Talk:The Reason I Jump

Facilitated communication has been disproved

Saying that Higashida wrote the book is like saying that John Dee & Edward Kelley were able to summon angels and communicate with them. Facilitated communication is not considered scientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.3.250 (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you watch this video he looked at the paper keyboard, picked alphabets (romaji) , and read it out loud without help from someone. Though his pronunciation wasn't perfect it's totally understandable to me, native Japanese speaker. His grammar and choice of words are perfect though often he constructed the sentence word by word. In the video he explained that the paper keyboard helped him to keep the memory intact while speaking. Also I saw him writing his book using the word processor on PC. He picked correct idioms (Chinense characters, kanjis) without hesitation. It's even faster than using the paper keyboard. I have no doubt in his ability in language. His speech function is just not working. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.237.233 (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    While whether the Higashidas use FC remains controversial, with the director of the documentary denying it and Temple Grandin giving them the benefit of the doubt, these things are beyond dispute as far as I can tell:
    • Douglas Biklen and Higashida spoke at a "joint lecture/forum" (co-sponsored by Amway) promoting FC.
    • Higashida has appeared in Wretches & Jabberers, a film produced by Biklen.
    • A 2017 paper (which is itself uncritical of FC) said, "In Higashida & Higashida (2005), the procedure of the assisted communication is similar to FC and Soft Touching Assistance [a method devised in Japan], and the accompanying DVD shows Higashida writing a manuscript by typing on the keyboard himself, with his mother in contact with his leg" (p. 16; my translation).
    • The documentary shows usage of FC (or RPM) in the segment shot in the US (as briefly shown in the trailer).
    What I find most curious is how Higashida and those featured in the documentary learned to spell. Unlike spoken and signed language (or "language", as linguists define it), writing is a technology that needs to be explicitly taught, not just immersed in, in order for anybody to acquire it, and for most people it takes a whole childhood to be competent or even decent at it. Specifically, English orthography is infamously inconsistent and unpredictable with regard to pronunciation correspondence, and the Japanese writing system is notoriously complex with two syllabaries and thousands of kanji characters. If their parents managed to teach them how to write, that's something lots of parents of children with learning disabilities would be eager to know, and if they didn't, it would seem there are proficient hyperlexics among non-/minimally verbal children in an extraordinary proportion. Nardog (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't looked into this, but if there are reliable sources questioning the authenticity of Higashida's authorship, then we can reflect this by writing something like "credited to Higashida", before going into detail about the controversy. edit: I didn't see this was such an old discussion. I see the article already does this, seems sensible to me assuming the sources are good. Popcornfud (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't seem to reflect any controversy fairly.

I've never been sure about Facilitated Communication, but this entry is flatly dismissive of the possibility that Higashida wrote this book, in a way that is not backed up by most reliable sources, and seems to ignore the fact Higashida has been filmed writing entirely independently, including in a video linked from this page. The director of the film loosely based on the book describes conversing with him in a blog post. If his first book had not in fact been written by him, it seems as if he has since had the opportunity to correct the record. I note also that he has since written (or 'been attributed'?) many more books, most of which have not been translated into English.

The assertion that "Researchers dismiss the authenticity of Higashida's writings" is not even unambiguously true of the authors of the one paper cited in support of this claim; it's certainly not true in a general sense.

I'd love to see someone rewrite this entry extensively, to “fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.” Ideally this should be someone familiar with Higashida's work and the controversy around it... Oolong (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few further notes: It's inaccurate to describe Higashida as nonverbal: he speaks a little; and contrary to what this article currently claims, the book does not assert that it was written using either facilitated communication nor rapid prompting. It describes the use of an 'alphabet grid':
"The alphabet grid makes it possible to form my words by simply pointing to their letters, instead of having to write them out one by one. This also lets me anchor my words, words that would otherwise flutter off as soon as I tried to speak them.
Often, while I was learning this method, I’d feel utterly beaten. But finally I arrived at the point where I could indicate the letters by myself. " Oolong (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Credulous writing does nothing to prove independence. We must exercise great caution not only per WP:EXCEPTIONAL but since the two possibilities are really not equivalent here: If it is independent, that's great, they should prove it through a double-blind test so others can replicate and benefit from it. If it isn't, Higashida is a victim of grave human rights violations where his voice is substituted for like a ventriloquist's dummy through the pseudoscientific practice that has led to at least dozens of false allegations of abuse, two convictions of facilitators for sexual offenses, and one manslaughter. Nardog (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nardog, re: "If it is independent, that's great, they should prove it through a double-blind test so others can replicate and benefit from it," this implies (to me) that:
  1. for those people who doubt his ability to write what is attributed to him, Higashida should care whether he convinces them that they're wrong, and
  2. if what his mother did with him was effective for him, then it will also be effective for others.
