My post wasn't to criticize or condone Lovaas' methods, but to point out that there *is* a psychological connection even with the Lovaas co-authorship. And of course the rest does have a psychological bent, as Paul noted.
Beth Benoit On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Paul Brandon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Note that Lovaas did NOT advocate the use of painful stimuli for all > autistic children (even according to the MUCH more limited definition used > then), nor was the primary purpose suppressing unwanted behaviors. > It was used with a small subset of completely nonresponsive children to get > them to respond to verbal stimuli (adding behavior, not removing it). A > collateral effect was the reduction in stereotypical behaviors such as > rocking. > Rekers was not a major contributer to this research (the only other papers > that I found by him and Lovaas were a couple of related presentations). The > paper cited was primarily concerned with sex role behavior change, not > autism per se (which was Lovaas' main interest). > > I agree that if Rekers was involved in even a pseudopsychological group > that there is a psychological link. > > > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=2514 or send a blank email to leave-2514-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
