tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6501692.post2104380013481830192..comments2023-10-24T01:31:22.914+10:30Comments on A live toad every morning: Skepticism gone septicShitheadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17344573277078416570noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6501692.post-45046205331815563392015-10-27T12:16:02.988+10:302015-10-27T12:16:02.988+10:30DocG, 'word prediction' is a feature of co...DocG, 'word prediction' is a feature of communication programs (and, indeed, typing programs in general) that offer to finish your words for you - if you type 'antidisestablishmenta', for example, they'd probably offer you a choice of 'rian' or 'rianism''. If the person using the device picks one of those words, that saves them a number of hits. If the person refuses the option (is there a word 'disestablishmantarianist?) then they proceed as before. <br />But of course you knew that: you were suggesting that any letters not specifically typed by the person were phony, which is easy enough to say (or spell) if you don't happen to have a disability that makes every letter a lot of work. <br /><br />And then there's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", which I have to say also pisses me off. True to the point of being trivial, but giving the speaker the absolute right to decide what constitutes extraordinary claims. I would have thought that a claim that a person who can quite clearly be observed to be typing by herself wasn't actually typing by herself is an extraordinary claim; you think otherwise. I would have thought a claim that most psychologists are utterly wrong on a basic issue to do with IQ testing to be boringly routine, giving their uninterrupted history of fucking all their endeavours up for the past century; you evidently differ. <br /><br />As, again, with "But the only way to determine the validity of these claims is for independent researchers to test Carly under controlled conditions". Is that what you say when you lose a game of Scrabble, or try to parallel park, or prod an avocado in the store? Not everything in life requires a publication in a refereed journal edited by your opponents. Some things - and I think a denial of this would constitute an extraordinary claim - are capable of being observed by you, now, here. Shitheadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17344573277078416570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6501692.post-22042364854785585132015-10-27T07:10:49.939+10:302015-10-27T07:10:49.939+10:30What exactly is "word-prediction"?What exactly is "word-prediction"?DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6501692.post-16411428683747543752015-10-27T07:08:18.131+10:302015-10-27T07:08:18.131+10:30Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidenc...Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If the claims are true, then what her parents accomplished with Carly is truly impressive and more research should be done to determine whether other children could benefit from the same process. But the only way to determine the validity of these claims is for independent researchers to test Carly under controlled conditions. And if that has not yet been done, then I wonder why. I've looked for references to published studies on Carly, in recognized psychological or medical journals, and so far I've found none. If you can provide such a reference or references I'd appreciate it. Thank you.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6501692.post-37309016485934229412014-12-03T04:02:55.948+10:302014-12-03T04:02:55.948+10:30BLOOM: What was it like when Carly started express...BLOOM: What was it like when Carly started expressing herself in writing? The media made it look like her breakthrough was sudden.<br /><br />Arthur Fleischmann: The American media did that. In reality it came after many, many years and after hours and hours of work. She had worked very hard with flip cards and communication books with a speech-language pathologist for eight years. And once Carly started writing, it was simplistic in the beginning: two to three word phrases and it might take an hour to produce. She felt the touch of the keyboard was uncomfortable so it was very hard. And it still is. Word-prediction has made it a little easier.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6501692.post-27932374995062764802014-12-03T04:01:50.921+10:302014-12-03T04:01:50.921+10:30BLOOM: What was it like when Carly started express...BLOOM: What was it like when Carly started expressing herself in writing? The media made it look like her breakthrough was sudden.<br /><br />Arthur Fleischmann: The American media did that. In reality it came after many, many years and after hours and hours of work. She had worked very hard with flip cards and communication books with a speech-language pathologist for eight years. And once Carly started writing, it was simplistic in the beginning: two to three word phrases and it might take an hour to produce. She felt the touch of the keyboard was uncomfortable so it was very hard. And it still is. Word-prediction has made it a little easier.