If I haven't inferred something that you didn't (or hadn't intended to) imply, why do you think this?
I'm asking in part because you're not the first person I've encountered who seems to think these two things, and I don't think either believe is necessary. Am I missing something? FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Naoki Higashida doesn't have to convince anybody of anything. What skeptics are worried is that his basic human rights might be violated. I don't know why it should be controversial to not want what you haven't said to be attributed to you. If you became incapacitated to communicate through the means you can now, would you want someone else who doesn't know what you want to say to speak on your behalf? Can I sign my comment under your signature now?
Even if it was effective just for him, they should prove it works because other people are going to imitate it, and the harms such practice can cause are beyond well documented. Nardog (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To me, "Naoki Higashida doesn't have to convince anybody of anything" conflicts with "Even if it was effective just for him, they should prove it works." Is it a "should" vs. "must" distinction?
I don't like other people putting their words in my mouth, but I also don't like other people taking credit for my words. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Naoki Higashida doesn't have to convince anybody of anything. Others might.
Sounds like we want the same thing then. Investigating objectively whom the words belong to would allow the credit to go to the right person. Nardog (talk) 05:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, no researcher has ever asked him to participate in a controlled study. How about you: do you know of any researcher asking him? If not, just what are you expecting (e.g., for him to wave his hand and say "hey researchers, you say that you doubt my ability to communicate, but none of you is trying to investigate it, come test me")? FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've slightly edited to remove the extraordinary assertion that what he is doing is equivalent to FC, and the entirely wrong claim that the book backs this up.
The article is still extremely heavily slanted towards the most extreme negative responses to the work, with the 'Reception' section completely ignoring the positive reception the book (and his later work) received.
I do not have hours and hours to dedicate to arguing this out, but any balanced assessment of reliable sources will conclude that this article does not reflect them.
We are describing a living author who has been filmed communicating independently on multiple occasions, and described that way by respected journalists and researchers. The idea that all of this communication is fake relies on completely speculative suppositions. Oolong (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I've started gathering material to recreate an article for Naoki Higashida, but make it better than it was. I now think that there should be two distinct articles (for the person and The Reason I Jump), as both are wiki-notable, and that this article should be improved, as it's currently inconsistent with WP:NPOV. For example, the Reception section barely mentions all of the positive reviews; it's totally unbalanced. In the course of looking for material for a Higashida article, I've come across some material that would better fit here (e.g., Mitchell explaining how/why they came to translate the book, and how the book was helpful/meaningful to him). Once I've got the start on an article for Higashida, I'll try to put in some time improving this one too. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that! Yes, I think you're right that both author and book are separately notable. Some of the material in this entry should either be moved over to the one on him, or removed entirely. Oolong (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed paragraphs with inappropriate citation

@Living With SAD, I maintain that the cited source is not reliable and therefore the removal is justified. LogicalLens (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We could replace it with this article, which is by the same author but in a more reliable source (The Telegraph). Nardog (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the sections with the new source and also shortened it in order not to give undue weight to the author's views because other opinions were also given just one paragraph. LogicalLens (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your updated revised text (4 March 2025) on Mike Fitzpatrick’s view is concise and well-crafted. Also, I agree that the new source you added well represents Fitzpatrick’s perspective.
Indeed, the previous text (12 Jan 2025) on Fitzpatrick’s view was disproportionately lengthy for its noteworthiness, while your completely deleting his view (30 Jan 2025) was unnecessary. Your new edit nicely resolves the issue.
Nonetheless, I have re-added a reference to his Spiked article after “criticizes the book”. Just a citation and no direct quotes. This citation is useful for readers seeking Fitzpatrick’s view on Naoki’s book, and this article is well thought through and not unreliable, especially now with the new cited source on the film you added increasing the reliability of its content. While some may find Spiked’s political orientation problematic, this does not mean all articles presented there are unreliable or uncitable. Living With SAD (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be moved to Naoki Higashida?

