Jimmy Akin : 自閉症児の「FC: ファシリテイテッド・コミュニケーション」技法の経緯を解説

June 24, 2025 · 145 min read

前置き

UFO 現象、特に退行催眠がらみでは、この FC の経緯が参考になる。以下のような対応が成り立つゆえに。

項目	対応
FC 技法	退行催眠
FC の補助者	退行催眠の施術者
自閉症児	abductee
自閉症児の応答メッセージ	abductee の想起した体験
FC による虚偽の虐待告発が多発	退行催眠による虚偽の虐待告発が多発

FC の由来と経緯が下(ChatGPT 4o による作表)。

時期	出来事・動向
1970年代末	オーストラリアの教育者ローズマリー・クロスリーが FC を考案。重度障害者との意思疎通手段として紹介される。
1990年前後	米国の心理学者ダグラス・ビクレンが FC を紹介。自閉症者の「内なる知性の発見」として注目を集める。
1990年代前半	米国・日本を含む各国で急速に普及。感動的な事例としてメディアで好意的に取り上げられ、教育現場でも導入され始める。
1990年代半ば	二重盲検法による実験により、FCは補助者の無意識的な誘導によるものであると判明。主要な学術団体が信頼性を否定。
1990年代後半	FC による虚偽の虐待告発事件が多発。家族が誤って処罰されるなど、深刻な社会的・法的問題が明るみに出る。
2000年代以降	FC は疑似科学と見なされるようになり、主流の支援技法からは排除される。一部では形を変えて継続（例：RPM など）。
現在	科学的には否定されているが、少数の支持者や当事者団体の中で存続。心理学教育では批判的事例として扱われている。

この FC について Jimmy Akin が 2時間以上の時間をかけて詳しく解説した動画が以下の情報源。AI で整理した。

音声対話

https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/31f03a59-e0a7-492c-8d7d-26b8a8c51030/audio

概要

媒介されたコミュニケーションと自閉症

この音源は、**ファシリテーテッド・コミュニケーション（FC）とスペリング・トゥ・コミュニケーション（S2C）**という、コミュニケーションに困難を抱える人々、特に自閉症スペクトラムの人々を支援する二つの方法について概説しています。

音源はまず、**拡大代替コミュニケーション（AAC）**の広い分野を紹介し、過去から現在までの様々な補助具（手話、文字盤、音声生成装置など）について説明しています。また、自閉症スペクトラム障害の診断基準と、知能との関連性、そして自閉症を単なる「障害」ではなく「神経多様性」と捉える現代の議論についても考察します。

FCとS2Cの具体的な手法、そしてこれらがコミュニケーション能力を劇的に向上させるとされた初期の驚くべき主張が紹介されます。しかし、イデオモーター効果の可能性を考慮した二重盲検試験によって、これらのメッセージが実際に利用者のものではなく、ファシリテーターの無意識のコントロールによるものであることが示唆された、という論争についても説明しています。

情報源: 動画(2:20:47)

Facilitated Communication & Spelling to Communicate (Autism) - Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World

はじめに

本ブリーフィング文書は、コミュニケーションに困難を抱える人々、特に自閉症スペクトラム障害（ASD）を持つ人々の支援を目的とした「円滑化されたコミュニケーション（FC）」と「コミュニケーションのためのスペリング（S2C）」の2つの手法に関する主要なテーマ、重要な事実、および懸念事項をまとめたものです。提示されたソース（主に音声転写とビデオクリップからの抜粋）に基づき、各手法の歴史、実践、そしてその妥当性について深く掘り下げて考察します。

オーグメンタティブ・アンド・オルタナティブ・コミュニケーション（AAC）の概要

コミュニケーションに困難を抱える人々を支援するための様々なシステムが「オーグメンタティブ・アンド・オルタナティブ・コミュニケーション（AAC）」として知られています。これには、写真を使ったボードから、文字盤、さらにはテキスト読み上げデバイスや将来的には脳波による制御まで、幅広い方法が含まれます。スティーブン・ホーキング博士がALSのために音声生成デバイスを使用していたことが例として挙げられます（0:10:19）。

自閉症スペクトラム障害（ASD）の理解

自閉症スペクトラム障害は、多様な神経発達障害であり、その症状は乳幼児期または小児期に現れ、一般的に安定した経過をたどります。DSM基準では、社会的コミュニケーションと相互作用における持続的な欠陥と、行動、興味、または活動における限られた反復パターンが特徴とされます（0:17:14）。

知能との関係: ASDは知能レベルと直接的な関連はありません。知的障害を持つ人もいれば、非常に高い知能を持つ人もいます（例：『ビッグバン★セオリー』のシェルドン・クーパー）。
サヴァン症候群: ASDを持つ人々の中には、特定の分野で驚異的な能力を発揮する「サヴァン症候群」を持つ人もいます。これは記憶力、音楽、芸術、空間視覚化、または数学などの分野で見られます（例：カレンダー計算の能力）（0:20:07）。
神経多様性（Neurodiversity）: 近年、自閉症を単なる障害ではなく、異なる認知スタイルを持つ「神経多様性」と捉える見方もあります。しかし、この見方は最も重度に影響を受ける人々の問題を軽視しているとの批判もあります（0:28:20）。

円滑化されたコミュニケーション（FC）

3.1. FCの歴史と初期の期待

FCは、1960年代から1970年代にデンマークなどで開発された手法で、後にオーストラリアのメルボルンでダグラス・ビックリンによって「発見」され、アメリカに導入されました（0:35:49）。この手法は、それまで非言語的であると考えられていた人々が明確にコミュニケーションをとれるようになるという「革命的な技術」として注目されました。

「私は非常に重要なものを見たのだと知っていた。これは表現を欠く人々のための表現手段だった。これは人々が何を感じ、何を考えているかを知る方法だった。」（ダグラス・ビックリン、0:35:49）

3.2. FCのメカニズムと提唱された利点

FCでは、コミュニケーターがキーボードで文字を打つ際に、ファシリテーターがコミュニケーターの手、手首、腕、肘、またはシャツの袖を支えます。これにより、コミュニケーターの不随意な動きを滑らかにし、明確なタイピングを可能にすると考えられました（0:36:53）。

知的障害の否定: FCの支持者は、自閉症を重度の知的障害ではなく、むしろ運動制御の障害と捉えました。これにより、コミュニケーションに困難を抱える人々も実際には通常の知能を持ち、高等数学や詩作も可能であると示唆されました（0:37:17, 0:44:38）。
「スターミング」への対応: コミュニケーターが「スターミング」（体を揺らしたり手をひらひらさせたりする自己刺激行動）を行うことで、思考が混乱し、タイピングが妨げられると説明されました。ファシリテーターによる身体的サポートは、これを抑制し、タイピングを「遅くする」ことで、より明確なコミュニケーションを可能にするという説がありました（0:49:13）。

「私は速度が落ちるから助けられる、と言った人がいました。速度が落ちないと、ゴミのようなものが出てくる。不要な言葉が出てくる。単語にならない文字の羅列がたくさん出てくる。速度が落ちると、自分の打ちたいものを打てる。」（0:49:13）

3.3. FCに対する懐疑と科学的検証

FCの支持者たちは、コミュニケーターが読解力や文法能力をどのように習得したかという疑問に対し、彼らが環境から自然に学習したこと、あるいは言語に関する「サヴァンの能力」を持っていると主張しました（0:49:58）。しかし、その妥当性については大きな懸念が示されました。

イデオモーター効果: FCにおけるタイピングの起源について、ファシリテーターの無意識的な身体的動きが影響を与える「イデオモーター効果」が指摘されました。これは、ダウジングやウィジャボードの説明にも使われる現象です（0:54:45）。
盲検試験の失敗: 科学的な検証（盲検試験）では、ファシリテーターが回答を知らない場合、コミュニケーターは正しくコミュニケーションできませんでした。例えば、ファシリテーターが異なる画像を見た場合、コミュニケーターの回答は誤りでした（1:01:04）。また、ファシリテーターが存在しない状況で情報を渡す「メッセージパッシングテスト」では、コミュニケーターは正しい情報を打つことができませんでした（1:02:32）。

「ファシリテーターとコミュニケーターが同じ画像を見た場合、正しい答えが得られました。しかし、ファシリテーターがコミュニケーターと異なる画像を見た場合、答えは不正確でした。」（1:01:38）

「ファシリテーターが情報を知っていると答えが得られるが、ファシリテーターが情報を知らないと答えが得られない。」（1:02:32）

ファシリテーターの影響の認識: 研究者たちは、ファシリテーターが自分たちがコミュニケーションをコントロールしていることに無自覚であるという証拠を発見しました。

「これらの人々はすべてタイピングをコントロールしているという証拠がありました。そして、私たちはこれらの人々が自分たちがコントロールしていることに気づいていないことを知っていました。それは明らかでした。」（1:06:09）

「データが白黒はっきりとして目の前にあるのを見るのは壊滅的でした。信じられないことでした。議論の余地はありませんでした。明確でした。」（1:06:36）

コミュニケーションのためのスペリング（S2C）／ラピッドプロンプティングメソッド（RPM）

4.1. S2Cのメカニズムと提唱される利点

S2Cは、「ラピッドプロンプティングメソッド（RPM）」とも呼ばれ、インド系アメリカ人のソーマ・ムコパディヤイが開発したとされています（0:37:45）。この手法もFCと同様に、コミュニケーターの非言語性を自閉症による運動障害に起因すると見なし、コミュニケーターが文字盤を指し示すのを支援する第二の人物（「コミュニケーションアシスタント」）が関与します（1:27:03）。

身体的接触の原則的な排除: S2Cの主要な違いは、アシスタントが原則としてコミュニケーターと物理的に接触しないことです。代わりに、アシスタントは文字盤をコミュニケーターの前に持ち、口頭で指し示すように促します（1:27:03）。
「つまづき」の解消: 理論的には、自閉症による非言語の人々はコミュニケーションの試みにおいて「つまづく」ことがあり、外部からの「プロンプト」（促し）が彼らを動かし、課題に集中させるのに役立つとされます（0:38:02）。
感動的な結果: S2Cもまた、「知的に障害がある」と見なされていた子供たちに素晴らしい結果をもたらし、多くの親に大きな希望を与えています。ジェイミーという若者は、S2Cによって「自分の人生を救われた」と語っています（1:27:40, 1:53:27）。

4.2. S2Cに対する懸念事項

S2Cには、FCとは異なる点が強調されていますが、それでもいくつかの潜在的な懸念が指摘されています。

アシスタントによるメッセージの改変: アシスタントがコミュニケーターの指し示した文字やメッセージを「意味をなさない」として拒否したり、メッセージを言い換えたりするケースが報告されています（例：G、Jが拒否され、「great life is ahead」に修正された事例）（1:31:04）。これにより、FCと同様の問題が異なる経路で発生する可能性があります。
アシスタントの意識: 特定のフレーズが、コミュニケーターが正しい文字に向かっている時（"keep going"）、正しい文字に近い時（"you've got this"）、または間違った文字を選択しようとしている時（「いいえ、それは意味をなさない」）など、コミュニケーターの行動と共起することが指摘されています（1:43:07）。また、カメラアングルによっては、ファシリテーターの自由な手が、コミュニケーターの指が正しい文字を打つべき方向に動いているのが見えることもあります（1:43:07）。
コミュニケーションの遮断: 映画『Spellers』のセッションでは、ファシリテーターが鉛筆を不必要に遮ったり、ボードを素早く取り上げてリセットしたりする場面が複数回見られました。これは、コミュニケーターの意図しない文字選択を妨げ、ファシリテーターの意図する文字に誘導する可能性があると解釈されます（1:46:02）。

「ファシリテーターがその（コミュニケーターの）手や鉛筆を遮るという単純な戦術もとられます。映画のスペリングセッションの大部分でファシリテーターを務めたドーン・マリー・ギャビンがこれを何度も行っています。」（1:46:02）

4.3. S2Cの有望な事例と非接触コミュニケーション

ジェイミーとエリザベスという2人の若者の事例は、S2Cの可能性を示す強力な証拠として挙げられています。彼らは、誰にも支えられていないキーボードを使い、身体的接触なしに完全に理解可能なメッセージを生成しています。

ジェイミーの事例: ジェイミーは、父親が文字盤を空中で保持している場合もありますが、彼の目はボードに集中しています（1:53:48）。さらに重要なのは、彼は誰にも触れられていない、固定されたキーボードを使ってタイピングし、その言葉が機械によって音声化されることです（1:55:37）。彼はASHA（アメリカ言語聴覚協会）のS2Cに対する警告について「彼らは妄想的だと思う」とタイピングし、また自閉症を持つ人々の「ノーマル」になろうとする社会について自身の見解を述べています（1:58:54, 1:59:35）。
エリザベスの事例: エリザベスもまた、誰にも触れられていないキーボードでタイピングしています。彼女は「私は特別ではない」とタイプし、他の同じ状況の人々も同じことができるという意味だと示唆しました（2:01:32）。

これらの事例は、S2Cが単に「却下されるべきではない」ことを示唆し、「より綿密な調査」が必要であると結論付けられています（2:01:53）。

4.4. 研究に対するS2Cコミュニティの抵抗と科学の必要性

S2Cコミュニティが科学的研究に対して抵抗があることが指摘されています。これは、過去のFC研究での否定的な経験や、批判者がコミュニティを「軽視」したり「迫害」したりするという懸念に起因する可能性があります（1:36:49）。

盲検試験の欠如: ジェームズ・トッドは、S2Cの出力の妥当性を評価するためには、「補助者が被験者に尋ねられた情報を効果的に目隠しする」ことによって評価できるが、そのような評価は「出版されていない」と述べています（1:37:39）。
研究の倫理的義務: 筆者は、S2Cコミュニティが科学的テストへの疑念を払拭し、研究に従事する必要があると主張しています。これは、どの方法が機能し、誰に利益をもたらすかを判断するための倫理的義務であり、より多くの人々が恩恵を受けられるようにするためです（2:07:16）。
「プランクの原理」: 科学はしばしば「葬式ごとに進歩する」（古い世代の科学者が亡くなるまで新しい見解が普及しない）という「プランクの原理」が引用されていますが、S2Cの研究の遅れは、必ずしも科学者側の興味の欠如だけではないと指摘されています（1:37:16）。「タンゴを踊るには二人が必要であり、テストをするにも二人が必要である」と、S2Cコミュニティがテストを受け入れない限り、科学的コミュニティから「却下された」と主張することはできないと述べられています（1:39:45）。

結論と今後の展望

円滑化されたコミュニケーション（FC）は、初期の希望にもかかわらず、ファシリテーターの無意識的な影響が主であることが科学的に明らかにされました。一方、コミュニケーションのためのスペリング（S2C）は、物理的接触を避けるという点でFCとは異なりますが、アシスタントによるメッセージの改変や、依然としてアシスタントの影響が存在する可能性が懸念されています。