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6501692.post-24780118258687923912012-08-03T22:31:36.692+09:302012-08-03T22:31:36.692+09:30First of, my English isn't perfect, haven'...First of, my English isn't perfect, haven't written in English, in years :)<br /><br />What I personally find interesting is the problem all of the 'scientists' seem to want to overstep quite easily. <br />In every experiment conducted by all psychologists (or other human behavior scientists)a problem that has to be accounted for are things like the importance of environment. <br />There is, undoubtedly, an effect of all kinds of things. <br />Some of those things are often times dismissed because after careful investigation it became clear these influences were of such minimal influence they couldn't be regarded as a 'influencing factor'. <br />One very easy example of this is the room in which the subjects are doing the tests. Because every subject experiences the same room and the effect of the room, in itself, is very small, we don't consider the effect of the room in itself.<br />However, these are assumptions we are allowed to make with 'normal' subjects. <br />Carly is not a 'normal subject'. Besides her physical and mental differences with the rest of us, she has also experienced a completely different upbringing. <br />Therefore she does not react as much alike as other people do to different scientific methods. <br />This does not, in any way, mean we are incapable of researching what her abilities are, if she really writes autonomously, but it does mean that conventional research methods have to be reassessed. <br />And more specifically, in my own opinion, the absence of her parents combined with the presence of others, whenever her abilities are being put to the test, is the biggest mistake a researcher could make. <br />This girl/woman isn't used to different environments like we are, her parents and caretakers have been much more and much longer been of influence to her and will be just that for many more years (hopefully not forever). So testing without parents will be much more stressfully for her and will influence test results much more negatively then positively.<br /><br />All this said I just want to congratulate the blogger for taking a stand! :)Erikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883294563493498561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6501692.post-50652656241371021872012-08-03T22:31:11.344+09:302012-08-03T22:31:11.344+09:30First of, my English isn't perfect, haven'...First of, my English isn't perfect, haven't written in English, in years :)<br /><br />What I personally find interesting is the problem all of the 'scientists' seem to want to overstep quite easily. <br />In every experiment conducted by all psychologists (or other human behavior scientists)a problem that has to be accounted for are things like the importance of environment. <br />There is, undoubtedly, an effect of all kinds of things. <br />Some of those things are often times dismissed because after careful investigation it became clear these influences were of such minimal influence they couldn't be regarded as a 'influencing factor'. <br />One very easy example of this is the room in which the subjects are doing the tests. Because every subject experiences the same room and the effect of the room, in itself, is very small, we don't consider the effect of the room in itself.<br />However, these are assumptions we are allowed to make with 'normal' subjects. <br />Carly is not a 'normal subject'. Besides her physical and mental differences with the rest of us, she has also experienced a completely different upbringing. <br />Therefore she does not react as much alike as other people do to different scientific methods. <br />This does not, in any way, mean we are incapable of researching what her abilities are, if she really writes autonomously, but it does mean that conventional research methods have to be reassessed. <br />And more specifically, in my own opinion, the absence of her parents combined with the presence of others, whenever her abilities are being put to the test, is the biggest mistake a researcher could make. <br />This girl/woman isn't used to different environments like we are, her parents and caretakers have been much more and much longer been of influence to her and will be just that for many more years (hopefully not forever). So testing without parents will be much more stressfully for her and will influence test results much more negatively then positively.<br /><br />All this said I just want to congratulate the blogger for taking a stand! :)Erikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883294563493498561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6501692.post-74895202981773300002011-04-19T11:31:16.743+09:302011-04-19T11:31:16.743+09:30Do you mean "is Carly a promo for Dynavox&quo...Do you mean "is Carly a promo for Dynavox" or "is this post a promo for Dynavox? Can't say I follow your logic, anyway. <br />More specifically, there are a lot of AAC devices out there, most have their pros and cons, it's a matter of adjusting the device to the particular case, but any AAC device is probably better than none. What do you have specifically against Dynavox - the machines and/or the company?Shitheadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17344573277078416570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6501692.post-37555637100761696672011-04-18T23:49:58.440+09:302011-04-18T23:49:58.440+09:30i was a TSS for a few years and thought the docs w...i was a TSS for a few years and thought the docs weren't interesting in seeking a cure for autism spectrum disorders, rather they were interested in long expensive treatments. <br /><br />on the other hand, if this is only a product placement for dynavox, f you, that company