The Reason I Jump is notable, but right now, this article addresses two different books, which doesn't strike me as optimal, even that some people consider Fall Down 7 Times Get Up 8 as something of a sequel. Fall Down 7 Times Get Up 8 is likely also notable; I haven't checked that in any detail, though a quick search pulls up several reviews from RSs.

Naoki Higashida is himself notable, and I'm wondering whether it makes sense to move this article to Naoki Higashida, add more content about him (more is available), and then address both books in his article, as well as a brief mention of the many other books he's written. I don't know whether any others are notable, only that these are the only two that have been translated into English so far, so even if others are notable, it would likely require someone who wants to work with reviews in Japanese.

Alternatively, should there be a separate article on Naoki Higashida? FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Oolong and LogicalLens, since we've had some previous exchanges, and I'd appreciate your takes on this. Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few years ago, there already was an article on Naoki Higashida. These blog posts explain that it was removed:[1][2] because some editors were very confident in assuming that Naoki Higashida was unable to communicate himself and all of his works must have been produced by his mother. I am not convinced that this is a sufficient reason to remove his article, in my view it would only be appropriate to discuss the controversy in the article. LogicalLens (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the background. I think I read the second one several months ago in the context of the deletion discussion for Ido Kedar. I've now hunted a bit, and Talk:Naoki_Higashida indicates that the article was merged into David Mitchell (author) rather than deleted, but it looks like most of the content was omitted when the merge occurred, and instead an "FC controversy" section was created in the latter article. Here's the merge discussion, and here's a version a bit before the merge; that could certainly be improved on. That article is now a redirect to this article. So do you think it's a better solution to leave this for the book(s) and recreate the Higashida article with improvements? FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FactOrOpinion i think you're probably right that this should become an article on Naoki Higashida. The decision to delete that, and much of the content, was made by people with very strong opinions at odds with the bulk of reliable sources on this author.
There has been an assumption that he communicates and writes only through FC, which is simply not backed up by available sources.
Clearly, he is a notable author. His books may or may not also be notable enough to warrant two more separate articles. Oolong (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oolong, The Reason I Jump is definitely notable in its own right: in addition to what's already in the article, it was chosen as one of the best books of the year by several media outlets the year that the English translation was published, and I'm sure that there are many other reviews of the book. So I'm now leaning towards improving this article, but also recreating/improving the separate article on Naoki Higashida, and perhaps moving the content about Fall Down 7 Times Get Up 8 there. I've done a bit of searching to see what I could find out about the other books he's written, but have so far come up empty, since I don't read Japanese.
Re: FC, agreed that he is not currently using FC and wasn't using it when he was filmed in Wretches & Jabberers or in this excerpt from a slightly later documentary for Japanese TV (and I'd love to be able to be able to watch the whole thing streaming or on DVD, but haven't found anything on that front). My impression is that when he first learned to use a letterboard, the assistance he got was a kind of FC. The argument that I've since seen (for various non-verbal autistic authors whose initial communication might be classified as FC or RPM) is that they've moved on to visually cued writing, where the "facilitator" is consistently sitting within visual cuing range. I don't know that this conjecture has ever been tested (i.e., that it is possible to visually cue someone to write complex sentences/paragraphs in the absence of an actual sign language). For that matter, I don't know whether the research with the blind trials that led to FC's rejection included any people whose facilitator only touched their shoulder or their back. With respect to the potential for the facilitator to be the actual author of a text, it strikes me as quite different for a facilitator to support someone's wrist or elbow than to have their hand on someone's shoulder, with much greater risk of the facilitator being the author with the former than with the latter. I don't know certain other details of the FC research that strike me as relevant, such as the age range of the participants, whether they ever returned to the same participants years later (to look for change over time), and what the informed consent forms said.