しかし、固定されたキーボードを使い、身体的接触なしにコミュニケーションが可能なジェイミーやエリザベスのような事例は、S2Cが持つ真の可能性を示唆しています。

これらの事例は、S2Cが「単に却下されるべきではない」ことを強く示唆しており、さらなる科学的検証が必要であると結論付けられています。S2Cコミュニティが研究への抵抗をやめ、科学的テストを受け入れることが、この方法がより広く認識され、恩恵を受けるべき多くの人々に届くために不可欠であると強調されています。

note

タイムライン

紀元前2000年以上前（数千年前）: 人々がコミュニケーションに困難を抱える人々を支援するための取り組みが存在。
1910年: スイスの精神科医、ユージン・ブロイラーが「自閉症（Autism）」という用語を造語。ギリシャ語の「autos（自己）」に由来し、社会との接触から自己に引きこもる子供を指す。
1943年: オーストリア系アメリカ人の精神科医、レオ・カナーが、彼が診ていた子供たちに「早期幼児自閉症」という用語を適用し、英語圏で「自閉症」という言葉が使われ始める。
1944年: オーストリアの小児科医、ハンス・アスペルガーが、友情を築くのが難しい子供たち、他者のジェスチャーや感情を理解しない子供たち、好きなことについて一方的に話す子供たち、そして不器用な子供たちを「アスペルガー症候群」として記述。
1960年代～1970年代: ファシリテーテッド・コミュニケーション（FC）に似た技術が開発される。デンマークのエルザ・ハンセン、イングランドのローナ・ウィング、アメリカのロザリンド・オッペンハイマーが、自閉症の子供たちのファシリテーテッド・ティーチングに関する初期の観察結果を発表。デンマークで研究が行われるが、科学的根拠の欠如から1980年代初頭に議論が終息。
1993年: PBSの番組「フロントライン」で、ファシリテーテッド・コミュニケーションを扱ったドキュメンタリー「沈黙の囚人」が放送される。
不明（ファシリテーテッド・コミュニケーションの導入後）: ダグ・ビックリンがメルボルン、オーストラリアを訪れた際にこの方法を発見し、自閉症に関する従来の知識が間違っている可能性を認識。
ファシリテーテッド・コミュニケーションがアメリカで導入された後: この技術により、非言語的またはほとんど非言語的とされていた人々が明確にコミュニケーションをとることができるようになり、高度な数学や詩を書くことさえできるという驚くべき結果が報告される。これにより、自閉症に対する理解が根本的に変わるかのように思われた。
ファシリテーテッド・コミュニケーションの批判と科学的調査の開始: ファシリテーターの影響が疑われ、科学的テストが実施される。ベッツィーと彼女のファシリテーターを使ったテストで、ファシリテーターが情報を知っている場合にのみ正しい答えが得られることが示される。
ファシリテーテッド・コミュニケーションに関する科学的証拠の発表: ダグ・ビックリンらがデータを確認し、ファシリテーターが無意識のうちにタイピングをコントロールしていることを示す明確な証拠に直面し、その結果に動揺する。
現在（2020年以降の言及があるため）: ソマ・ムコパディヤイによって開発されたとされる「ラピッド・プロンプティング・メソッド」または「スペリング・トゥ・コミュニケーション（S2C）」が注目される。
2020年: ジェームズ・トッドが「自閉症スペクトラム障害百科事典」の「ラピッド・プロンプティング」に関する記事で、その妥当性の評価が必要であると指摘し、公表された評価がないことを述べる。
2023年: S2Cを取り上げたドキュメンタリー「Spellers」が公開される。
現代: S2Cの有効性に関する議論が続く。ジェイミーとエリザベスのような個人の事例は、S2Cが価値を持つ可能性を示唆しているものの、科学的なテストの必要性が強調される。アメリカ言語聴覚学会（ASHA）は、RPMとS2Cの使用に反対する警告を発表し、「クライアントが実際にコミュニケーションを行っているという証拠はない」と結論付けている。
今後（将来のエピソードとして言及）: ジミー・エイキンズ・ミステリアス・ワールドで、テレパシーテープやマインドサイトなど、S2Cに関連するさらなる調査が予定されている。

登場人物

ダグ・ビックリン (Doug Bicklin): ファシリテーテッド・コミュニケーション（FC）をアメリカに導入した人物。最初はFCの可能性に深く感銘を受け、自閉症に関する理解を変える革命的な方法だと信じていたが、後の科学的テストにより、ファシリテーターがメッセージを無意識に操作しているという証拠に直面し、その結果に打ちのめされた。
ジェリー・ジラルディ (Jerry Girardi): ファシリテーテッド・コミュニケーションを通じて性的虐待の告発を受け、自宅から追放され、家族の生活が破壊された男性。彼は完全な無実を主張した。
マシュー (Matthew): ジェリー・ジラルディの息子で、ファシリテーテッド・コミュニケーションを通じて父親に対する性的虐待の告発を行ったとされる。
ドン・マレー (Don Murray): スペリング・トゥ・コミュニケーション（S2C）を始めた初期の人物で、彼の成功が他の親たちに大きな希望を与えた。
ソマ・ムコパディヤイ (Soma Mukhopadhyay): ラピッド・プロンプティング・メソッド（スペリング・トゥ・コミュニケーション）の発明者とされるインド系アメリカ人。
ジェームズ・トッド (James Todd): 2020年版の「自閉症スペクトラム障害百科事典」に「ラピッド・プロンプティング」に関する記事を執筆した人物。S2Cの妥当性を評価するための盲検テストが公開されていないことを指摘し、ファシリテーターの影響の可能性について懸念を表明している。
ドーン・マリー・ギャビン (Dawn Marie Gavin): 映画「Spellers」のスペリングセッションの大部分でファシリテーターを務めた人物。彼女のプロンプトや、時に発言者の手やペンを遮る行為が、ファシリテーターの影響を示唆するものとして挙げられている。
ジェイミー (Jamie): ドキュメンタリー「Spellers」に登場する若者。以前は主に非言語的であったが、スペリング・トゥ・コミュニケーションを通じてコミュニケーション能力を大きく向上させた。彼は親が持つ文字盤も使用するが、誰も触れていない固定式キーボードでもタイピングを行う。ASHAの警告に対し「彼らは妄想的だ」とタイプした。
エリザベス (Elizabeth): ジェイミーと同様に、誰も触れていない固定式キーボードでタイピングしてコミュニケーションを行うことができる若い女性。彼女は「私は特別ではない」とタイピングし、他の多くの非言語者も同じことができる可能性を示唆した。
ヴィンセント (Vincent): ジェイミーの友人の息子で、スペリング・トゥ・コミュニケーションによって目覚ましい成長を遂げ、深い会話ができるようになったと、ジェイミーの親にS2Cを勧めるきっかけとなった。
ジミー・エイキン (Jimmy Akin): 本エピソードのホストの一人であり、ファシリテーテッド・コミュニケーションやスペリング・トゥ・コミュニケーションといった神秘的な現象を、信仰と理性の二つの視点から考察する人物。自身は共感覚とハイパーファンタジアを持つが、自閉症ではないと述べている。
ドム・ベティネッリ (Dom Bettinelli): ジミー・エイキンズ・ミステリアス・ワールドのもう一人のホスト。
エルザ・ハンセン (Elsa Hansen): 1960年代にデンマークでファシリテーテッド・ティーチングに関する初期の観察を発表した人物。
ローナ・ウィング (Lorna Wing): 1960年代にイングランドでファシリテーテッド・ティーチングに関する初期の観察を発表した人物。
ロザリンド・オッペンハイマー (Rosalind Oppenheimer): 1960年代にアメリカでファシリテーテッド・ティーチングに関する初期の観察を発表した人物。
ユージン・ブロイラー (Eugene Blühler): 1910年に「自閉症（Autism）」という用語を造語したスイスの精神科医。
レオ・カナー (Leo Kanner): 1943年に「早期幼児自閉症」という用語を適用し、自閉症という言葉を英語圏に広めたオーストリア系アメリカ人の精神科医。
ハンス・アスペルガー (Hans Asperger): 1944年に「アスペルガー症候群」として知られる状態を記述したオーストリアの小児科医。
シェルドン・クーパー (Sheldon Cooper): テレビドラマ「ビッグバン★セオリー」の登場人物で、高知能の自閉症スペクトラムの兆候を示す架空の人物。
ジム・パーソンズ (Jim Parsons): シェルドン・クーパーを演じた俳優。
カイル・ヒル (Kyle Hill): 自身のYouTubeチャンネルで、自閉症を「スーパーパワー」と捉える見方を共有する人物。自身の経験から自閉症が集中力や観察力、科学的思考に役立つと語るが、自身が恵まれていることも認めている。
アスペルガーは私のスーパーパワーではない (Autism Is Not My Superpower): カイル・ヒルの見方とは異なり、自閉症を「スーパーパワー」と称する考え方に批判的な立場をとるYouTuber。自閉症は困難をもたらす側面もあると主張する。
ゼミーナ・ハッセンフェルダー (Zemina Hassenfelder): 多くの自閉症者が自身を「ニューロダイバージェント」と呼び、直面する課題への認識を高めようとしていると指摘した人物。
ベッツィー (Betsy): ファシリテーテッド・コミュニケーションの科学的テストの対象となった人物。彼女のコミュニケーションは、ファシリテーターが情報を知っている場合にのみ正確であることが示された。
ブルース・グレイソン (Bruce Grayson) とピム・ファン・ロンメル (Pim van Lommel): 将来のエピソードで取り上げられる予定の、臨死体験（NDE）に関する研究で知られる人物。

展開

(transcript 1of2)

（以下は Youtube 動画の文字起こしです。長いので 2分割し、これは前半です。）

Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World is brought to you by the StarQuest Production Network, and is made possible by our many generous patrons. If you'd like to support the podcast, please visit sqpn.com slash give. You're listening to episode 370 of Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World, where we look at mysteries from the twin perspectives of faith and reason. In this episode, we're talking about facilitated communication and spelling to communicate. (0:00:30)

I'm Don Bettinelli, and joining me today is Jimmy Akin. Hey, Jimmy. Howdy, Don. Folks, be sure to stick around to the end of the episode. We'll have your feedback on our recent episode on Christianity and NDEs. But first... For thousands of years, there have been efforts to help people who have difficulty communicating find ways to do so. (0:00:56)

Today, there are a vast array of what are known as augmentative and alternative communication, or AAC, systems, and they've brought hope to many. In the late 20th century, one form of AAC appeared, known as facilitated communication. More recently, a system known as the rapid prompting method, or spelling to communicate, was developed. These techniques seemed miraculous, and they suddenly let people who were previously thought to be severely mentally handicapped to communicate. But these techniques proved controversial. (0:01:24)

So, what are facilitated communication and spelling to communicate? How do they work? And what's the truth about the controversy surrounding them? That's what we'll be talking about on this episode of Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World. So, Jimmy, what do we need to say to begin? Well, I originally started work on this episode four years ago, back in 2021, but I got it out and started working on it again for reasons that will become clear next week. (0:01:57)

Also, today's show involves autism and other developmental disorders that affect children, so this could be a sensitive topic for parents and their loved ones, but I'm going to do my best to provide a sensitive and accurate treatment of these issues and how they relate to techniques like facilitated communication and spelling to communicate. Let's start by talking about the broader category of helping people with communication difficulties. When did efforts to help them begin? (0:02:19)

I would imagine that there have been such efforts all through human history. However, we know for a fact that there were efforts to help Deaf people communicate in classical Greece and Rome, so we can document efforts going back thousands of years at this point. Today, such efforts are sometimes called Augmentative and Alternative Communication, or AAC. Augmentative communication is used to help folks who can communicate the way most people do, but who have difficulty with it, while Alternative Communication is used to help people who can't communicate the way most folks do, and so need to use an alternative system to communicate. (0:02:55)

What kind of situations are people in that they can be helped by AAC? There are a whole bunch of them. The most common human mode of communication is speech, and so any condition that can interfere with your ability to speak is a potential candidate. (0:03:10)

The most common form of interference with speech is being mute, where one cannot talk at all, and a bunch of things can cause people to be mute. One of the most common causes is deafness, since if you're deaf from birth or a very early age, you can't hear other people's speech, and that can make it hard for you to learn how to speak. (0:03:33)

The most common solution historically has been the use of hand gestures to communicate, and this led to the development of gestural rather than oral languages, such as American Sign Language or ASL. One of my own cousins was deaf, and so many in my own family have learned ASL, or some of it. I've also had friends who had deaf folks in their families, and I've babysat for them, requiring me to know enough sign language to communicate and give instructions to a deaf toddler. (0:03:59)

Just as a point of interest, I'll also share my own ASL name with you. My oral name, of course, is Jimmy Akin, and I could fingerspell that in sign language, but fingerspelling takes extra time and effort, so people in the deaf community typically have a simpler, easy-to-sign name. My last name is Akin, so to get my ASL name, we took the hand sign for A, and my beard is one of my more notable phenomena. (0:04:26)

You make the sign for beard by cupping both hands at the top of your jaw and then bringing them down at your chin. So, we composed my ASL name by making an A on each hand while using them to form the sign for beard, only elongated because of the length of my beard. So, is my ASL name. (0:04:51)

You could translate it into English as something like Mr. A Longbeard. By contrast, my sister has long yellow hair, so to get her name, we took the sign for yellow, which is the hand sign for the letter Y, which you hold at shoulder level and shake, and we combined that with the sign for long hair, which you make by touching the side of your head at forehead level and then bringing your hand down to your shoulder. (0:05:10)

We thus used both hands to make the sign for yellow and combined it with the sign for long hair. So, my sister's name is... which you could translate into English as something like Longyellowhair. In any event, deafness is just one condition that can lead to muteness, whether it's complete or partial. There are other conditions that can lead to difficulty communicating the way most people do. (0:05:39)

Besides early onset deafness, they include traumatic brain injury, cerebral palsy, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, locked-in syndrome, aphasia, dementia, ALS, not the same thing as ASL, Lou Gehrig's disease, which is what the physicist Stephen Hawking had, and autism, which we'll come back to. So, there are a bunch of conditions that can cause difficulty communicating. (0:06:03)

And for at least some of the people who have these conditions, some form of augmented or alternative communication can be helpful. Then let's talk about the techniques that are used in AAC. How do they help people who have difficulty communicating the way most folks do? Well, there are different kinds of techniques that are used and which ones will help a person depend on what kind of situation the person is in. (0:06:24)

At the most basic level, there are two types of AAC. The first is unaided AAC, in which the person does not use any kind of tool or device to communicate, like using a gestural language like ASL. The second is aided AAC, in which the person uses a tool or device as a communications aid. These tools then come in two types. (0:06:52)

There are low-tech communications aids, which are not electronic in nature, and high-tech communications aids, which are electronic in nature. When it comes to unaided AAC, well, we have all the different forms of sign language, although there are also forms that use facial expressions, vocalizations, and more basic gestures to communicate. When it comes to aided AAC, some low-tech communications aids include things like boards and books. (0:07:18)

These could contain pictures, letters, words, phrases, or symbols. For example, you might have a communication board that has a grid of pictures of different types of food. (0:07:29)

