment? The parents' level of education? Something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

After quickly searching for papers on why parents of autistic children choose ABA and reading some abstracts, I think the main reason is that some parents are more convinced by statements that ABA is evidence-based while others share the concerns about ethics and autism rights. Factors such as "specific needs of the child" were also mentioned but at a surprisingly low rate. The precise weight of each factor would have to be evaluated further and my search was only a quick one. A point that I have read somewhere in the past but do not have a concrete citation for is that particularly in the US, ABA is often the only autism intervention that health insurance pays for. LogicalLens (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

So they want something that is effective, but effective at what? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

This article says that parents often find it difficult to choose the right intervention because they are overwhelmed by the amount of offers and information.[2] It found no relationship between the parent's educational status and the choice of evidence-based interventions. Regarding the goals, it says: "Child specific goals were tailored to the individual and included addressing medical problems such as allergies or the child's response to certain foods, behavioral problems, or remediating educational/life skill deficits.", which is exemplified by mentioning social skills and communication.

It is apparent that despite the negative framing in this paper, many of the goals mentioned are similar to what neurodiversity advocates call for, i.e. treating co-occurring medical problems or self-injurious behavior. Differences between pro- and anti-neurodiversity parents are clear when it comes to the extent to which the core autistic features should be changed. All kinds of things can be meant by "behavioral problems" and often distress with change or pleasure that stimming or focused interests bring is interpreted as a behavior problem interrupting social interactions because non-autistic professionals do not understand what the child is feeling and the environment does not want to accept autistic features. When it comes to communication, neurodiversity would allow for interventions that decide for each specific case whether spoken language or an alternative form of communication is the best, while the medical model views alternative communication forms only as a workaround because teaching spoken language does not work in the particular case. For social skills, especially the double empathy problem puts emphasis on mutual acceptance and learning about each other's communication styles, whereas the medical model tries to make the autistic child socialize like non-autistic people. See also these two papers that have been cited in the autism article debate.[3][4] They not only deal with autistic people's views on intervention goals but also those of parents. It also shows that pro-neurodiversity people largely agree with teaching adaptive skills, which is another point mentioned by the paper with the deficit framing above. They found that most people in the community (autistic people, parents etc.) agree that "normalization" is not a desirable goal, while there are some who hold anti-neurodiversity views. LogicalLens (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Those sources are primarily about attitudes towards intervention goals. I'm trying to understand what makes a person choose an intervention method.

Imagine a three year old who keeps running into traffic. The intervention goal, to put it bluntly, is "Child will not die". This goal is supported by everyone who isn't actively evil. ABA is an intervention method that promises to be able to help. What other/non-ABA intervention methods are available to address this intervention goal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I am a bit confused because you asked what the parents want the interventions to be effective at after I replied with some factors influencing intervention decisions. Further information on intervention choices might be found in these papers.[5][6][7] I did not read them. Other interventions include speech and language therapy, occupational therapy (which aims to help with daily living skills), and social skills training (which tries to make the autistic person communicate like a non-autistic person). LogicalLens (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm curious what makes parents choose ABA vs non-ABA interventions.

The sources you found say "statements that ABA is evidence-based", which means that the parents want something that produces the desired result. You also found sources indicating that parents who choose ABA and parents who choose non-ABA interventions have similar goals.

So if a parent wants something that is effective, what non-ABA interventions are actually effective at important, uncontroversial goals, such as "child stops running out of the house and into the street, where they could get killed"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that the evidence base for all autism interventions is weak, including ABA, despite some commercial providers and advocacy organizations promoting it as evidence-based.

An interesting approach is the "Low Arousal Approach" by Andrew McDonnell which aims to reduce the distress that leads autistic children to dangerous behaviors.

Additional safeguards against elopement include secure locks, alarms, fencing, and GPS tracking. LogicalLens (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

One of the things I'd like to see in this article is a comparison to alternatives. That requires finding sources, of course. The sources don't need to say that an alternative is "better", just that it's an alternative. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

This book is interesting.[8] Chapter 9 is "Working with parents and carers: An empathic Low Arousal approach to distressed behaviour". In general, this book is more about mental health challenges, but this chapter is important. LogicalLens (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

That does look interesting, especially if it offers a comparison to ABA that we could use in this article. WorldCat indicates that it's primarily in university library collections. I haven't found it in Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

This chapter does not explicitly mention ABA, but it refers to managing behaviors through the low arousal approach, which is what this article is about. So, while it would be WP:SYNTH to directly compare it to ABA, things like "Another approach to managing distressed behavior is..." could be written. The low arousal approach has its own Wikipedia article that contains multiple relevant sources. LogicalLens (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

If ABA is widely agreed to be so bad, why aren't sources explicitly recommending alternatives?

I can find sources that say "Don't do Black salve for your skin cancer; instead, do conventional medicine, which is 10x more effective, less painful, and has better cosmetic outcomes". I can find sources that say "Don't take antibiotics for the common cold; instead, use comfort care, because the antibiotics will be all side effects and no benefit". I can find sources that say "Don't do arthroscopic knee surgery for joint pain; instead, do physical therapy or get a knee replacement, because that surgery does nothing, and these actually work". Why can't we find decent sources that say "Don't do ABA; instead, do ____, which is just as effective and a lot less mean"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

There are a lot of search results on normal Google for "alternatives to ABA" but not many papers that could be cited here on Wikipedia.

This paper critical of ABA quotes autistic people who say that speech therapy or occupational therapy were more helpful for them than ABA.[9] The Wikipedia article Autism therapies also describes many alternatives, some of which are compatible with affirming neurodiversity and their citations might also include comparisons with ABA. There are maybe other sources that provide a direct comparison but they are difficult to find as they do not have "alternatives to ABA" in their title. I do not currently have time to search through hundreds of papers.

Part of the reason why ABA is so entrenched despite the criticism is that research into autism-specific alternatives is in its infancy. Other approaches are often used with autistic people but were not designed specifically for autism. ASAN co-founder Ari Ne'eman sometime wrote on Twitter that neurodiversity advocates should spend less time advocating online and more time working on alternative interventions. LogicalLens (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Speech therapy and occupational therapy are not relevant for a child who is running into the street (to go back to my example, though other examples also interest me).

If the reliable sources are not offering alternatives, maybe that tells us that the mainstream viewpoint is that ABA is the only realistic option right now. I infer from the ASAN co-founder's comment that even activists are unaware of any proven options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)