I have to say, as someone whose knowledge of autism is very limited, I don't feel like I have good language for expressing some of this. For example, re: Higashida being "non-verbal," he is able to make the sounds of letters while pointing at them, and he is able to read his own written text out loud. But he is not able to translate his thoughts into spoken words in general. "Non-verbal" seems like a strange way to characterize that combination. If I ever use inappropriate language, and especially if I unintentionally say something insulting, I hope you'll say. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Klbrain and Sgerbic, as I see that both of you were active in the prior discussion that merged Naoki Higashida into David Mitchell (author) and turned the former into a redirect (and Sgerbic, I see that you'd also PRODed Naoki Higashida), and of the editors who participated in that merge discussion, it looks like the two of you are the only ones who are still actively editing. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you reviewed this article? [https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-43145-007]? This is from 2014. Sgerbic (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, why? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article explains concerns, but does not prove that Higashida did not write the books himself. As I wrote above, it is therefore appropriate to include the discussion on this topic (citing this article) in Higashida's Wikipedia article, but it would be wrong to censor his article simply because some people are unsure. LogicalLens (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So because we don't have r/s stating that Higashida did not write the book himself then we will default to he did? Do I have that correct? There are numerous citations on the "Reason I Jump" that do not have URL's have you investigated what those articles say? Does any say that he is being facilitated? Sgerbic (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy should be described in the article, and if reliable sources are not clear in either direction, the article must reflect that. This is not defaulting to assuming that he wrote it himself. LogicalLens (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that each of the references that are not URL's that are used on the books will be opened up and viewed, we can't just rely on today's media that will mostly use URL's. Sgerbic (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These sources say they have concerns, but do not definitively prove that Higashida didn't write the books.[3][4][5][6][7] This book chapter[8] briefly mentions Higashida but does not examine his case in any detail. It is sometimes stated that no video footage of Highashida typing independently was available at the time they wrote their reviews, but here is one:[9] LogicalLens (talk) 03:09, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sgerbic and I have discussed that video on their talk page. It was uploaded in 2021 but was created in 2014. The Reason I Jump was first published in 2007 in Japan, so that video wouldn't imply anything about his writing of the book, though the video is relevant in other ways. The full video of What You Taught Me About My Son is an hour-long documentary (award-winning according to this), produced for Japanese public broadcaster NHK, and directed by Takuya Maruyama; according to this trailer, it's at least partly about interactions between Higashida and David Mitchell, the husband in the couple who translated The Reason I Jump into English. The director made a follow-up doc. for NHK, What You Taught Me About Happiness, in 2017. I've looked online to see whether either of these documentaries are available streaming or on DVD, but no luck. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, this is a very complicated debate, as strong emotions are implicated. One side considers non-speaking autism a tragedy and does not want to believe that these autistic people can have deep insights, whereas the other side also considers autism with intellectual disability to be a tragedy and therefore wants to believe that there is a "normal IQ mind" hidden behind the non-speaking facade. This, by the way, is not neurodiversity, because neurodiversity means accepting people for who they are and recognizing disability, including intellectual disability. From this viewpoint, there is no need to create an illusion of a non-intellectually disabled person trapped inside.
However this intricate discussion, it is not our job as Wikipedia editors to create original research on the matter (WP:NOR). Higashida meets Wikipedia's notability criteria and, therefore, an article about him is justified. Our only task is to present the controversy neutrally while citing reliable sources. LogicalLens (talk) 04:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That video does not show him typing independently, quite the contrary it shows he is being facilitated. Sgerbic (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please link to the research paper whose description of "facilitated" you're drawing on. If, for example, we use this paper by Biklen, Higashida is not being facilitated in that video. FactOrOpinion (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Biklen? Seriously? He sees independent typing everywhere, he is the person who brought FC to America, he has a financial interest in growing FC. Sgerbic (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, seriously, because that very same Biklen paper is a citation in the FC article, and given that he played a key part in disseminating FC in the US, how he defines it is meaningful. I don't have expertise with FC, but I do have expertise with how a definition influences whether a given instance is or isn't an example of the thing being defined. If you think that Biklen's paper is a bad source, you may want to find a better source and replace it in the FC article. As for our discussion here, please introduce a different peer-reviewed article of your choosing that describes what FC is. Until we come to agreement about what FC is and isn't, we're not in a good position to assess whether Higashida's use of a computer and letterboard are/aren't examples of FC. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should find a WP:FRIND source which describes it. Not Biklen. jps (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Go for it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If newspapers said a ghost wrote a book from the afterlife through a medium, and we on Wikipedia were presenting the ghost as being the real author of the book, that would be a WP:FRINGE issue, no? In terms of scientific acceptance FC has about the same level of acceptance as mediumship. And also the moral consideration of attributing words and thoughts and feelings to someone who did not actually say what is in the book... I don't know what the right solution here is but having a biography seems a bad idea. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, the comparison is flawed because a reliable source would never claim that a ghost wrote a book, and in this case, it is possible that he actually wrote the book.