Then, when the person wants to communicate what they'd like to eat or drink, they simply have to indicate the picture of what it is. They might do this by pointing to the picture, for example, with a finger, or with their eyes, or with a stick that they're holding in their mouth, or a stick attached to their head. (0:07:51)

Or someone else might go through the options. You know, would you like this? Would you like this? And then the person just has to indicate yes, that they want that, or no, they don't. Of course, a board like this has very limited options for communication. So, instead, you might have a communication aid that's a board of letters, and then you could spell out anything you want. (0:08:12)

That's naturally slow, but there are ways to speed things up, because people tend to use certain words much more often than other words. I mean, I know that I use the word house much more than I use the word anti-disestablishmentarianism. So, you could speed things up by having a board or a book with the most commonly used words and phrases, and then fall back on spelling for words that aren't included. (0:08:35)

The same way that speakers of American Sign Language may use ASL for most of the things they communicate, but then fall back on fingerspelling for any terms that don't have their own signs. For example, as far as I know, UDOM don't presently have a name sign in ASL, but I could still fingerspell your name as D-O-M. That's correct. (0:08:59)

So, what about high-tech communication aids, the ones that are electronic in nature? Well, there are a bunch of options here, including dedicated devices that are built to provide AAC, and things like apps that you could run on another device, like a computer or a smartphone. One of the simpler old-school devices that you might use would just be an electric typewriter, which would allow you to type anything you wanted to say. (0:09:22)

And there were other more specialized AAC devices that let you type messages to output information in print. Back in the 1980s, my deaf cousin had a device like this that you could hook up at both ends of a telephone. I didn't have such a device, but I remember typing messages back and forth with him over the phone when I was visiting relatives in Texas. And of course, once we got the internet, everybody basically is using their computers and phones for things like email, text messages, and text-based chat. (0:09:58)

And these can be used for AAC right out of the box, with no further modifications needed. Thus, I shifted to having communications with my cousin at a distance using ordinary email. Today, we also have text-to-speech, and so now many devices will take input from the person who's trying to communicate and turn it into speech that other people can hear. (0:10:19)

These are often called speech-generating devices, or SGDs. The British physicist Stephen Hawking was famous for using one of these after his ALS caused him to lose his ability to speak. Initially, he controlled the device using his hand, but eventually he couldn't use his hand anymore, and so he began using a cheek muscle that he could still twitch to control it. (0:10:40)

And for those who are very motor-impaired, those are just two of multiple options that can be used to control high-tech communications aids. (0:10:46)

You can also control them by blinking, and by where you point your eyes, or by sucking and puffing air into a straw. Basically, if you can control any part of your body, we can figure out a way for you to use that body part to control a communications aid. In the future, perhaps through Elon Musk's Neuralink program or something like it, we'll be able to let you use your brain to control such devices, and eventually you'll be able to think to a computer and have it speak for you. Eventually, you may just be able to think quickly the words that you want to say and have device say them, at which point we'll have invented robust mechanical telepathy, and we will have effectively eliminated this kind of communications difficulty. (0:11:33)

So there's already been a lot of work done on AAC, and the future looks very promising. Today we're going to be talking about two forms of AAC, known as facilitated communication and spelling to communicate. But before we introduce them, let's talk about the people they're often held to benefit. Many of these people have autism. So what is autism? Today, the term autism is shorthand for autism spectrum disorder, and as the name indicates, it's a spectrum, so it doesn't always manifest in the same way. (0:12:02)

The subject of autism spectrum disorder is complex, and we won't be going through all of its characteristics, but a little knowledge of its history will be helpful. A while ago, Zabina Hassenfelder did an explainer video on autism in which she said... In summary, autism spectrum disorder is a mental health condition that subsumes what was previously called autism and Asperger's syndrome. (0:12:28)

It's more common than you might think, affecting more than one in 100 people. Most of them are able to live a fairly normal life, but face challenges, especially at work and in social interactions. Many of them prefer to refer to themselves as neurodivergent and try to raise awareness for the challenges they are facing. But the neurodiversity movement has been criticised for trivialising the problems of those most severely affected. (0:12:57)

I've been accused several times of being autistic or having Asperger's syndrome. It normally comes after a long list of complaints about how I'm rude and arrogant, talk like a robot, am about as empathetic as a brick and similarly spontaneous, but considerably less social. Luckily, there's an online self-test you can do for this. So let's see how neurodivergent I am. Here we go. Your autism spectrum symptoms are high. (0:13:21)

I think that's wrong. I'm really just rude or German. But then I repeat myself. The thing we need to remember from this is that the modern diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder includes what used to be called autism and is now called classical autism and another condition that was formerly called Asperger's syndrome. The term autism was coined in 1910 by the Swiss psychiatrist Eugene Blühler. It comes from the Greek word autos, which means self, and it came to be used to refer to children who withdrew into themselves and away from social contact with others. (0:14:03)

The term then began to be used in English after 1943 when the Austrian-American psychiatrist Leo Kanner applied the term early infantile autism to children that he was working with. Wikipedia summarizes the characteristics of classical autism as follows. Autism is a highly variable neurodevelopmental disorder whose symptoms first appear during infancy or childhood and generally follows a steady course without remission. Autistic people may be severely impaired in some respects but average or even superior in others. (0:14:40)

Overt symptoms gradually begin after the age of six months and become established by age two or three years. Some autistic children experience regression in their communication and social skills after reaching developmental milestones at a normal pace. It was said to be distinguished by a characteristic triad of symptoms impairments in social interaction impairments in communication and repetitive behavior. (0:15:03)

Other aspects such as atypical eating are also common but are not essential for diagnosis. Individual symptoms of autism occur in the general population and appear not to associate highly without a sharp line separating pathologically severe from common traits. So the three main characteristics were understood to be difficulties with social interactions difficulties with communication and repetitive behavior. For example, common repetitive behaviors involve trying to provide oneself with extra stimulation. (0:15:33)

This is known as stimming and it can include things like rocking back and forth and shaking one's hands. Historically autism was distinguished from Asperger's syndrome. It was named after the Austrian pediatrician Hans Asperger. Wikipedia explains, in 1944 Asperger described children in his care who struggled to form friendships, did not understand others gestures or feelings, engaged in one-sided conversations about their favorite interests, and were clumsy. (0:16:06)

It was thought to be a different condition than autism because it seemed less severe. For example, many children diagnosed with autism seemed to have intelligence that was quite low and they often were not able to use language at all. While children with Asperger's could be of normal or even high intelligence and they could communicate they just did so a little differently like having trouble taking turns in conversations and always talking about a subject that they were particularly interested in even when others didn't want to talk about that. (0:16:39)

But eventually mental health professionals decided that there was no clear line between classical autism and Asperger's syndrome. (0:16:45)

In 2013 the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual combined the two as well as a few other conditions under the heading of autism spectrum disorder. Here's a basic summary of the diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder in the DSM-5. There are four basic criteria and you need to have all four of them to be diagnosed with it. (0:17:14)

The first criterion is having persistent deficits or lacks in social communication and interaction in all situations. Specifically, there need to be all three of the following. Less social emotional reciprocity with others compared to most folks. Less non-verbal communication in social interactions compared to others. And less ease in developing and maintaining relationships with others. The second criterion is having in a limited number of repetitive patterns when it comes to the person's behavior, interests, or activities. (0:17:53)

And this needs to manifest in at least two of the following four situations. First, stereotyped or repetitive speech, motor events, or use of objects. Second, abnormally strict adherence to routines, ritualized patterns of verbal or non-verbal behavior, or very strong resistance to change. Third, highly restrictive fixed interests that are unusually strong. (0:18:21)

And fourth, either a very high amount or a very low amount of reaction to sensory input, like being driven crazy by certain noises, or not caring about loud noises, or an unusual interest in sensory aspects of the environment around you. So you need two of those four things. The third criterion that is mandatory for the diagnosis is that the symptoms above must manifest in early childhood, even if they don't manifest fully until later. (0:18:47)

And the fourth mandatory criterion is that the symptoms limit and impair everyday functioning. This last one is what makes it a disorder. You might otherwise have the other three mandatory criteria, and that would mean that you have characteristics of autism, and you could even describe the person as autistic, but it's not autism spectrum disorder unless it's causing you problems. (0:19:12)

So the symptoms need to interfere with your everyday functioning for it to be a disorder. Otherwise, it's just characteristics you have. One of the themes we've mentioned briefly is the differences in intelligence that are found on the autism spectrum. Tell us more about that. Well, you'll notice that there's nothing in the DSM criteria about intelligence, so there's no essential connection between autism as it's currently defined and intelligence at all. (0:19:39)

Some people with classical autism are understood to have very significant cognitive impairments that even prevent them from using language, though we'll have more to say about whether they really have such cognitive impairments as we go along. And even some of those who are thought to have severe cognitive impairments also have areas where they are literally brilliant, where despite having a mental disability, there is one area where they really excel and can do things that most folks can't do. (0:20:07)

These tend to fall into five major areas. They can undo unusual feats involving art, unusual feats of memory, unusual feats involving music, unusual feats involving the ability to visualize space, or unusual feats involving math. An example of the latter is calculating what day of the week a particular date will fall on. (0:20:36)

Like, you could say, what day of the week was January 1st, 1900? And the person would very quickly tell you, oh, it was a Monday. Or you could ask, what day of the week will April 5th be in the year 3189? And they'll very quickly tell you it'll be a Wednesday. Because they're able to do feats like this that involve a calendar, such individuals are called calendrical savants. (0:21:03)

And they are the most common type of savants. In 1993, PBS aired a documentary on its frontline program called Prisoners of Silence that dealt with facilitated communication. And here's some footage they provided of savants. The 17th of December, 1974. It was a Tuesday. The 10th of June, 1917. It was a Sunday. The 1st of March, 2044. Noel only needs to hear a tune once and he's able to play it. (0:21:55)

Try it. Try it now. (0:22:06)

Try it. Try it now. You may have heard such individuals referred to with the old term idiot savant or with the more recent term autistic savant. But only about half of the people with these amazing abilities turn out to have autism. They may have some other mental handicap. So, today, they are said to have savant syndrome. (0:22:41)

Other people with autism have absolutely normal intelligence and some even have really high intelligence. A fictional example of this kind of person is the character Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory, who was written to display classic signs of someone on the autism spectrum who has really high intelligence. Sheldon was originally portrayed by the actor Jim Parsons, though Parsons himself is not autistic. (0:23:04)

In any event, there is no direct association between autism and either low, normal, or high intelligence, and people with autism can have any level of intelligence as the disorder is currently defined. A sensitive subject today is disabilities, and autism has historically been considered a disability. This has led to some controversy. (0:23:28)

What can you tell us about this? Well, there has been an effort to characterize autism as something other than a disability. Some folks prefer to refer to those with autism as neurodivergent, in contrast to most folks who are then referred to as neurotypical. And some would say that autism is not a disability, but a different cognitive style. That's one reason I stress the fact that the fourth criterion for autism spectrum disorder is mandatory, because if it didn't cause new problems, it isn't a disorder. (0:23:56)

It's just a set of characteristics you have. Some have even characterized autism as a superpower, because, for example, it may allow people to focus intensely on particular topics or tasks that they're performing. For example, Kyle Hill, who has an excellent and really interesting YouTube channel, has said this. (0:24:22)

This is about autism and how I feel like it's my superpower and how it makes me who I am. And I wanted to share with you just my thoughts about it, and then maybe some little tips and tricks to help you really understand me, or if you're like me, to navigate this aneurotypical world of ours. (0:24:43)

So, of course, I'm not going to go through all my symptomology and how I think and how I feel and all that, but what I really get from understanding this about my own brain is that I can recognize that there are a number of distinct advantages or behaviors that make me who I am and allow me to do the kind of thing that I do. (0:25:05)

The first is focus and observation. I kind of feel, and this feels weird to say, but kind of Sherlockian with the way that I notice changes in the world, and I'm able to single-mindedly focus down and obsess over little details, become very passionate about, you know, numbers and changes in things, and that helps me write my scripts, that helps me know how best to focus on things, and it really sharpens my mind when I know that I need my mind to do something important. (0:25:38)

Another superpower that I'd say Asperger's can confer on an individual, and you read this from going all the way back to Hans Asperger, and he realized this in the children that he was studying, that many of them were very science-minded. They liked evidence, they liked black and white situations, they loved nature and observing things, and that lent itself to them, you know, having more research science engineering-based careers or interests later in life, and that's the same exact thing that happened to me. (0:26:13)

And I don't know why I was always fascinated with nature and engineering and physics, but now I know that my brain has kind of been tuned towards that style of thinking, and I literally would not be able to make the videos that I do for all of you without that kind of mindset. It is this mindset that allows me to do it. On the other hand, he noted that there are other people with autism who aren't as fortunate as he is. I want to make very clear that I consider myself very lucky. I'm very privileged. (0:26:45)

I'm, you know, I have a lot of things going fine in my life, so I know that a lot of people with similar neurology do not have similar experience to me. So I recognize that I'm coming from a place of privilege here. But some people aren't as careful as Kyle Hill is when they portray autism, and they make it sound like it's an unalloyed superpower, which has led others to give pushback. (0:27:16)

For example, there is a YouTuber named Autism Is Not My Superpower who has autism who says this. There's a group of people we need to discuss. I call them Team Superpower, and they annoy me on just a real base level. Team Superpower makes blog posts and videos about how wonderful their lives are because of the autism that they have, and they put a positive spin on it. They say, you know, well, you can choose to make it your superpower. (0:27:41)

No, there's no choice involved whatsoever. It's complete luck of the draw. They talk about thriving in school or because they have an encyclopedic memory or how they use their hyperfocus to succeed. They fail to mention the anxiety experience when you can't control your hyperfocus or when you can't finish something that you get started and you can go into a complete meltdown, panic attack. (0:28:13)

I have experienced that firsthand many times. It's horrible when your focus is controlling you and not you controlling your focus. (0:28:20)

This creates a false sense that we don't need assistance or support so much as acceptance and advocacy, because we're not disabled so much as just different. Within the autism community, there is a saying, if you've met one person with autism, you've met one person with autism. There are major clusters of symptoms we don't all have. (0:28:48)

Some can be spun in a positive light, but many of them can't. And then, of course, there are individuals with autism who are regarded as severely cognitively handicapped who can't even use language. And if that's the case, it's obviously not a superpower for them, it would seem. As Zemina Hassenfelder said, many of them prefer to refer to themselves as neurodivergent and try to raise awareness for the challenges they are facing. (0:29:11)

But the neurodiversity movement has been criticized for trivializing the problems of those most severely affected. And I think that's a fair summary. For some people, autism may provide something that could be considered a superpower. But as Kyle Hill acknowledged in his video, it also comes with challenges, even for him, and he considers himself very lucky. Or, as Autism Is Not My Superpower said, if you've met one person with autism, you've met one person with autism. And it would be a mistake to treat everyone on the autism spectrum as if they were the same. (0:29:46)

