Supported typing/facilitated communication is widely regarded as a pseudoscience. Studies have shown that FC is unable to produce answers not known by the facilitator. FC proponents believe that autistic individuals have the same linguistic ability as neurotypical individuals, and difficulty speaking is merely a motor issue.
As someone with autism, I can tell you: my brain can barely keep up with conversation. It’s not a motor issue. I have to actively think about appropriate word choice, how to structure sentences correctly, and neurotypicals don’t. If I don’t take enough time to finish the sentence in my head, the intonation is wrong, I’ll skip words, put them out of order, and just generally be unintelligible.
FC, like many other ‘theories’ surrounding autism, are made by people who have put years into researching autism, but have never thought to ask an autistic person anything about their experience.
I’m just learning about all this. Can you clarify what’s different about facilitated communication and what is described in the article? The article describes the technique as “supported typing,” which is a synonym for facilities communication according to a reference in the Wikipedia article.
The technique described in the article also seems to align with one of the descriptions of facilited communication included in the Wikipedia article:
In some cases, patients learn to give specific responses to cues from the facilitator, such as in cases where the facilitator only touches their shoulder or does not touch the patient at all.
Author talks about someone putting a hand on their shoulder, which acts as a sort of grounding or balancer. Facilitated communication is when the assistant is literally moving the person’s hands.
There’s no way the author could be a PhD candidate with only a shoulder touch level of assistance.
That’s a bummer, but thanks for the insight. After reading the article, I was happy to hear someone with a disability was able to find a way to express themself. The article discusses the alleged author having given a TEDx talk and is writing an autobiography.
The original article brushes past the role of the facilitator in the process, which struck me as strange when I first read it. It makes much more sense after your context: they’re aware of the criticisms around supported typing and are minimizing them. From the article:
Another person touches my shoulder as I type. This touch helps me be aware of my body and helps me focus on communicating my message.
Giving the benefit of the doubt to the facilitator and anyone else involved in the care of the autistic individual, the likely reality is still very dark. The autistic person is being used to write articles and a book and brought onto stages to give talks, all using someone else’s words. I don’t presume to speak for the individual, but I wonder what they really feel or understand about the situation.
The only positive I see is that the autistic person is hopefully earning enough to pay for their living expenses and care, though I’m sure the facilitator also takes a cut.
Supported typing/facilitated communication is widely regarded as a pseudoscience. Studies have shown that FC is unable to produce answers not known by the facilitator. FC proponents believe that autistic individuals have the same linguistic ability as neurotypical individuals, and difficulty speaking is merely a motor issue.
As someone with autism, I can tell you: my brain can barely keep up with conversation. It’s not a motor issue. I have to actively think about appropriate word choice, how to structure sentences correctly, and neurotypicals don’t. If I don’t take enough time to finish the sentence in my head, the intonation is wrong, I’ll skip words, put them out of order, and just generally be unintelligible.
FC, like many other ‘theories’ surrounding autism, are made by people who have put years into researching autism, but have never thought to ask an autistic person anything about their experience.
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facilitated_communication
Facilitated communication is definitely psuedoscience. Thankfully, that’s not what this article’s author was talking about.
I’m just learning about all this. Can you clarify what’s different about facilitated communication and what is described in the article? The article describes the technique as “supported typing,” which is a synonym for facilities communication according to a reference in the Wikipedia article.
The technique described in the article also seems to align with one of the descriptions of facilited communication included in the Wikipedia article:
Author talks about someone putting a hand on their shoulder, which acts as a sort of grounding or balancer. Facilitated communication is when the assistant is literally moving the person’s hands.
There’s no way the author could be a PhD candidate with only a shoulder touch level of assistance.
That’s a bummer, but thanks for the insight. After reading the article, I was happy to hear someone with a disability was able to find a way to express themself. The article discusses the alleged author having given a TEDx talk and is writing an autobiography.
The original article brushes past the role of the facilitator in the process, which struck me as strange when I first read it. It makes much more sense after your context: they’re aware of the criticisms around supported typing and are minimizing them. From the article:
Giving the benefit of the doubt to the facilitator and anyone else involved in the care of the autistic individual, the likely reality is still very dark. The autistic person is being used to write articles and a book and brought onto stages to give talks, all using someone else’s words. I don’t presume to speak for the individual, but I wonder what they really feel or understand about the situation.
The only positive I see is that the autistic person is hopefully earning enough to pay for their living expenses and care, though I’m sure the facilitator also takes a cut.