Second, this article currently says: "The Reason I Jump: One Boy's Voice from the Silence of Autism [...] is an autobiography attributed to Naoki Higashida." This is appropriate as it does not claim that he definitely wrote it. LogicalLens (talk) 05:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
>"a reliable source would never claim that a ghost wrote a book"
I have encountered several sources that seemed otherwise reliable on occultist topics that were credulous towards the author's claims that their books were actually written by channeled entities or through mediumship. The science of FC is that of a ouija board.
Yes, the attribution here is fine, but if you're suggesting that we split this off into a whole article, it would not work. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources we cited above state that there are concerns or that he "probably" did not write the book. If it were absolutely conclusive, i.e., journal articles clearly proving that he did not write it, then it would be a different thing.
Why would it not work to include the same attribution in a biography article on him? LogicalLens (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How can you prove that he is not writing the books if he will not be tested? He is using FC which is a known pseudoscience. The citations say he is using FC. Do they really say "probably" or did you say that? Sgerbic (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the sources yourself. Of course, they cannot prove or disprove it. But, as I said, this is a reason to describe the controversy, not to censor his biography. LogicalLens (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there actually a controversy? I don't see many WP:MAINSTREAM professionals arguing that training from FC-related therapies result in any believable communication outcomes. Do you? jps (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) It is not certain that what he used was exactly FC.
2) FC cannot be reliably used, but this does not mean that it cannot work in some cases. LogicalLens (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What makes something "exactly" FC? Are there any sources that say it can work in some cases? If not, is this not just an argument from ignorance? jps (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my response on the other page:[10] LogicalLens (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's the case that "In terms of scientific acceptance FC has about the same level of acceptance as mediumship," but I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise with good evidence. Consider, for example, Fein and Kamio (2014), which is used in the article several times. They don't assert that Higashida is definitely using FC; instead, they say "The process by which Naoki communicates is strikingly reminiscent of 'facilitated communication'..." They also say "In virtually every case [of FC being researched] in which the facilitator was blind to the questions posed to the individual, the individual was unable to answer the questions independently." They don't say "in every case", so the conclusion is that it is possible but unlikely that a given case of FC represents the communication partner's authorship rather than the facilitator's. They don't assert that Higashida is definitely not the author of what he writes; instead, they say "there is sufficient reason to doubt that Naoki is in fact the independent creator of the book's eloquent prose."
As an aside, I think it would be helpful in the FC article to create a table summarizing the results of the various research articles (e.g., authors' names, year of publication, number of subjects, age range of subjects, blind testing or not, results, additional notes). FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well we haven't looked at every case of mediumship, and some people say it happens. So with your logic then Wikipedia should change all articles concerning communication with the dead to say, "It's possible". Some people claim to be able to transport themselves to the moon and back, So is that possible also because they say so? You write, "I don't think it's the case ..." but it isn't you Fact that needs to be convinced, it is the censuses of science that needs to be convinced. In the case of anyone who uses FC or one of it's close cousins, if the claim is they can communicate independently, then there needs to be evidence to a very high standard. The rules of Fringe here on Wikipedia are very clear about this. We don't just get to use "I watched this video and it looks like he is communicating independently" as evidence. Read the entire FC article, there is zero evidence that it is real, it clearly is pseudoscience. Just because RS has not written about every specific person does not mean that they suddenly must be independent. RS can't write about everyone, until there is RS saying that someone is doing so, and the citations are embraced by a scientific censuses, we have to assume that no one has moved from FC to independent communication. Do you understand, it is not a lack of RS for Higashida, it is a lack of RS showing that FC is anything but pseudoscience. And the rules of Fringe apply here on Wikipedia. Sgerbic (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this conversation needs to be discussed on the fringe noticeboard so we can have clarity on the subject.Sgerbic (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted on the fringe theories noticeboard, and hope for more clarity. [Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Naoki Higashida and Facilitated Communication] Sgerbic (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"So with your logic then Wikipedia should change all articles concerning communication with the dead to say, 'It's possible'." Nope, that's not my logic as all; that's you inferring something that I did not imply. I quoted from a peer-reviewed commentary discussing a specific person, Higashida, where the authors question the authorship of The Reason I Jump, explaining their reasoning and leaning towards "he isn't," and where they also purposefully stop short of affirming (1) he's using FC in the video/public lecture they observed, and (2) every instance of FC that's been researched has shown the facilitator to be the author of the messages. It has no implications for communicating with the dead, because there is no non-fringe peer-reviewed paper suggesting that.