Jimmy, let me ask you something that some of the listeners may be wondering about. You have an encyclopedic memory, and your mind seems tuned to analyzing facts and data. Do you have autism? It's a fair question, given that some people with autism also have those characteristics. But the reverse is not true. Just because you have those characteristics doesn't mean you have autism. (0:30:11)

In my own case, I freely acknowledge that I have a different cognitive style than many people. I've talked about several aspects of that back in episode 288 on synesthesia, where I discussed some of the forms of synesthesia that I have. Synesthesia being a cross-connection between two different kinds of sensory or conceptual domains. (0:30:33)

More recently, I've also discussed the fact that I also have hyperfantasia, or unusually vivid and intense mental imagery. I basically walk around in what you could consider a mental holodeck, where I can conjure detailed images and environments around me at will. So, I think it'd be fair to say that I'm not neurotypical, but I don't have autism. And I'd tell you if I did, just like I've told you about my synesthesia and hyperfantasia. (0:30:56)

In researching about autism, I noticed how many common characteristics of autism I don't have. For example, many with autism have difficulty making eye contact with people, and I don't have that. People with autism also commonly have difficulty picking up on social cues from others, and that's definitely not me. If anything, I'm hypersensitive to social cues from others, and I often notice things about individuals that others don't. I'm extremely good at predicting what people are thinking or what they're likely to do in the future. (0:31:32)

People with autism often have trouble communicating, such as not knowing when to take turns in conversations, but I don't have that. They also tend to need fixed schedules, and that is not me. My daily schedule varies greatly from one day to another, and I don't have a problem with that. And finally, people with autism can be brusque or undiplomatic, which is not me. (0:31:58)

I'm extremely diplomatic. In fact, I've been on the boards of various social clubs, like the dance clubs I've been involved with, and whenever a difficult conversation needs to be held with someone who's not a board member, the other board members have turned to me and said, well, you're the diplomat, so you need to have this conversation with this person. (0:32:16)

Out of curiosity, while I was researching this episode, I decided to take an online autism spectrum disorder test at clinicalpartners.co.uk. The test divided people into five categories. Those who had no autistic tendencies, those who had few autistic tendencies, those who had slight tendencies, those who have a borderline indication of autism, and those who have a strong likelihood of having autism. (0:32:48)

And the test said, you experience very few signs of autism, which put me in the second of the five categories between no tendencies and slight tendencies. So while I think it's fair to say that I'm not fully neurotypical, and thus that I am somewhat neurodivergent, I don't seem to have autism, though I'd tell you if I did. (0:33:11)

We've now looked at augmented or alternate communication and at autism spectrum disorder. Now let's look at two of the AAC methods that have been proposed to help autistic people with particularly strong communication challenges. Facilitated communication and spelling to communicate. What should we know about facilitated communication? The technique, or one similar to it, were developed in the 1960s and 1970s. Wikipedia summarizes, techniques similar to FC appeared around the 1960s with early observations regarding facilitated teaching of children with autism being published by Elsa Hansen, Denmark, Lorna Wing, England, and Rosalind Oppenheimer, US. Studies were made in Denmark in the 1960s and 1970s, but did not have an impact outside of the country, and the debate there died out in the early 1980s due to a lack of scientific evidence. (0:34:03)

In Australia, special educator Rosemary Crossley independently created facilitated communication in 1977, where it became popular largely due to her efforts. It was popularized in the United States beginning in the late 1980s by Arthur Shalow and Douglas Bicklin. FC has also received attention in Asia and Europe. You'll recall that in 1993, Frontline aired the documentary Prisoners of Silence that dealt with facilitated communication, but this was before the DSM-5 was released in 2013, so the idea of the autism spectrum wasn't around yet. (0:34:45)

Autism was considered separate from Asperger's, and so the documentary is discussing what, looking back in history, is now called classical autism. At the time, it was estimated that 80% of people with classical autism had the disability that was called mental retardation. But then facilitated communication appeared, and Frontline explains... Professor Douglas Bicklin of Syracuse University thinks it the most important breakthrough in autism ever and is promoting it enthusiastically. (0:35:13)

The theory of facilitated communication claims that many, perhaps most, autistic people are not retarded, but have intelligent minds imprisoned in bad bodies. Bicklin argues that autistic individuals, like Ellen, have many things to say, but are unable to say them because her body will not do what her mind wants. But with a little help or facilitation, holding her hand, wrist, or elbow, her body's often jerky movements can be smoothed out, allowing her to type letters on a keyboard. (0:35:43)

When Douglas Bicklin discovered the method during a visit to Melbourne, Australia, he realized that everything known about autism might be wrong. (0:35:49)

I knew that I had seen something terribly important. Here was a means of expression for people who lacked expression. Here was a way that you could find out what people were feeling and what they were thinking. And, you know, these were people who had a disability, the very definition of which suggested that the people might not have feelings, and certainly no ability to empathize with other people's feelings. (0:36:20)

This was a disability, the very definition of which was that people lacked imaginative ability. Well, you know, how do you do higher order mathematics without an imagination? How do you write poetry without an imagination? So it's quite clear that this was a means of expression that was revolutionary. So American professor Douglas Bicklin had gone to Australia and seen facilitated communication in action where it had been popularized by Rosemary Crossley. He then came back to the United States where he helped popularize it. (0:36:53)

The method itself can involve one person, the communicator, typing on a keyboard, while a second person, the facilitator, holds the communicator's hand, wrist, arm, elbow, or shirt sleeve as they do this. The idea is that this will help smooth out the otherwise jerky motions that the communicator's body would make, and thus it allows them to type on a keyboard and communicate clearly. (0:37:17)

This seemed like a revolutionary technique. When facilitated communication was used, people who were otherwise thought to be nonverbal or nearly nonverbal could communicate clearly. They didn't have a cognitive handicap at all. They could even do higher order mathematics and write poetry. So this changed everything. If that's facilitated communication, let's now talk about spelling to communicate. What should we know about this method? This technique is also called the rapid prompting method, and it was reportedly invented by the Indian-American Soma Mukhopadhyay. It's called the rapid prompting method because in addition to the communicator, there is a second person who provides the communicator with prompts. (0:38:02)

Many of these prompts are verbal, but they can also be visual. The theory is that people who are nonverbal due to autism may get stalled in their efforts to communicate, and they may need a prompt from the outside to help them start moving. So the prompts give them that nudge that also helps them stay focused on the task and lets them communicate. The technique is also called spelling to communicate because it uses letter boards. (0:38:27)

This may take the form of sheets of plastic or metal that have stenciled letters cut out of them, and the communicator then points at these letters, perhaps with a pencil, to spell out the message they want to communicate. The letter board may have all the letters of the alphabet on it, or if the communicator has less motor control or is having trouble pointing at a single letter, they can switch to boards that have fewer larger letters that make bigger targets that are easier to point at. (0:38:59)

In 2023, a documentary called Spellers came out about the method, and here's a clip of the method in action. For listeners of the audio version of the podcast, you'll hear the noises that the communicator's pencil makes when it comes into contact with the edges of the stenciled letters on the letter boards. (0:39:14)

And be sure and listen to the verbal prompts that the assistant is given the communicator. What do you think of these new letter boards? (0:39:17)

Go for it. G. Keep going. G-E-Q. Keep going, Dory. R-N. Keep going. Move your eyes. I see you moving. E-N. Eyes have to move around. G-R-E. What makes sense? What makes sense? G-R-E. Keep your eyes. Ready? Look at me. Go. G-R-E. Uh-huh. A. G-R-E. A. Great. Great. L-N. Make it make sense. I-N. Look for it. Look for it. Look for it. Look for it. F-N. Great life. Great life. What? (0:40:05)

I-N. Look for it. Look for it. Look for it. Look for it. I-O-N. Make it make sense. Keep going. Hold on. Great life. So, that's how the rapid prompted method or spelling to communicate works. There are variations, like sometimes instead of using rigid letter boards with stenciled letters, they may use laminated sheets with letters printed on them, but the basics are the same. (0:40:27)

It's different from facilitated communication in that facilitated communication has a second person who's touching the communicator, such as by holding or supporting their hand, wrist, arm, or elbow, while in rapid prompting, the second person usually does not touch the communicator. Instead, they hold the letter board that the communicator is pointing towards. So, that's a basic overview of the two methods that we'll be looking at more closely today. (0:40:54)

And before we get to that, we'd like to stop now to take a moment to thank our patrons who make this show possible, including Sheila B., Ashley G., Janine M., Michael C., and Chris M. Their generous donations at sqpn.com slash give make it possible for us to continue Jimmy Yakin's Mysterious World and all the shows at StarQuest. More than 90% of our financial support comes from individual donors like you, and you can join them by visiting sqpn.com slash give. (0:41:27)

Jimmy Yakin's Mysterious World is also brought to you by DeliverContacts.com, offering top brand contact lenses at always low prices, with free delivery. Visit DeliverContacts.com. And by Rosary Army, featuring award-winning Catholic podcasts, rosary resources, videos, and the School of Mary online community, prayer, and learning platform. Learn how to make them, pray them, and give them away while growing in your faith at rosaryarmy.com and schoolofmary.com. So Jimmy, what can we say from the reason perspective about the two communications methods we're looking at? What happened with facilitated communication once it was introduced here in America? Well, it produced some very startling results. (0:42:18)

Before facilitated communication, the staff never imagined that any of their non-verbal clients might be of normal intelligence. But then speech pathologist Marion Pitsis heard about the new technique being promoted at Syracuse University. Three of us went for the training first, and we rapidly trained everyone in our program, all three shifts, and had many, many clients typing at varying levels and with varying degrees of success, but it spread very, very quickly. (0:42:48)

I thought it was wonderful. At last, we were going to help these people communicate. We would find out what they really understood. You couldn't ask for anything more. All of a sudden, these people that we always treated as low-functioning were right up there with us. (0:43:00)

And suddenly, these children, who everybody thought were severely mentally handicapped, were taking normal courses in school, including ones that many students find difficult. Many schools embraced it. At Edward Smith Elementary School in Syracuse, children previously thought to be retarded now sat in classes with their peers, receiving age-appropriate instruction, studying math, studying biology. And so many children were suddenly displaying signs of normal intelligence that it looked like the idea of what classical autism was needed to be rethought. (0:43:34)

I was thinking that certainly a large number, if not all of the folks that we were working with, may in fact have normal intelligence. We had people typing sentences, paragraphs, the like. We were thinking here we were going to redefine the whole notion of what autism is all about. So the proposal was made that classical autism did not involve cognitive impairment. Instead, it merely involved disabilities that prevented one from communicating. (0:44:01)

And if you could find a way to let these children communicate, such as through facilitated communication, it would reveal just how normal their intelligence was. And you'll recall that in today's modern DSM-5 criteria for autism spectrum disorder, it doesn't say anything about intelligence. Instead, it refers to difficulties communicating. That was the first of the mandatory criteria. Consequently, those who promote facilitated communication and spell into communicate have argued that we need to have a presumption of competence with highly autistic children. (0:44:38)

That is, we need to assume that they are of normal intelligence, and that if we do that, it will help them have the confidence they need to communicate better, instead of constantly demoralizing them and making them feel like they can't do what normal folks do, you know, by treating them as if they're fundamentally incapable, which would just be cruel in this situation. (0:44:59)

They've also argued that the testing we typically do involves fine control of muscle movements, like the control of the muscles in your speech tract that you need to communicate with speech, or the fine control of the muscles in your hands and arms that you need to produce a gestural language like ASL or type in on a normal keyboard. So, if classical autism really was a neuromotor disorder that prevented you from having that kind of fine muscle control, it would make you unable to respond to conventional communications testing, and people would assume that you were intellectually disabled when actually you just didn't have the muscle control you needed to express what was in your intellect. (0:45:38)

I imagine that this must have come as a great relief for parents. Oh, yeah. Nobody likes the idea of having children who are severely intellectually handicapped. Parents don't want that for their children. Being told that your child has any kind of a disability is every parent's nightmare, and that's especially true if you're told that your child is severely mentally handicapped. (0:46:02)

They, you know, will never understand things that most folks take for granted. They will never master more than the most basic life skills. (0:46:08)

They will never lead a normal life. They will need someone to provide full-time care for them their whole lives, including after you yourself have passed on to your reward. And you will never hear your child say, I love you. You know, that is one of the blackest parental nightmares of all. So parents were overjoyed at what techniques like facilitated communication did for their children. (0:46:34)

She had been tested in the past, and they said she had an IQ under 10. And I believed it was a little higher than that, but not much higher. And when I heard about facilitated communication, I said, granted, it might work with some people, but I doubt that, and I'm sure it won't work with her. (0:46:53)

It was a college student who started it with her, and I watched her twice, and I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Since then, Charisse has typed 120 poems, nine short stories. She talks about everything she feels. And she said, do you know Stacey can write? And I just, I cried. I couldn't believe it. I said, no, no, you're wrong. This is my kid. (0:47:23)

She's learned six signs her whole life. This can't be true. But she kept at it. She said, she's telling me this, and she's telling me that, and you've got to see it. So one day, she came over to the house, and she said, Stacey, I know you're excited. After all these years, you must have something you want to tell mom. And Stacey typed out, I love you, mom. (0:47:44)

So this was like a parent's dream come true. It brought them so much joy and hope and relief. Their children did have interior lives, and their interior lives were just as rich as those of normal children. Many were now taking advanced classes and doing things like writing poetry with facilitated communication. (0:48:09)

It was a night and day difference. For the parents, it was like heaven on earth. But you said that this technique became controversial. How did the controversy start? Well, when people started reporting these amazing results, it prompted some to start asking questions. You'll recall that we discussed other methods of AAC. Even if you have extremely limited control of your body, they can figure out a mechanical interface that will let you communicate, like Stephen Hawking using his hand interface, or later, you know, twitching one of the muscles of his cheek, or for someone else, you know, blinking, or sipping and blowing through a straw. (0:48:44)

With such equipment available, Shane questioned, why should autistic people need another person to hold their hands? Bicklin says autism is special. Last week, I had conversations with several people. One person said, it slows me down. It helps me by slowing me down. When I'm not slowed down, I get garbage. I get unwanted words. I get a lot of letters strung together that don't make a word. (0:49:13)

When I'm slowed down, I can type what I want. And there's some plausibility to that. We mentioned that many people with classical autism engage in what's known as stimming, where they feel the need to provide extra stimulation to themselves by rocking or flapping their hands. And so, your mind could be racing, which would make it hard to simply type what you want. (0:49:35)

So, you might need a steadying influence, like someone holding your hand or wrist or arm or shirt sleeve to help you slow down so that what you type doesn't come out all garbled. But there were other questions that asked. Critics like Shane were amazed at the sophisticated output. Autistic children of five and six produced perfectly spelled sentences. Where had they learned to read and write? (0:49:58)

To this question, the basic answer was proposed that they learned reading and writing the same way that normal children do. We're surrounded by written words all day. And if you go into a classroom for young children, you'll see charts of the alphabet and words written next to pictures of objects and so forth. So, the children picked up reading from their environment. (0:50:17)

