Anyone else heard this?

[griffen]

Last night we were at Borders, and my boyfriend handed me a copy of this book, which is a curebie book. (He didn't know that; he just saw "new book about autism" and thought I'd be interested.) There's a bunch of really offensive stuff in it (Lovaas ABA is good! Your autistic child should never be left alone unless you need to run to the bathroom!

Comments

[anticron]

One would imagine that if this were true, the researchers would have documented it. Did the authors of the book point towards (that or) similar research that conclusively shows their counter-assertion, or was it just literary finger-pointing?

[desikitteh]

sounds to me like they're aiming to claim bad parenting or bad child.

[babalon_it]

the mere fact that the autists looked at something *besides* the face is indication that we are very different from NTs. NTs automatically look *first* at the face. So, I wouldn't worry too much about this guy "debunking" the study. I've not run across any real criticisms of the study.

[codeman38]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking as I read this post, too. The fact of shying away from the face in the first place must count for something.

And I, like anticron, would like to actually see what research Greenspan has cited regarding this supposed finding.

[polydad]

No, and I wouldn't put much stock in it. A better question: How much is Greenspan making by publishing the book, and what books can *we* write to go after his audience?

I'd guess that *we* are his audience, and that keeping a website with book reviews on it would be a good thing. I'm willing to do the work, but have no clue as to how to get started. Hints?

best,

Joel

[polydad]

The reason for the reviews is so that people like you and me can figure out which books are useful to buy, which aren't, and why. Publishing the information lets us choose which authors deserve the dollars of our support.

If the author didn't include any counter-studies, currently I have no way to find out except getting the book and reading it.

best,

Joel

[anticron]

(Lack of an EDIT command is irratating.)

If the reviews included debunking effects, such as Good Science™, it'd definatley be worthwhile, especially if the only thing the books have to offer are appeals to emotion.

[lordalfredhenry]

Is it the University of Washington study?

I sometimes find a lot of news on studies here:
http://www.biopsychology.com/index.php?descType=always&type=keyword&id=6&page=0

and it seems that there could be a lot of "back and forth" understanding going on and there are still a lot of details being discovered that promotes the idea of the face activated/inactive neurology and a few ideas that challenge it. To answer the subject line question, I have not heard of this so sorry that I can't be of more help. It could be a cooked study too for all we know that is promoted to prove a point by a small group. I'd be critical of bias in the case of a heavily cure motivated book.

[lordalfredhenry]

(I only know the original 2001 UoW study that asserts this and not the particular study that refutes it)