"You write, 'I don't think it's the case ...' but it isn't you Fact that needs to be convinced, it is the censuses of science that needs to be convinced." Whether it's me or science depends on what we're talking about. In this case, I said "I don't think it's the case that 'In terms of scientific acceptance FC has about the same level of acceptance as mediumship.'" You can't just cut off the second half of the sentence and then pretend that it's science that needs to be convinced. Can you point out even one peer-reviewed paper in the entire world that suggests "In terms of scientific acceptance FC has about the same level of acceptance as mediumship"? Science isn't interested in comparing FC and mediumship.
"Just because RS has not written about every specific person does not mean that they suddenly must be independent." I agree, nor did I suggest otherwise.
"Do you understand, it is not a lack of RS for Higashida, it is a lack of RS showing that FC is anything but pseudoscience." You're wrong about that. In an article about Higashida, it's the RSs about Higashida that matter, and they have mixed views. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ජපස: I'm going to respond here, as my sense was that Sgerbic didn't want to continue the discussion at her Talk page. Re: how we know that Higashida isn't using FC in Wretches & Jabberers, if you watch it, you'll see that he is not getting any physical support consistent with definitions of FC, and as best I can tell, is not in physical contact. This goes back to what the definition of FC is. If I've understood her correctly, Sgerbic thinks that being within visual cuing range is still FC. But I haven't seen any academic description of FC that says this. (Do you have one? If so, please share it.) Every description I've seen involves physical contact somewhere on an arm/hand: support to a finger, wrist, or forearm, or perhaps touching a shoulder, and some do not include that last one. This video was filmed a few years later, and also shows him communicating with augmentative and alternative communication of a form that is not FC.
To everyone: I was able to find a copy of the NHK documentary that that Vimeo video is an excerpt from, should anyone want to watch. It's mostly in Japanese, though there's a bit in English and a bit in Danish (I think), without English subtitles. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No touch facilitating is common in FC if you want to see it in action you will have to venture over to YouTube and watch the channel FC is Not Science (I can't link to YouTube videos here) but she has many examples of no touch FC and how they are being cued verbally and by visual cues. Sgerbic (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not looking for a self-published Youtube definition of FC. I'm looking for even one peer-reviewed publication that describes FC as including someone within cuing range but who is not touching the autistic person. Do you have a peer-reviewed source that says this? FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so. You are being disingenuous, you suggest we watch a video clip of Higashida and because "YOU" can't spot the cueing then it must be independent typing. To fully understand you need to SEE the example of the cuing and I just gave you the channel from a former facilitator who is showing you the example from the FC community and then explaining it. If you want to continue to argue about a subject you know little about, then look at the content produced by the community that studies this. You are just arguing in circles. Sgerbic (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a) No, I'm not being disingenuous, and you should WP:AGF.
b) I didn't say that he wasn't being cued. I said that he wasn't using FC. You're conflating them. I'm not going to unless/until someone produces a peer-reviewed definition of FC that includes visual cuing without touch.
c) I have looked at some of tthe "content produced by the community that studies this." But that's deflecting from what I asked about. Here it is again: Do you have even one peer-reviewed publication that describes FC as including someone within cuing range but who is not touching the autistic person? I'm certain that you understand the difference between self-published content (even if it's EXPERTSPS) and peer-reviewed literature.
d) As for whether he is or isn't being visually cued, to my knowledge, neither you nor anyone else has produced a video saying something along the lines of "at such-and-such timestamp, you can see Higashida's mother doing abc, which is a cue for Higashida to do xyz." That some other person might be cued is not evidence of Higashida being cued. AFAIK, not a single one of the videos on that Youtube channel includes video of Higashida. But I haven't watched all of them, so if I'm wrong about that, just tell me the specific video to watch. (And if you're wondering how I could have watched anything from that channel in this short amount of time: I'd found that channel a couple of days ago when I was searching online for something, and I watched some and read about the content of some of the others.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they won't test, then it is impossible to do a peer reviewed study. From my friend ... "As far as I know, there is no reliably controlled testing that shows FC within cueing range but who is not touching the autistic person. That's because proponents using the so-called "no-touch" forms of FC refuse to participate in such testing."