But wait, normal children have to practice the alphabet and they have to practice what sounds go with what letters and what words go with what pictures. But these children didn't do any of that. And yet, as soon as they started doing facilitated communication, they instantly knew how to spell and make grammatical sentences. Well, it's certainly true that, you know, normal children have to practice the alphabet. (0:50:44)

I remember, you know, when I was in first grade singing the alphabet song, at least the version that we used, and it led to a misunderstanding because the song went A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P. And I thought L-M-N-O was one letter for a period of time. But eventually, I got corrected on that. So, it's a real question. (0:51:07)

And one answer, you know, given that normal children, most children need to practice the alphabet, one answer that was proposed is something we've already covered. Savant syndrome. We've already seen how some people with autism can still perform certain skills at advanced levels that go beyond what most people can do. Like, instantly tell you what day of the week in the year 3000 a particular date is going to fall on, or play a song on a piano perfectly, even though they've only heard it once. (0:51:43)

Well, maybe in addition to the five categories of abilities that savants tend to have, there's actually a sixth previously undiscovered category, language. Maybe many nonverbal children are actually savants when it comes to language, and they're really good at picking up grammar and syntax and spelling. It's just that they don't have the fine muscle control needed to show us this. (0:52:06)

But surely there would be some way to test that scientifically, I mean. Well, the idea of there being a sixth previously undiscovered category for savant abilities would be a sort of second-order hypothesis, since it requires you to have a way to learn what is going on inside the child's mind. So before you could test that, you'd need to find out if facilitated communication itself is really a reliable way of getting children to express themselves. (0:52:36)

But they did try testing that, and this was essentially a case of hypothesis testing. When you do a laboratory experiment, you test your proposed hypothesis against what's called the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the effect that you're testing for does not exist. It's symbolized as H null. Then there's the alternative hypothesis, which is that the effect that you're testing for does exist, and this is symbolized either as H1 or HA. So in this case, the null hypothesis is that facilitated communication does not work, and the alternative hypothesis is that it does. (0:53:16)

You then perform your test and see whether the data you get supports the null hypothesis or the alternative hypothesis. Before we get to the results of the tests they did, let's talk for a moment about the null hypothesis in this case. (0:53:27)

What were the skeptics of facilitated communication proposing? Well, they were getting messages from facilitated communication that made sense. They weren't just gibberish. So these messages were coming from somewhere, and there were two people involved in the situation, the communicator and the facilitator. So the messages should be coming from one of those two people. (0:53:53)

The hypothesis to be investigated is that they were coming from the communicator and that facilitated communication works. So the null hypothesis would imply that the messages are not coming from the communicator, but from the facilitator. This does not mean that the facilitator is aware of this fact. They are not consciously hoaxing the messages. Instead, they would be producing the messages without realizing it. (0:54:16)

And this gets us into some territory that we've discussed before and that is familiar to parapsychologists. Back in episodes 246 and 247 on dowsing, we talked about what is known as the ideomotor effect. The ideomotor effect is caused by your subconscious controlling muscles in ways that you don't realize. And it's the reason that if a person goes dowsing, the stick or the pendulum that they use suddenly reacts when you find the water or whatever you're looking for. (0:54:45)

The idea is that the dowser's subconscious senses where the water is, psychically or maybe not psychically, and then it sends very subtle signals to their hand to make that subconscious awareness of the presence of water visible. It's essentially a way of letting your subconscious talk to your conscious. At least that's the theory if dowsing is real. (0:55:12)

Even if it's not real, the ideomotor effect is real. It's just your subconscious mind, in that case, wouldn't have any extra information about where the water is, so it's guessing. And I'll demonstrate this for us. Here I have a pendulum. And I've trained myself to do this. Now, I'm sure that if you watch me on screen carefully, and if you could see my hand, or if you very carefully track my arm, you will see that it is moving. (0:55:46)

But I'm not consciously doing that. I have trained myself so that all I have to do is think the way I want the pendulum to move. So if I think left and right, left and right, left and right, the pendulum starts going left and right. On the other hand, if I think forward and back, forward and back, forward and back, the pendulum starts going forward and back. (0:56:09)

If I think clockwise, clockwise, clockwise, then it starts going clockwise. If I think counterclockwise, counterclockwise, counterclockwise, it's going to start going counterclockwise. And if I then, after it's going counterclockwise, think stop, stop, stop, it's going to stop. Now, like I said, I'm sure if you had, you know, a full body shot of me, or if you carefully watch my hand and my arm, you will see them moving in little ways. But I'm not consciously doing that is the point. (0:56:40)

The motions are generated by my subconscious. And the same thing, the ideomotor effect, is what's responsible for getting messages on a Ouija board. (0:56:50)

The process, skeptics say, is not unlike what goes on with a Ouija board. As letters are built up, hypotheses are formed about what comes next. The facilitator who attributes the output to the autistic individual is unaware they are controlling the typing. The autistic individual becomes so sensitized to respond to tiny cues that they become an amplifier for the facilitator's unconscious. So if someone is playing with a Ouija board, they initially move towards some letter, perhaps randomly, and then their subconscious starts trying to predict what could come next. (0:57:33)

And the ideomotor effect kicks in, and the pointer goes towards that. And without intending to, the operator produces a message that is intelligible, and that will happen even without the person being in contact with the spirit. It's simply a series of subconscious or semi-conscious predictions about what comes next. So unless you get veridical information out of a Ouija board, or information that you didn't know and you had never known because it could be buried in your subconscious and that goes beyond random chance, there's no way to prove that you were talking to anything but your subconscious. (0:58:17)

And even if you do get veridical information, that's not proof, since you could have picked up the information psychically and no spirit was involved, although you would at least have some evidence that a spirit might have been. The idea with facilitated communication is that essentially the same thing is happening. The subconscious of the facilitator is predicting what should come next. Through the physical contact they have, the facilitator subtly cues the communicator what they should type, and the communicator amplifies the signals that the facilitator has given them. (0:58:47)

If that's an explanation for how facilitated communication could work, if the null hypothesis is true, what did they find when they did the tests? Well, if the explanation for the null hypothesis is that the facilitator is producing the communications, then you'd want to test situations in which the facilitator both does and does not know what the answer is and see if you get different results. So they did that. (0:59:14)

Shane had devised a double blind test like this to objectively determine who was authoring the messages, Betsy or the facilitator who transcribed the allegations. He showed both a series of pictures and asked them to type what they saw. When both Betsy and her facilitator saw a picture of a key, the letters K-E-Y were typed. (0:59:47)

In this case, the experimenter had a manila folder with a picture of a key taped inside of it. First, he shows the picture to the facilitator, and then he shows it to the communicator. So they both saw the image of the key, and thus the facilitator knew that the answer to the question, what did you see, was a key. (1:00:03)

And sure enough, the facilitated communication produced the answer, key. And that was typical. Whenever the facilitator saw the same picture that the communicator did. But they also did tests of the other condition. In this case, the experimenter had a manila folder with a picture taped inside it, but the picture was only taped at the bottom. (1:00:27)

So he would show the facilitator one picture, and then when he turned to the communicator so that the facilitator couldn't see, the picture would flip down and show the communicator a different image. Chain wanted to discover what happened if each saw a different picture. When Betsy saw a cup, she didn't type cup, she typed hat. What the facilitator saw. Here we go. (1:00:57)

Now take a look at this one. I want you to tell me what you see. Okay. When Betsy was shown a picture of a dog, she didn't type dog, but sneakers. What the facilitator saw. (1:01:04)

Okay. Okay. I'll take a look at that one. When Betsy was shown a boat, she didn't type boat. But sandwich. What the facilitator saw. So that's what happened in this situation. The communication said whatever the facilitator saw, not what the communicator saw. So the bottom line was that if the facilitator and the communicator saw the same image, the correct answer was given. (1:01:38)

But if the facilitator saw a different image than the communicator, the answer would be incorrect. This strongly suggested that in this test, the facilitator was the author of the messages, not the communicator. The experimenter also did another kind of test where only the communicator saw something. Specifically, he showed her a key. But the facilitator didn't see anything at all. (1:02:04)

The communicator knew what the answer was. So if facilitated communication works, there should be no problem with the communicator just saying what she saw. It shouldn't matter that the facilitator didn't see anything. Here's how that test went. Shane then tried a message passing test. He took Betsy out into the corridor and showed her an object out of sight of her facilitator. Betsy, now I'm going to show you something. Take a look at this. You take this. Now what is that? (1:02:32)

Give it back to me. We're going to back in. I want you to tell everybody what I showed you. When we went back into the room, she was unable to type the word key. I then took another key out of my pocket and said with the facilitator present, what is this? And she immediately typed key. So again, it suggests that when the facilitator is aware of the information, we get the answer. But when the facilitator is unaware of the information, we don't get an answer. (1:02:56)

And these tests were convincing for some. Okay, here's the next one. It was just devastating to watch because what you saw was that the words being typed out were the words the facilitator had seen. And it was just so clear and so unmistakable. I was sitting there watching this and saying, my God, it's really true. (1:03:20)

This stuff is bogus. What I found was that whenever the pictures were different, I always received the type message that was seen by the facilitator. So that was pretty strong evidence that not only was Betsy not communicating, but the messages were being absolutely, totally directed and authored by the facilitator. Other people did similar tests. In fact, a school system began to have doubts about the facilitated communication they were using, and so they ran their own tests. (1:03:46)

My first reaction was, why would we ever want to test it? It's working. There were things that people, that individuals who typed with me, typed that I didn't remember consciously being aware of. So I thought, well, that's proof enough. Why should we need to test these people? It's their communication. All right, find the one that's the same. Let's put it right in front of you. (1:04:08)

But just in thinking about it, then I wanted the research to be done, because I thought it would prove, once and for all, without a doubt, that it was these people communicating, and that we were not influencing them in any way, shape, or form. I was convinced that it would prove their communication. A team of psychologists and facilitators, led by Doug Wheeler, devised a rigorous double-blind test. This is what we had in mind. (1:04:27)

It's just a simple T-device, the table split down the middle. (1:04:31)

Myself, as a researcher, I can stand back here, and I'm pretty much out of view of the... The facilitator and autistic individual sat side by side, with a screen dividing their visual field. Sometimes they were shown the same picture. Sometimes, different ones. They tested 12 clients, facilitating with nine staff members, many who were trained in Syracuse. They ran dozens of trials. The results were shocking. (1:05:13)

We literally really didn't get one correct response. I mean, it was unbelievable, really. Given our prior belief systems about the whole thing. We ran 180 trials. There were 180 trials where valid communication could have been demonstrated, and none did. We had overwhelming evidence for facilitator control. That was the main finding. And it began to dawn on us that the impact on the facilitators was going to be traumatic. (1:05:48)

Their belief had grown to such an extent and was continuing to grow at that point, where it really had become an essential part of their belief system, an essential part of their personality. And people would use phrases like, FC is my whole life. FC is my life. These people were dedicated. They spent their own money doing training. They spent their own money to buy canned communicators. (1:06:09)

The dedication was phenomenal. And we had evidence that these people were all controlling the typing. And we knew it was unconscious. We knew these people had no idea they were controlling it. That was clear. So, yeah, we began to be very concerned. It was devastating to see the data just there in black and white in front of you. It was mind-boggling. There was no arguing it. (1:06:36)

It was clear-cut. To see the look on Doug's face seated across the table from me, someone who I work with, whose opinion I trust, whose work I trust, I knew I couldn't argue with those results. It was devastating to look at it and see it there in black and white in front of me. Of course, whenever someone does a scientific test, you need to kick the tires on it. (1:07:00)

You need to see if there are flaws in the methodological design that could have thrown the results off. So here are some remarks from Douglas Bicklin, who introduced facilitated communication in America. I think that test has severe problems. I mean, one, you're putting people in what might be described as a confrontational situation. That is, they're being asked to prove themselves. As I pointed out, confidence appears to be a critical element in the method. (1:07:27)

If people are anxious, they may, in fact, freeze up in their ability to respond. They may lose confidence. They may feel inadequate. But when criticisms are made, you need to see what the experimenters have to say in response. If there was a bias, it was a bias in terms of proving that it was real. I mean, we selected cards that people experienced in their everyday lessons. (1:07:48)

We ensured that the individuals participating were paired with the facilitators they had the most success with. We tried to make the setting as natural as it could be. We encouraged people to bring the reinforcers that they use in their normal, normal everyday lives. Turn total control over in terms of, say, to the facilitators. If the person wasn't comfortable that day, they could stop it whenever they wanted to. So the experimenters had an answer for that. (1:08:15)

Now, here's another criticism from Dr. Bicklin. A number of these studies have asked people to name objects or name pictures. It turns out that for people with autism and some other developmental disabilities, a number of people experience very severe word-finding problems, such that you ask people to label an object and they can't do it. They may be able to describe the object, even state what it's for, but quite typically they in fact come out with a different name of a different object. (1:08:55)

But, researchers asked, was it possible that a child who can write poetry and do algebra would be unable to label a cup? And they questioned why autistic individuals who had appeared on national television and addressed crowds at Syracuse conventions would all be so nervous that none of them would get a single answer right. (1:09:12)

And I have to agree. If some of the communicators can get up on stage in front of large groups of people and do things in public, then at least some of them should be able to give correct answers through facilitated communication when you're testing them in private. The skeptics also raised another point, and if you're watching the video version of the podcast, you'll see what they mean very clearly. (1:09:42)

(transcript 2of2)

（以下は Youtube 動画の文字起こしです。長いので 2分割し、これは後半です。）

Most significantly, they point out, why is it that most of the time, most of the autistic individuals are not looking at the keyboard? It's certainly true that a touch typist can type without looking at the keyboard. Connie Cesari, star graduate of the Catherine Gibbs School, can type 100 words a minute without looking. She has memorized the layout of the keys. (1:10:07)

But before starting, she registers her hands in a home position. This is her reference. Frontline wanted to see if she could type with one finger without looking. Despite her intimate knowledge of the keyboard, she can't. Nobody can. Without a reference, it's just impossible. You can't be a one-finger typist and not look at the keyboard. You just can't get oriented. You don't have a home position. (1:10:46)

And when you watch children who are FC, facilitated communication users, they may not be looking at the language board. But the facilitators are not taking their eyes from it. They're fixed on it. What's six times two? Good. Okay, let's space. What's 12 times 12 plus one? We carried the one, remember? What's 12 plus one? Excellent. Give me five. Okay. Plus one. You carried the one. Hi, how are you? What's 12 plus one? (1:11:27)

What's five times five? Doug Bicklin admits that typing without looking is impossible. So what's going on in the Syracuse schools? It's not good technique. It's very sloppy. And I think it really raises questions about that particular typing as well it should. And what we need to do is to harp on facilitators to monitor eyes. It's a lot for people to manage, but I think we have to do it. (1:11:59)