sucks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6501692.post-83117612146143673932011-04-14T11:50:37.636+09:302011-04-14T11:50:37.636+09:30It's not even just that the schools and the ce...It's not even just that the schools and the centres are failing in that they don't provide communication assistance: they actually oppose it, they're actually prepared to die screaming in the last ditch rather than allow it through. I'm not at all sure why it's such a central element in their discourse, but I've found out the hard way that it's a <i>bloody</i> hard way.Shitheadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17344573277078416570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6501692.post-3597366968075313422011-04-14T02:35:25.552+09:302011-04-14T02:35:25.552+09:30Carly Fleishmann's ability to type independent...Carly Fleishmann's ability to type independently is clear. The reason people have jumped on this as skeptics is because the media, in their desire to boost a story, try to make it seem that this is a "miracle" that just suddenly happened one day. That is far from the truth, which is , years and years of private training that culminated with the breakthrough that finally happened.<br /><br />The problem with the story is no one questioned why our public school system fails our children such that Carly's success was only made possible through expensive private<br /> lessons.<br /><br />Schools teach BLIND students to use braille, the DEAF students to use sign language and lip reading, BUT WHY NOT TEACH AUGMENTATIVE COMMUNICATION TO THOSE WHO ARE MUTE OR WITH LIMITED ABILITY TO SPEAK?!<br /><br />My daughter is like Carly. the school system presumes that she is very developmentally delayed because they lack the training and expertise to teach her to communicate beyond the use of pictures (PECs). She needs to be trained to use a communication device, but there is no commitment or training of staff on how to do this. Each year she has a new teacher and we are back at square one, with the teacher and staff knowing NOTHING about using these devices!!!<br /><br />Why are we discriminating against students who are ASD and non-verbal? Why do we presume they are developmentally delayed? In fact, more than 50% of Autistic people are non-verbal. those who are taught to master a communication device, such as Carly, very often show as functioning at least 4 grade levels above what was assumed before they mastered the device!<br /><br />This is a travesty to our children. I do not have the financial resources to do what the Fleishmann's have managed for Carly-- so my own daughter continues to languish in the public school system. this is truly reprehensible and discriminatory.<br /><br />Google "Wretches and Jabberers" to see a video where two men with ASD are trying to spread the word about people with ASD who cannot speak but can use keyboard devices. Then you will see there are others like Carly Fleishmann. How many more ASD people are trapped in their bodies in need of such training to use devices to communicate? When will our education system finally do what is right by providing this training?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6501692.post-16895767814589009112011-03-09T15:55:29.461+10:302011-03-09T15:55:29.461+10:30Thank you for your response to the Carly skeptics....Thank you for your response to the Carly skeptics. As a parent of a nonverbal 7 year old child with moderately sever autism, I am routinely surprised when she suddenly demonstrates something new - an interest in playing on a Nintendo DS or looking at Justin Bieber or iCarly (all things I don't have in the house). In spite of seeming "out of it" or off in her own world, my daughter is actually processing the world around her much like her twin sister. So, when I look at what Carly Fleischmann accomplishes on her laptop I am not surprised. Rather, I find her story believable without "expert" verification. The inability to use language and communicate in the typical, normative manner does not equate with not possessing the intellectual capacity to think or express oneself in a sophisticated, albeit different, manner.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16326447764867641940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6501692.post-77660048753053390742011-01-05T10:18:38.299+10:302011-01-05T10:18:38.299+10:30Mmmm. "Experts are often anything but." ...Mmmm. "Experts are often anything but." Anonymous, dear, yes, that's exactly what I said. I agree with you. Read what I say more carefully.<br /><br />As a more general comment, it's interesting, not to say depressing, that I'm a much worse writer than I assume, being not very good at getting a simple message across. <br /><br />Which message, I suppose, just to clarify, is that even autistic children who don't speak can generally be taught to communicate by some form of alphabet-based system.Shitheadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17344573277078416570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6501692.post-24518977473531849742011-01-05T10:07:14.667+10:302011-01-05T10:07:14.667+10:30I deal extensively with autistic children and I ca...I deal extensively with autistic children and I can say that the experts are often anything but. Don't talk out of negativity about something you don't understand. I've seen non-verbal autistic children suddenly go verbal with nothing but help from their parents when so-called "experts" said the children would never speak and the parents were delusional.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com