"It is frustrating, because proponents know this. The best reports regarding S2C/RPM show no evidence. Schlosser, R.W., Hemsley, B., Shane, H. et al. (2019). Rapid prompting method and autism spectrum disorder: Systematic review exposes lack of evidence. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 6, 403–412. This position statement (which is similar to ASHA's statement) does a good job explaining the situation and why there is enough evidence (from touch-based forms of FC) to raise concerns about S2C/RPM.
https://www.up.ac.za/centre-for-augmentative-alternative-communication/article/2849691/position-statement-on-expressive-methods-of-communication-for-persons-with-limited-speech-that-require-the-input-of-a-trained-supporter
"
Sgerbic (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that you do not know of any peer-reviewed article that defines FC in a way that it includes something without touch. I did not ask about the results of a study. Do you understand what it means just to focus on the definition? That's all I'm asking about: the definition. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are playing word games with me. RPM and S2C are FC which claims to be no-touch. Are you attempting to argue that RPM and S2C are not FC? Sgerbic (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "playing words games" either. I know little about S2C, but my understanding is that it's a kind of RPM. On the other hand, RPM and FC were developed separately, and in the peer-reviewed literature I've looked at, RPM hasn't been described as a kind of FC, or vice versa. When I've looked at systematic reviews of FC, they didn't include research on RPM. If RPM is a kind of FC, then Rapid prompting method should not have a separate article, and should instead be merged into Facilitated communication. RPM and FC are related, but that doesn't make either one a subset of the other (analogy: chimpanzees and bonobos are related, but neither is a sub-species of the other). Do you have a peer-reviewed paper that says that RPM is a subset of FC? FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can discuss merging the two articles at their respective pages. They certainly are closely related. Sometimes, articles are separated due to WP:SPINOUT or WP:CFORK. jps (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Roberts, Breanna, Hardesty, Elizabeth, and Zane, Thomas. (2025). Spelling to Communicate: Is there science behind that? Association for Science in Autism Treatment. --- Schlosser, Ralf W. and Prabhu, Anjali. (2024, February 5). Interrogating Neurotypical Bias in Facilitated Communication, Rapid Prompting Method, and Spelling 2 Communicate Through a Humanistic Lens. Current Developmental Disorders Reports. --- Lang, R., Schlosser, R., and Koul, R. (2023, September 19). Facilitated Communication and its Variants: Evidence in Context. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention. ---- Travers, Jason C. (2020). Rapid Prompting Method is Not Consistent with Evidence-Based Reading Instruction for Students with Autism. Perspectives on Language and Literacy. 31-34. www.DyslexialDA.org ----- Lilienfeld, S., Marshall, J., Todd, J., & Shane, H. (2014). The persistence of fad interventions in the face of negative scientific evidence: Facilitated Communication for autism as a case example. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 8(2) 62-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/17489539.2014.976332 Sgerbic (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to chase down copies to see if they do, in fact, say that RPM is a subset of FC. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first is not peer-reviewed (it's a non-profit newsletter), and they also don't define FC.
  • The second uses the ASHA definition of FC, which in turn is based on Biklen D, Morton MW, Gold D, Berrigan C, Swaminathan S. Facilitated communication: implications for individuals with autism. Top Lang Disord. 1992;12:1–28. https://doi.org/10.1097/00011363-199208000-00003. I thought you didn't want to rely on Biklen for the definition. Also, the article repeatedly refers to "FC and its variants". Variants are things that, while similar, are sufficiently different to merit a different name, and where one variant is not a subset of another variant.
  • The third is an entire issue of a journal with 18 articles; what you had as authors are the editors. Although the first editor has a coauthored article in the issue, and the second editor has a different coauthored article in the issue, there is no article with those three as authors. An aside: it's kind of annoying that you're making me chase these down instead of linking to them yourself. If you'd done that, maybe you'd have noticed that this wasn't an article.
  • The fourth says "Facilitated communication is a method wherein a support person holds the hand, wrist, forearm, etc., of an individual with developmental disability and communication impairments in order to type messages on a keyboard." Doesn't include RPM as a kind of FC.