This is something that I had noticed in watching videos of people doing facilitated communication. It was clear that the communicator was often simply not looking at the communication board. Now, you'll recall that Dr. Bicklin acknowledged that it's impossible to type one-handed without looking at the keyboard, and that facilitators need to make sure that the communicator is looking at what they're doing. (1:12:26)

But even if a facilitator knows this and acknowledges this, they can still slip up. But does the Facilitated Communication Institute practice what it preaches? In the conference last May, Annegret Schubert, arguably the most expert facilitator in the world, gave a seminar on the importance of clients looking at the keyboard. Is there anything you want to share with me about? Yet minutes afterwards, she was in the corridor talking to a man with his eyes closed and a letterboard moving around in the air. (1:13:08)

And even when Doug Bicklin was present, we filmed Jeff Powell typing while looking at the ceiling. Something Bicklin concedes is impossible. I think that slip-ups like this can be understandable, because the facilitator and others could be focused on reading the message on the letterboard and they could be so focused on that that they forget to monitor where the communicator's eyes are pointed. (1:13:34)

So extra vigilance needs to be applied to this issue. I also want to call attention to the scene in the hallway where they were having a conversation where the communicator's eyes were closed and the letterboard was moving around in the air. One could propose that maybe some communicators are such savants that they know where to point on a letterboard without looking, even though most folks can't type one-fingered on a keyboard without looking. (1:13:55)

But that wouldn't apply if the letterboard is moving around in the air. Even if you know the letterboard intimately, you know, so intimately you don't need to look at it, you'll lose your lock on where to point if the letterboard is itself moving and you're not looking at it. So savant syndrome won't explain this. You need to look at a moving letterboard. (1:14:16)

We've seen some pretty compelling evidence that, at least in the 1990s, the messages received through facilitated communication were coming from the facilitators rather than the communicators. And we heard how crushing that was for some of the facilitators to realize, but it would be even more crushing for the parents. It would dash all the hopes that facilitated communication raised for their children. (1:14:41)

It would mean that their children never really told them I love you. Why not just let them continue to believe in facilitated communication? I understand this impulse. Believe me, I do. And if I'm talking to someone privately who is passionate in their belief about something, I mean, whether this or anything else, I may not challenge it. (1:15:03)

But as a matter of policy, it is important to consider what's actually true, and for several reasons. First, truth is important in and of itself. Second, if facilitated communication does not work, then we should not be spending taxpayer dollars on a technique that doesn't work. The taxpayers should not be burdened by paying for the facilitators if they're not actually producing communication. (1:15:29)

Third, spending money on facilitated communication would mean diverting money away from research into new methods that could actually help the children. Fourth, spending time on facilitated communication would mean not spending time on techniques that already exist and that could help them. Fifth, it means wasting the facilitator's time since they're performing an activity that isn't really doing what they're trying to do. Sixth, it wastes the communicator's time. (1:15:59)

Seventh, it may punish the communicators by forcing them to do something they'd rather not do. For example, here's a clip from the documentary The Reason I Jump, which supports facilitated communication. The clip shows a facilitated communication session, and in this session, the communicator is dutifully pointing at a letter board, and the facilitator is reading the message. (1:16:19)

The facilitator thinks that the communicator is spelling out, we could finally let each other know how we felt, which is a nice heartwarming message. But listen to what the communicator is actually saying out loud. The communicator looks distressed. She often seems to have her eyes closed, and she keeps saying, no more, over and over again. No more. So this seems like a case where the communicator felt that the And she didn't want to do it. (1:17:42)

If facilitated communication doesn't work, it involves people falsely representing what the communicator's wishes are. This lets someone else make decisions for them without even realizing it. That can seriously affect the communicator's life. For example, here's a clip in which the inventor of facilitated communication, Rosemary Crossley, asks a man in a coma whether he wants to live with his parents, in a nursing home, with both, or with neither. (1:18:16)

Scientists in Australia had warned Bicklin of such dangers. This videotape especially concerned them. Rosemary Crossley, the founder of FC, is facilitating with a head injury victim in a coma to make a very important decision about where he will live. (1:18:35)

Because the man is in a coma, his head pointer barely moves throughout the taping. By drawing a line on the screen, it is easy to see that Rosemary Crossley is ever so slowly moving the board. So here, Crossley unconsciously moves the board to say that the man wants to be cared for in a nursing home. Which means she, or rather her subconscious, is making serious life decisions for him and presenting them as his own wishes. (1:19:27)

Which is incredibly unethical once you realize that this is how facilitated communication was working in this case. Ninth, if facilitated communication does not work, then it gives the children's parents and loved ones a false picture of their child. Which is also unethical. And then there's the tenth problem. One day at school, Matthew and his facilitator, special education teacher Susan Rand, had a conversation. (1:19:56)

But it wasn't about Shakespeare. Later that day, Susan Rand wrote down the conversation and reported it to the authorities. She handed me a piece of paper, actually two pieces of paper, and said these are the things that he said. And I just scanned through the paper and I was just in shock at some of the language that was on the paper. And I said, it's impossible, it's absolutely impossible. (1:20:32)

And at that point she made it very clear to me that this was real. It was real, that they had a warrant for my husband's arrest. And they were going to send Matthew to the hospital for an exam. They were telling me that Matthew may have to go to a home, a foster home. And I told him, I said, there's no way he's going to go to a foster home. (1:20:59)

And I said, he hasn't been anywhere else except our home, there's no way he's going to go to a foster home. And I was told that I may have no choice in the matter, there may be no choice. And it was at that point that I realized I had no control. Jerry Girardi, a pharmacist at the Veterans Hospital, was working late that day and knew nothing of this until he arrived home. (1:21:22)

I got home about 9.30, I pulled into my driveway, and Kathy came rushing down the driveway and started to talk to me. She immediately told me not to go into the house, that there was a warrant out for my arrest, that allegations were made that I had sexually abused Matthew, and I was not allowed near Matthew, nor was I allowed to go into the house. (1:21:51)

Forced out of his home, Jerry Girardi spent the next six months living at a friend's house, his family life destroyed because of the letters on the board. Despite the fact that there was no other evidence of abuse, the school, the social services, and the police all believed that the words had come from Matthew, yet Jerry Girardi protested complete innocence. So, in this case, the facilitator's subconscious projected its fears onto the communicator and produced a message saying the boy's father was sexually abusing him. (1:22:24)

And this wasn't just one case, this wasn't just happening in their family. (1:22:30)

I told Kathy, there's got to be something wrong, it has to be happening someplace else. We have to call up the Autism Society in Washington and find out if they had any literature on facilitated communications and allegations of sexual abuse. When she called them up, they immediately sent us materials, and in these materials it showed it was happening all over the country. There were cases in California, in Texas, in Georgia, in Indiana, in Oklahoma, in New York. The accused included parents, teachers, care workers. Some, like Jerry Girardi, had been forced to leave home. Some ended up in jail. Some parents had their children taken away. (1:23:18)

In fact, allegations like this were being made everywhere in the world that facilitated communication was being used. Some of this may have been due to the fact that there was a moral panic on this subject at the time, with many psychologists encouraging people to believe that they had recovered suppressed memories of being abused, even though those supposedly recovered memories turned out to be false, as was later revealed. (1:23:41)

But, if facilitated communication does not work, the tenth reason that this needs to be known in the autism community is that it can lead to life-destroying false allegations against family members and other people. I, thus, am totally sympathetic to the idea of leaving people who think facilitated communication works to their beliefs, but in light of the above factors, I think the truth must also be faced. (1:24:10)

What has happened with facilitated communication since that frontline documentary came out in 1993? Well, facilitated communication has largely faded from the scene. Dr. Bicklin continued to support it, and in 2004, he participated in a documentary called Autism is a World, which supports the practice. Most schools and such that were using it ceased to do so, but it is still being used by some families with non-verbal autistic children. For example, I came across a modern video on Instagram that featured facilitated communication. (1:24:44)

In this video, a father is sitting next to his son, who is dressed for skateboarding. He holds his son's wrist, and his son points on a laminated letterboard that his father is holding. But if you watch the video version of the podcast, you'll see that the son is not looking at the letterboard. In fact, his head is turned away from the letterboard almost the entire time. (1:25:07)

So, I see no way that the young man is actually producing the message. In fact, in this clip, I even have questions about whether the father is actually reading anything, or whether he's just making the message up as the boy's hand ramps up. I haven't done the kind of careful checking I'd need to establish that, but it raises the disturbing possibility that in some cases we may not just be looking at the facilitator's subconscious author in the messages. It may be their conscious sometimes. (1:26:54)

Has any progress been made in helping such children communicate? What about the more recent technique known as the rapid prompting method, or spelling to communicate? (1:27:03)

Okay, just to review, spelling to communicate does involve a second person who will call the communications assistant to avoid confusion with the facilitators involved in facilitated communication. They're doing a similar role, but we'll call them different things to keep them straight. But in spelling to communicate, the assistant is not in physical contact with the communicator, at least not typically. They're not holding the communicator's hand, wrist, arm, elbow, or shirt sleeve as a matter of course. Instead, they hold a spelling board in front of the person and verbally prompt them to point where they wish. (1:27:40)

This also has resulted in amazing results for children who were assumed to be too intellectually handicapped to be verbal, and it has similarly brought enormous hope to parents. That first week with Don Murray, like, then we just let the floodgates go. It was such a magical time. It's so emotional, but I wouldn't trade it. I'd go back there even right now. It was the very beginning of believing that his whole life is going to change. You know, he's going to be okay. It's all going to be okay. He's going to be fine. (1:28:37)

That clip was from the documentary Spellers, which we'll have a link to so you can watch it yourself and see the full case that they lay out. And once again, you know, this kind of reaction that the mother had is totally understandable. I would feel exactly the same way as if I were a parent with a nonverbal child and a new technique unlocked their ability to communicate. It would be so awesome. And I would be just as emotional. (1:29:06)

But we've seen from facilitated communication that the passionate hopes of parents don't mean that a technique works. What do you make of spelling to communicate from an evidential point of view? Well, one thing I noticed when watching the documentary Spellers is that the young people they're focusing on are doing something different than the children in Prisoners of Silence. For one thing, they really are focusing on the letterboard in front of them. They're not just looking off somewhere else and pointing. (1:29:35)

You'll see that in some of the clips that will play in the video version of the podcast. The children really are keeping their eyes open and focused on the board as they're pointing. So that's really good. This is a huge step up from the methodology that was being used in the 1990s. It appears that the assistants have really trained the communicators to keep looking at the board so that they can point without physical assistance and have sensible messages result. (1:30:04)

From what I can tell, it also appears that there is a sensible training progression for the communicators to learn how to do this. They don't start them with the letterboards. Instead, they start by having them point to indicate which of two options they would prefer. Like, do you like this dog or this cat? And then they move up to four options. And they keep adding options until they have a whole alphabet on a board. (1:30:31)

At first, they have them poking a pencil through stenciled letters, the tactile reinforcement of which may help make it easier for them to keep going, or at least make it clearer what they're pointing towards. And they later get them using laminated letterboards where you don't have the physical reinforcement of contact with the pencil in the stencil hole. They then move them on to another technique that we'll get to later in the podcast. But it looks like they may have a plausible training progression here. (1:31:00)

Can you think of any potential sources for concern? (1:31:04)

I can still think of two. First, the communications assistants may reject what the communicator actually points to. Consider this clip. Keep going. Make it make sense. G, G, J doesn't make sense. So, G. Great life is what? You got this, buddy. Trust yourself. (1:31:55)

I love that. Great life is... look at me for a second. Can you put your eyes up here? Thank you. Great life is... now look at the board. Go. Oh, A. Keep going. A and... H and... keep going. Keep going. D and... move your eyes. Get the A and... move your eyes. Move your eyes, move your eyes. D, great life is ahead, was my question. (1:32:08)

Here, the communicator points to a G and then a J, but the assistant rejects the J and tells him that G, J doesn't make sense and makes him try again. She also rephrases the message from the communicator. It looks like he was initially trying to say something like, great life is great, but they abandon that and he starts spelling the word ahead. So, she modifies the message to great life is ahead, not great life is great, which is what he initially seemed to say. (1:32:37)

At least, that's my best guess at what happened at this point. I could always study the video even more closely. But, I don't want to be too hard on this because I'm a fast touch typist, but I make mistakes all the time, and I rephrase sentences I've already started, and I certainly don't expect a communicator to achieve levels of flawless perfection that I don't achieve myself. (1:32:59)

But, this is still a source of concern because if the assistant is allowed to reject too many things and rephrase too many things and have too many try-agains, then you can get the same problem as facilitated communication has by another route. So, you'd want to carefully monitor these factors if you're doing scientific tests on this procedure. You said that there was a second source of concern with spelling to communicate. What was that? (1:33:28)

It's, why do the assistants hold the spelling boards in the air? With facilitated communication, we saw evidence that the facilitators were unconsciously guiding the communicator's hand to point to the right place on the board. But, even if you're not touching the communicator, a spelling to communicate assistant could achieve the exact same effect by unconsciously moving the board to where the communicator is starting to point or going to point. (1:33:58)

We saw an example of that kind of thing in the clip of Rosemary Crossley asking the man in the coma where he wanted to live. He wasn't moving his head pointer at all, but she subconsciously moved the choice board in front of him so that it looked like he was pointing to where he wanted to live in a nursing home. And the potential for this danger was recognized back in the 1990s. I know for myself, I wanted so hard to believe that it was real that I wasn't able to listen to objective thinking about it. (1:34:34)

Because it grabs you emotionally right here, and once you're hooked, I mean, you are hooked. (1:34:39)

You just, I don't think I was capable of rationally thinking about it. Because I had clues even before we did our study that there was facilitator influence taking place in other places. People had done studies in Australia, and I said, oh, that doesn't happen here. We aren't using it the same way. We aren't holding letter boards in the air. We have them down on the table. (1:35:02)

So, therefore, that limits the influence that could be taking place. Well, I was dead wrong. So, why not do both? Why not refrain from having physical contact with the communicator? And why not put the spelling board on the table so it doesn't move? Or, if the communicator needs it close and at a certain angle, well, why not put it on a stand up close at the angle they need? (1:35:24)

If they can still produce sensible messages, that would show them to be the source of the messages. You could even still have an assistant there to give them prompts to help them keep moving. The prompts would just need to be... would need not to be lead in. That is, they would need to not lead the communicator towards or away from certain letters. And you've got to look at that issue carefully, but it's an achievable goal, at least for purposes of testing. (1:35:51)

And some involved in the Spelling to Communicate movement seem to have an interest in science looking at this subject. Why isn't science... why... why... why aren't they looking for how to really help our kids? You know, that's the thing that's the most upsetting. He should have been... he could have done this years ago. He's told me that. So, have scientists tested Spelling to Communicate the way they did facilitated communication? (1:36:17)

It does not appear so. Now, critics of Spelling to Communicate might propose that, well, this is because they've been deterred from doing that by the experience they had with facilitated communication. I mean, the two procedures look similar, facilitated communication didn't work, so why bother spending research time and energy looking at Spelling to Communicate? And, you know, that could be a not unreasonable suspicion, you know, that critics would be deterred by the previous experience. (1:36:49)

Now, once scientists' views are formed, they can be hard to change. There's a saying in science that is known as Planck's Principle. It's attributed to Max Planck, and it's based on things he did say. And it's often paraphrased as, science progresses one funeral at a time. In other words, you often have to wait for an older generation of scientists to die out for a new view to become popular, though you don't always. (1:37:16)

But while there's some initial plausibility to this, there's another side to the story. In his article on rapid prompting in the 2020 edition of the Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders, James Todd writes, The validity of rapid prompting output could be assessed by effectively blinding the aid to the information asked of the subject. No such assessments have been published. (1:37:39)

And that's not simply because the scientists aren't interested. It takes two to tango, and it takes two to test. But many in the rapid prompting community have been resistant to the idea of doing the needed tests. Todd writes, Indeed, the principal advocates of rapid prompting range from being dismissive of, to expressly hostile to, ongoing data collection and scientific tests of authorship. And this resistance comes from the inventor of rapid prompting herself, Soma Mukhopadhyay. Todd writes, Collecting ongoing performance data is strongly discouraged, although video recordings are sometimes made, and stimulus materials from sessions may be retained. (1:38:19)

According to Mukhopadhyay, data collection is unnecessary and stigmatizing. The HaloSoma website reports, Soma does not use data sheets. She feels taking down hash marks interrupts the flow of instruction and inhibits the student's performance and success. The reasons for this resistance that I've heard from advocates seem to be along the lines of, well, first, I know this works with my children, so why test it? (1:38:46)

Second, we need to presume competence on the part of autistic children, so it would be insulting or dehumanizing to do the testing. And third, testing would put them in a controlled environment that they're not used to, and that might make them lose confidence and thus affect the results, which was the last point made by Soma Mukhopadhyay. But we heard similar things from those involved with facilitated communication, and that looks like it didn't work. Why should we have any more confidence in spelling to communicate? (1:39:16)

That is a good question, and I think the bottom line is that if you don't let the scientists do the needed tests on your method, then that's on you. You can't claim that you're being dismissed or persecuted by the scientific community if you don't let them do the tests. Are there other reasons for caution with spelling to communicate? In his encyclopedia article, James Todd lists the following as among them. (1:39:45)

Facilitator influence is strongly suggested by reports of astonishing literacy suddenly appearing in people who were previously entirely nonverbal and showed no previous signs of such talents.
There are several reported instances in which correct answers were not given unless the teacher was aware of the needed information, including a message-passing test in which Mukhopadhyay and her son were unable to correctly answer a single question about a story Mukhopadhyay had not heard. (1:40:16)
Video recordings of rapid prompting with letter boards seem to show the person holding the board suddenly moving each letter toward the subject's finger, with the subject responding by moving his or her finger toward the letter. And those are significant things that need to be investigated. As before, I understand the idea of simply letting the parents involved with spelling to simply hold onto their beliefs. (1:40:39)

But for the reasons we saw with facilitated communication, I think we need to look at the question scientifically and see if we can get objective evidence about whether it works. (1:40:49)

Now, I'd like to also take a closer look at some of the things that need to be investigated as part of that process. So, we're going to take a look at some of the material from a review of the movie Spellers by Catherine Beals, who takes a very close look at some of what's happening in the spelling sessions that the documentary contains. Some of this is going to sound familiar, because I used part of one of the clips that she examines as an example, and I pointed out some of the things that happen in it. (1:41:18)

But I want you to hear her analysis of what's happening in the whole clip. She also makes general comments on other pieces of spelling video in the documentary. So, here we go. Now, let's turn to the spelling sessions and the ways in which the facilitators, unwittingly or not, guide the messages attributed to the Spellers. In the dozen or so spelling sessions showcased in Spellers, we see the facilitators exerting control in the following ways. (1:41:44)

Board movements. In all sessions in which the facilitator holds up the letter board or keyboard, the board is never stationary. Generally, it moves in directions that shorten the distance between the speller's extended index finger or pencil and whichever letter is subsequently deemed to have been selected. Many of these movements are relatively small and therefore are only part of how facilitators control letter selection. (1:42:09)

But there's one major exception. When the facilitator decides to reset the board. Resetting involves whisking the letter board away from the speller and then thrusting it back. This typically happens when the speller is deemed to have lost focus or, more insidiously, has chosen or is about to choose the wrong letter. When the facilitator thrusts the board back, it's often to a location that brings the targeted letter closer to the speller's finger or pencil than it was before the reset. (1:42:38)

Finally, facilitators can whisk away the letter board once and for all in order to end a message. And often they do this without appearing to check in with the spellers to see if they're actually done spelling. 2. Vocal and Gestural Cues Throughout most of the spelling sessions, we hear a variety of phrases come out of the mouths of the facilitators. Different phrases co-occur with different speller behaviors. We hear keep going and or go, go, go when the speller is moving towards the correct letter. (1:43:07)

Go for it. You've got this. Or get it, get it, get it. Which one? G or B. Or pick whichever one you want when the speller is close to the correct letter. Get it, yeah, or mm-hmm, when the speller has reached the correct letter but hasn't selected it yet. Mm-hmm, that makes sense, real good. Or a reading back of the letter when the speller selects the correct letter. (1:43:33)

What makes sense? Move your eyes. Get your eyes down. Open your eyes. Keep going. (1:43:41)

Hmm? Oop? No, that doesn't make sense. Or a repeating of the correct letter selected so far when the speller is about to select or has selected the wrong letter. Keep going. You're good. Go ahead. Or and when the speller still has letters left to go. Particularly if he or she is getting restless or is perseverating on the current letter. In addition, when the camera angle permits it, we sometimes see the facilitator's free hand move in the direction that the speller's hand needs to move in order to hit the correct letter. (1:44:16)

Ignoring or dismissing incorrect letter selections. Across the various spelling sessions, we see numerous occasions where a letter that was clearly selected is ignored by the facilitator, not said out loud, and not incorporated into the facilitator's transcription or pronunciation of the word or message. In some cases, the facilitator makes an explicit correction. I-O doesn't make sense. Or adjustment. F-A-S-S-O-A-S-S. In one case, after a speller selects T-E-B-A-C-H-E-R-S, the facilitator says, teachers, looks at the speller, and then, as if she'd obtained some sort of confirmation, nods her head and repeats, teachers. (1:45:03)
Interrupting the spelling. We've seen one way in which facilitators interrupt letter selection, whisking the letterboard away in order to reset it or terminate a message. The board may also be whisked away and replaced with one of three smaller boards that each display only a third of the alphabet. During one of the sessions, on three occasions, when the speller's selection was unclear or incorrect, the facilitator does just this. (1:45:30)

In addition to reducing by two-thirds the number of incorrect selections, this opens up additional opportunities for placing the target letter closer to the speller's finger or pencil. Another tactic is simply to intercept the finger or pencil, something that Dawn Marie Gavin, the facilitator for the majority of the movie's spelling sessions, does several times. Interruptions that aren't obviously motivated, for example, by a loss of focus or a need for clarification, cry out for some sort of justification, and Gavin obliges. (1:46:02)

Twice, when intercepting a speller's hand and pencil, when there was no obvious problem with how he was holding it, she tells the speller to, quote, hold the pencil like that. Once, after whisking away the board and requisitioning the pencil, she sets the board down and uses the pencil to transcribe what the speller had spelled out earlier, omitting the nonsensical letter sequence that he had most recently selected. (1:46:25)

What may at first glance seem inconvenient, sharing a pencil with a speller, may actually prove convenient. On two other occasions, she immediately follows the interruption by directing the speller to look up at her eyes, echoing a tactic used in evidence-based therapies, but whose application to spelling remains unclear. Especially exemplary of much of this is the first of the spelling sessions, which starts about four minutes into the movie and involves a pencil and a stencil board. (1:46:54)

Here's a breakdown of what happens after the speller is asked by Gavin, who also facilitates, what he thinks of using the board. (1:47:01)

With continuous prompts from Gavin to keep going and move your eyes, the speller selects G-Q-R-E. Gavin, ignoring the Q, says, G-R-E, what makes sense? The speller selects K. Gavin whisks away the board, says, look at me, and points to her nose. Gavin then resets the board. The speller selects A. Before he can select another letter, Gavin puts down the board, takes his pencil, and transcribes G-R-E-A. She then resets the board and hands back his pencil. (1:47:36)

The speller selects T. Gavin repeats back, great. With some pauses and oral prompts and board shifting, the speller selects L-I-F-E. Gavin repeats back, great life. Then the speller selects I-O-J. Gavin, ignoring the J, repeats back I-O. Doesn't make too much sense. She takes away the pencil, puts down the board, and transcribes, great life. Gavin then hands back the pencil, says, I, resets the board, says, started I. The speller hesitates. (1:48:10)

Gavin points to I and repeats, started I, so I know that. The speller follows her index finger to the I. He then selects S. Gavin immediately says, is. The speller then starts to point somewhere on the board with his pencil. Gavin immediately whisks the board up and resets it. The speller selects G and then another letter. The film cuts to a different camera and so we can't see which one. (1:48:33)

Gavin immediately whisks away the board, tells him to start at G, and briefly cups his fist. The speller selects G twice and then J. Gavin shakes her head and says, make it make sense. GJ doesn't make sense and moves her free hand towards the middle of the board. The speller points to G again and then hits S. Gavin takes his pencil, puts the board down, and says, while ostensibly transcribing it, great life is. (1:49:02)

She then resets the board and tries to give him back the pencil. The speller is now looking down at his hands. Gavin says, trust yourself, I love that. Great life is. The speller takes the pencil and pokes it toward the board. Gavin whisks up, points to her nose again and says, look at me for a sec, can you put your eyes up? Then she resets the board. (1:49:23)

The speller selects A. Gavin says, as if surprised at this new letter selection, oh, A. With continuous vocal prompts from Gavin, which crescendo as he approaches the final letter, the speller selects H, E, A, D. Gavin pronounces great life is ahead while putting the board down. The mother bursts into tears of joy. So if you take a careful look at what the communication partner is doing in a spelling session, you see a lot of this stuff, and it raises real questions about how much unintentional cue-in is being given to the communicator and thus who the real author of the messages is. (1:50:06)

One of the reasons you proposed for why the truth about facilitated communication needed to be known, the tenth reason, was that it led to false allegations of sexual abuse. (1:50:16)

Has the same thing happened with spelling to communicate? No, not as far as I can tell, and I went looking for this. It may have happened somewhere, but not in the same way. One reason it may not have happened is that spelling to communicate really does work, and that's why children and young people aren't reporting sexual abuse with it. However, the same fact can be explained in other ways. (1:50:39)

Unlike the 1990s, we are not presently in the middle of a moral panic on the subject, so that would lead reports to be less common. And second, the people serving as assistants are different than the people who were serving as facilitators. Back in the 90s, it was often school workers who were acting as facilitators. It was easier to get school funding for this back then. (1:51:01)

But now, it's a different population working as assistants. James Todd writes... A willing and able teacher with good verbal and organizational skills, typically a parent, is needed to provide the training and ongoing communication support. So, it's typically a parent who is serving as the assistant in a spelling to communicate session, and the children aren't typically having conversations with outside people when the parents aren't present. (1:51:30)

So, that's definitely going to reduce the rate of reports of parental sexual abuse, regardless of what the actual rate is. Still, based on what we've seen so far, there are significant reasons for concern that spelling to communicate may have the same problems that facilitated communication did. Do you see any reasons for hope that the messages are actually coming from the communicators rather than their assistants? (1:51:53)

This may come as a surprise, but in some cases, yes I do. So, let's talk about one of the participants in the Spellers documentary, a young man named Jamie. So, when I started to see the growth that Vincent was having with spelling to communicate and the depth of these conversations, I knew I needed to start sharing it with some of my friends who had kids that were similar to Vincent. And sometimes I get a little thought and I can't get it out of my head, and JB kept coming into my head. (1:52:27)

I just really had this drive to get his son Jamie to try what Vincent was doing. She says, there's this communication method. It's called spelling to communicate. And Vince started doing it about four months ago, and we used to think that his most advanced words were, I want juice, and now you're seeing what he's writing. And then we had a conversation, he went home, and then he gave me a video of his son. (1:52:57)

To say, honey, this is Jamie. He's not going to be able to communicate like that. And he sent me the video and I knew right then, like, yep, he's going to do it. I sometimes shudder to imagine where we would be as a family, where I would be as a person, where Jamie would be, if we hadn't had the luck of having another parent reach out to us and encourage us to give this a try. (1:53:24)

I asked Jamie about honey the other day, and he said, honey, save my life. (1:53:27)

So Jamie was at least primarily nonverbal, and his father believed he would never be able to communicate in a robust, normal way. But, he says, spelling to communicate let him do that. Now, Jamie does use a letter board that his father holds in the air, though if you're watching the video version of the podcast, you'll notice how focused Jamie's eyes are on the board as he points to it. (1:53:48)

Yes, I, N, go ahead, A, M, E, I named, M, Y, S, E, L, I named myself, N, O, T, O, R, I, O, U, S, L, Y, S, T, R, O, N, I named myself notoriously strong, B, E, C, A, U, S, because, I, H, A, V, have, A, L, W, go ahead, A, Y, always, B, E, E, N, A, F, I, G, H, T, and then E, and then R, I've always been a fighter, E, V, E, even, I, if, N, O, O, N, E, go ahead, K, and then N, and then E, and then W. Yes, I named myself notoriously strong, because I have always been a fighter, even if no one knew. (1:55:10)

In the video podcast, you can also see that the father is moving the board back and forth a bit, so the potential for unconscious origination of the messages is here. But Jamie doesn't just use a letter board that someone is holding. He also types on a keyboard that is not being held by anyone. And the machine that the keyboard is attached to then speaks what he types. (1:55:37)

The East Coast-West Coast hip-hop rivalry was essentially a feud between Bad Boy Records and Death Row Records. Oakland-based rapper Tupac Shakur then kicked off the rivalry with Biggie by alleging that he and Puff Daddy were behind Tupac being robbed and shot five times in the lobby of a New York recording studio. Biggie's track, Who Shot Ya?, was released soon after Tupac's attempted murder, although Bad Boy Records denied involvement and claimed the song was recorded months prior to the incident. (1:56:08)

Still, the hip-hop community interpreted it as a taunt at Tupac. What do you think? Check it out over here. Do you see that picture of Puff Daddy up there? Yeah, then you too. Do you see the picture of Puff Daddy? What adjective comes to mind? What do you think of when you look at that? Good, good. Ready? Go. So in this clip, the assistant is sitting by Jamie. She reads him an article about Puff Daddy. Then she shows him a picture of Puff Daddy and asks what adjective he would use to describe him in the picture. (1:56:59)

And it takes Jamie a minute to type on the keyboard, which is sitting on the desk and not in physical contact with the assistant. And the device eventually says, gross. Now, there was another autistic young man named Evan in the room, and Evan then proceeded to have a bit of a meltdown. (1:57:18)

So Jamie discussed that with the assistant and typed several messages that the device read out loud. Yep. You're so sweet, Jamie. I'm like the worst friend because I can't help him. Yeah, you don't have to. He's getting better just by you being here. Yeah. Look it, he's pacing off the extra energy. Go ahead. You got it. There. Go ahead. You're going to... You are amazing, Evan. In case you had trouble hearing, first the device said, my brother Evan is feeling anxious. (1:58:27)

The assistant asked Jamie how that made him feel and he typed, like the worst friend because I can't help him. Then Jamie typed, you are amazing, Evan. And he did all that with a stationary keyboard that nobody but Jamie was touching and nobody was touching Jamie either. They also asked Jamie what he thought about a warning against spelling to communicate that the American Speech Language Hearing Association made saying that it doesn't work. (1:58:54)

So guys, I'm going to read this to you. The American Speech Language Hearing Association, ASHA, has reviewed the evidence for RPM and spelling to communicate and warned against their use. They conclude there is no evidence clients are actually doing the communication. Would you care to comment on that statement? I think they are delusional. That's one of my favorite words. So completely on his own, Jamie typed, I think they are delusional. (1:59:35)

Jamie also commented on what he thought about the situation of autistics more generally. How do you feel about society trying to model autistics to look and act, quote unquote, normal? Yeah. Get it, get it, get it. The core issue that is wrong in ABA is exactly that. In really supportive worlds, a person is celebrated for their unique traits, not punished. Go. And. And. Keep going. (2:00:26)

Keep going. Nice. And. Get it, get it, get it, get it. Nice job. Yeah. Should schools choose to really work with a student's strong suit, autistics will become tomorrow's innovators and leaders. And. Mm hmm. Mm hmm. Find it, find it. And then hit comma. And. Go, go, go. The average autistic child can read and do math by age four, but can't show it. (2:01:05)

Imagine the difference we can make in the world if taught how we learn. Good. And Jamie is not the only young person who can do this. Another is named Elizabeth. And here is her mother. The most important thing that I did was to find Elizabeth, a teacher who could teach her how to type, because without being taught, non-speakers have a problem with initiation. (2:01:32)

That is the contribution I made. And now I've gotten out of the way. Now, if you watch the video version of the podcast, you can see that Elizabeth is similarly typing on a keyboard that no one is touching and no one is touching her. And she types the message. I am not special, meaning that other people in her situation could do the same thing. (2:01:51)

What do you make of these instances? (2:01:53)

I think that they provide strong evidence that spelling to communicate should not simply be dismissed and needs a closer look. Both Jamie and Elizabeth have satisfied the two fundamental criteria that are needed to show that the technique has value. No one is in physical contact with them, and nobody is in physical contact with the tool that they are using to communicate, yet they still produce perfectly intelligible messages. (2:02:19)

That provides evidence that at least some non-verbal or low-verbal autistic young people can have dramatic improvements in their communication ability using the right techniques. And that at least some of those techniques are employed in the rapid prompting method. Okay, so now put on your skeptics hat. How would you argue the other side of this? If you were going to argue that rapid prompting doesn't work, how would you do it? (2:02:46)

Well, the first thing I would point out is that just because Jamie and Elizabeth have benefited from it doesn't mean that all non-verbal or low-verbal autistic children will. Jamie and Elizabeth might just be part of a smaller population that these techniques can help, and in other cases the techniques won't work. But this will be masked by the parent's desire to believe that this technique is working when actually the messages are coming from their own subconscious. (2:03:14)

However, that doesn't mean that the techniques are valueless for everyone, so more research is needed to find out who it can genuinely help. Second, just because some of the techniques involved in rapid prompting are helpful, that doesn't mean they all are. Some may be useless. They may just be placebos. Some might even be counterproductive. But again, we'd need more research to find that out. (2:03:39)

Third, if we're eliminating any physical contact between the communicator and the tool they're using, there's still two channels through which influence from the assistant could come. Their voice and their behaviors. Maybe their voice prompts are directing the communicator what to type. Or maybe their gaze or body language tells them what to type next. But this is something that further testing would reveal. We also need to upgrade the tests. (2:04:08)

Because the tests they were doing in the frontline documentary appear to only be single-blinded, and they need to be at least double-blind. That is, in the documentary, the facilitator was blind to whether she and the communicator were seeing the same picture or not, but the researcher knew whether they were being shown the same picture. And the researcher needs to be blind, too. I don't think that this lack of researcher blindness deprives the test results of all value, but just to close off the possibility that the researcher could be unintentionally given a discouraging signal by body language or facial expression when the pictures are different, the researcher needs to be blind as well and not know whether the pictures are the same or different. (2:04:53)

I'd also have the pictures shown on a computer screen using a true random number generator to determine what images will be shown and whether they are the same or different, so that there is no way to predict whether the pictures are the same or different, and thus nobody can predict anything about the sequence in which the different kinds of trials are going to happen, and thus the facilitator couldn't know when to be encouraged or discouraged. (2:05:20)

In fact, I would take the researcher out of the room when the tests are being done just to go the extra mile in preventing any kind of feedback from even a blinded researcher during data collection. (2:05:32)

This would also have the effect of reducing the number of people that are visible to the communicator and help address the concern about the communicator being intimidated by the situation. But this is one of the kinds of things you get used to as a parapsychologist on how to think of how to make the test as bulletproof as possible. Fourth, you could argue that by using keyboards that nobody is holding, Jamie and Elizabeth are doing something fundamentally different than most spelling to communicate, which involves an assistant holding a letterboard. (2:06:06)

So, maybe what Jamie and Elizabeth are doing does work, but what regular spelling to communicate does doesn't work, to which I would say, well, fine. But, Jamie and Elizabeth still got to this point using the letterboard method, and getting to the point where they're using a method that we can have more confidence in is what's important. So, we need to do more research on the letterboard method itself to see whether it's a necessary step in getting to the stationary, untouched keyboard or not, or whether it has some value in getting towards that goal. (2:06:42)

It strikes me as unlikely that holding the letterboard would produce completely bogus results, and yet helps people get to actual communication through a stationary, unheld keyboard. But, frankly, I don't care if the letterboard system is a total placebo and produces nothing. If people who use spelling to communicate can eventually get to a stage where they're genuinely communicating their own thoughts, then A, we need to know that fact, and B, we need to understand how to get people there. (2:07:16)

Then, what do you think about the resistance that the spelling to communicate community has toward doing research? I think it's unwarranted and counterproductive. Not everyone needs to participate in such research, but some people do. The concerns that have been raised against the research are misplaced, and testing on this issue can be done in a scientifically rigorous way that also respects the communicators and everyone around them. (2:07:43)

In fact, it is standard procedure to have every scientific study pass an Institutional Review Board, or IRB, to ensure that the experiment is conducted ethically. So, I think that the concerns are unwarranted. I also think that they're counterproductive, because what I saw in this video gave indication that at least some people may be benefited by at least some of the methods. I don't think that's proven. I think we still need to look at what's happening with voice and body language and so forth, and could that play a role in the Q&? (2:08:18)

But, if the Spell Into Communicate community keeps these methods to itself, it will fail to help as many people that could benefit from this as possible. Without scientific testing of the method, the broader community will continue to dismiss it. And so, only a few parents will learn about and try this technique. But, if you can have the testing done, and if the scientific community can look into this and find evidence that it works, and who it works for, then many, many more children and young people can benefit. (2:08:55)

So, my personal opinion is that the Spell Into Communicate community needs to ditch the suspicion of the scientific testing. (2:09:03)

They need to embrace it, not for the benefit of their own children, but for all the children who could benefit in the future if it works. So, now, what can we say about facilitated communication and Spell Into Communicate from the faith perspective? Well, not much. Whether the techniques themselves work is a matter of science rather than faith. We have significant evidence that facilitated communication didn't work, but I would say that the evidence regarding Spell Into Communicate is more mixed and needs further research. (2:09:38)

The purpose of techniques like this is to help people flourish, and I would say that there is an ethical obligation to engage in the research needed to determine the truth about these methods. We need to do the research to determine which ones don't work, and we need to do the research to determine which ones do work, who they can benefit, and who they can't. So, from the faith perspective, I would say that we should all pray that that research gets done. (2:10:07)

Jimmy, what's your bottom line on this topic? There are a variety of forms of augmented and alternative communication, or AAC. Many of these methods are currently in use and benefit many people, such as Stephen Hawking's cheek-to-voice interface. There is also good hope that they will benefit many more people in the future, and we may get a cure for such communication problems through brain-computer interfaces like Elon Musk's Neuralink. Until then, we need to make do with what we have, and two proposed methods are facilitated communication and spell-into-communicate. We have significant evidence that facilitated communication does not work, and that the messages obtained through it are actually produced by the facilitator's subconscious. (2:10:54)

However, the evidence is more mixed when it comes to spell-into-communicate. There are definitely reasons for caution. It uses a lot of the same techniques or similar principles to what's in facilitated communication, and we need to do authorship studies to find out, are any of these children actually communicating their own thoughts, or are the messages originating in the subconscious of their partners? There, though, is also reason for optimism, but the only way to sort that out is to do more scientific research, and I think that proponents of this method have an ethical obligation to support that research. (2:11:36)

Jimmy, what further resources can we offer? We'll have links to the 1993 Frontline documentary, Prisoners of Silence, the 2023 Spellers documentary, that clip from The Reason I Jump, Jason Todd's encyclopedia article on rapid prompting, information about augmentative and alternative communication, classical autism, Asperger's syndrome, autism spectrum disorder, Savant syndrome, facilitated communication, rapid prompting or spell-into-communicate method, abuse allegations and facilitated communication, the ideomotor effect, Zabina Hassenfelder's video on autism, Kyle Hill's video on autism, Autism's Not My Superpower's video on autism, the Instagram video on facilitated communication we showed, and also Kathryn Beal's review of Spellers. Alright, so now we turn to our mysterious feedback brought to us by our feedback coordinator, Rob Leonardi, and this feedback, as I said, comes from our episode 363 on Christianity and NDEs. The first feedback comes from Travis on Apple Podcasts. He said, Jimmy, I once heard someone share stories of NDEs for people born blind. This obviously adds a whole new perspective. Have you considered this? Love your shows! (2:13:00)

Thank you, and yes, I have considered it, and we will be looking at this in a future episode. Just to give you one of the things that is reported in this kind of situation is that someone who's been blind their whole life, when they have an NDE or other out-of-body experience, suddenly they start getting visual information for the first time ever. This is sometimes called mindsight, and we will be talking about it in the future. (2:13:27)

Colin on YouTube writes, I'm interested in how these experiences map to the physical particulars of the clinical death in each case. Is the clinical death precipitated by respiratory or cardiovascular problems in all cases? Is head trauma involved in any of them? Do NDEs still happen if the heart is online but oxygen to the brain is limited for a separate reason, for example? (2:13:52)

So, there's no specific cause of death, or if clinical death occurs, there's no single cause of it that is associated with near-death experiences. If a person clinically dies for whatever reason, they have a chance of remembering an NDE when we get them started up again. However, not all. Whether something is classified as a near-death experience depends on whose definition you're using. And there's actually a bit of a controversy in near-death experience research these days about what experiences should be classified as NDEs, because sometimes people just come close to death and have an experience. (2:14:41)

They didn't actually clinically die, but they may have had a situation where they were gravely injured or in grave fear, even. And so, there's a debate about, well, if an experience shares these characteristics, should we call it a near-death experience if clinical death does not happen? And personally, I would be inclined to err on the side of caution and reserve the term near-death experience for something where someone has a catastrophic loss of blood pressure, whether it's full cardiac arrest or cardiac insufficiency or something. Some situation where the heart is not pumping the way it needs to. (2:15:28)

So, that's my inclination. I would tend to come up with another term for experiences that don't involve that. Oh, we're definitely going to talk about Bruce Grayson and Pim van Lommel in the future. They've done a lot of great work, and I plan to look at that specifically. In the episode that we did specifically on Christianity and near-death experiences, it wasn't just one author I cited about religious versus spiritual devotion. There were multiple authors that were cited. (2:16:36)

They may have all been cited by the author of the book that we were using as our primary resource for that show, but he cited multiple different researchers. So, we presented the data that you tend not to have presented by more secular researchers. Ultimately, one of the things that will need to be sorted out is who's presented the data in the most accurate way. It could be that the Christians are distorting the data, or it could be that the secular folks are distorting the data, or it could be they're both distorting the data a little bit and the truth is somewhere in the middle. (2:17:17)

That's a longer-term question that, for reasons of length and scheduling, I just don't have time to consider every aspect of every subject in the detail I would like in every episode, or every episode would become its own podcast series. So, it's something that I'm not unaware of and I'm happy to consider, but it'll take us a while to get to all of the things that I'd love to consider on the show. (2:17:44)

Alright, and now it's time to hear from you. What are your theories about facilitated communication? You can let us know by visiting sqpn.com or the Jimmy Akins Mysterious World Facebook page, sending us an email to feedback at mysterious.fm, sending a tweet to at mys underscore world, visiting the StarQuest Discord community at sqpn.com slash discord, or calling our mysterious feedback line at 619-738-4515. That's 619-738-4515. And I want to say a special word of thanks to Oasis Studio 7 for the video and animation work on this episode. (2:18:31)

Check it out by going to my YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Jimmy Akin. We recently passed 100,000 subscribers, so yay! And thanks to all the folks who helped make that happen, we're now going towards our second goal, which is going to be 200,000 subscribers. (2:18:43)

So if you haven't subscribed yet, please do, and hit the notification bell so you always get notified whenever I have a new video. And Jimmy, what's our next episode going to be about? Next week, we're going to have Paranormal Mystery. We're going to be looking at the most popular podcast of 2025, and it directly involves spelling to communicate. So next week, we're going to be looking at the telepathy tapes. (2:19:11)

Alright. Folks, be sure to follow Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World in Apple Podcasts, on Spotify, TuneIn, your favorite podcast app, or at Jimmy's YouTube channel, where you should, remember, hit that bell to get notifications. Get your very own Mysterious World t-shirt, mug, and more in our merchandise shop at sqpn.com slash merch. You'll find links to Jimmy's resources from our discussion on our show notes at mysterious.fm slash 370. And remember, individual donors like you provide more than 90% of the financial resources we need to continue to produce the podcast. So please visit sqpn.com slash give. (2:19:53)

Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World is also brought to you in part by the Grady Group, a Catholic company bringing financial clarity to their clients across the United States, using safe money options to produce reasonable rates of return for their clients. Learn more at gradygroupinc.com Until next time, Jimmy Akin, thank you for exploring with us our mysterious world. Thanks, Dom. And once again, I'm Dom Bettinelli. Thank you for listening to Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World on StarQuest. Transcribed by https://otter.ai (2:20:42)

(2025-06-24)

前置き​

情報源: 動画(2:20:47)​

関連​

はじめに​

結論と今後の展望​

タイムライン​

登場人物​

前置き

情報源: 動画(2:20:47)

関連

はじめに

結論と今後の展望

タイムライン

登場人物