  • The fifth links to the abstract. I'm fed up with searching right now, especially since these citations don't accomplish what you seem to think. I will look for a copy later. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The second uses the ASHA definition of FC, which in turn is based on Biklen.... I thought you didn't want to rely on Biklen for the definition. If the source is independent and reliable, it's perfectly fine to use. We don't require detailed chain of custody reasoning. We just require WP:Independent sources. jps (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for even one peer-reviewed publication that describes FC as including someone within cuing range but who is not touching the autistic person. [11] Action Projection, crucially, does not require touch. jps (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that describes FC as including someone within cuing range but who is not touching the autistic person. The article says "FC was devised as a therapeutic technique by teacher Rosemary Crossley in the hopes of communicating with people with autism, cerebral palsy, and other disorders that hamper communication. The idea was for a trained facilitator to sit with the impaired person and hold his or her hand at a keyboard." And skimming the paper suggests that the experiments themselves didn't involve FC at all, though they were motivated by problems with FC. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. The paper provides for mechanisms which do not require physical contact. That is all. jps (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what? I did not claim that he wasn't being cued. I did not imply that he wasn't being cued. I have my beliefs about that, but I didn't claim them, because I don't know. Please distinguish between what I actually said and the non-equivalent thing that you and Sgerbic want to equate it to. If what you're really interested in is whether he's being cued and not whether he's using FC, then focus on the former and don't conflate it with the latter. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You did imply that he wasn't being cued. That's what is implied in what I quoted. If you didn't intend to imply that, maybe think about a different way to make your point. jps (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't. I said "Higashida isn't using FC in Wretches and Jabberers." That doesn't imply anything about cuing. That you inferred something about cuing does not mean that I implied it. Maybe think about your own inferences. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that you are either splitting hairs in being pedantic about what constitutes FC or not OR you are implying that cueing is not occurring. You have rejected both interpretations I have offered, so I'm at a loss. jps (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In your work, is it pedantic to distinguish between planets and non-planets? Why is it pedantic to distinguish between FC and not-FC? Making these kinds of distinctions is a routine part of scholarship. It makes no sense to me to turn to scholarship and then ignore what's considered important in scholarship. In all of the research on FC, what did they count as FC? AFAIK, none of those research studies of FC included a test of people who were communicating without physical support. Am I wrong about that? What is the basis for your calling it FC?
To be clear: I do not believe that it is possible to cue someone to create complex sentences in the absence of something like a sign language, so I do not believe that cuing is occurring here, because I do not see any sign language. But I recognize that that is only my belief and is not a fact, so I'm not going to say or imply that it's a fact. If you have a study showing that it is possible to cue several complex, meaningful sentences, I'd love to read that study.
For example, Higashida is shown drawing/painting, using fine motor skills, and after being asked "Naoki, when you're painting, how does it affect you?", he types (on a laptop without word prediction) and then reads aloud "I'm very happy when I draw. It is as if drawing fills holes in my heart. My goal is to paint pictures that go with my writing, so that I can convey my whole world" (again, assuming that the translation from Japanese is accurate). If you're wondering about his being able to read aloud when he cannot speak in a conversation, I mentioned this earlier. He can verbalize and he does so both when reading and when sounding words out with a QWERTY letter set (keyboard or written on a sheet of paper), but my understanding (perhaps wrong) is that he cannot hold onto his train of thought when speaking, so he cannot have normal spoken conversations, and typing allows him to hold onto his train of thought / allows him to come back to his thought if his mind wanders away for minutes, allows him to correct a typed word if he makes a mistake, and he is able to speak typed words aloud pretty fluently, I'm guessing because they tether him sufficiently. Later he types and starts to read "Tracy, me too. That's what I've been looking for. I want to ask you two about what we need to do, so that we can survive for future." "I never had a conversation like this, with people who communicate the way I do. Please count me in the organization" (an organization Tracy proposed). He reads aloud a longer intro to himself at an autism conference at Tokyo University where the text was also projected onto the wall behind him for people to read if they wanted, but I'm not going to type it up right now. I would think that if he were either not reading the text accurately or not producing meaningful text, conference attendees would have noticed and also a review of the movie would have said so.
Wretches and Jabberers is available via several streaming services, including AppleTV and Amazon, and also including Kanopy and Hoopla, which some libraries (including mine) provide free. So you can watch it for yourself if you want. The section that includes Higashida is in the middle of the movie. But the videography of the movie is not aimed at research. It often doesn't show his mother in the frame, it often omits him reading aloud and moves directly to the translator, and so forth. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fact you appear to be very frustrated that researchers/scientists are not publishing slam-dunk studies on FC/RPM/S2C showing how very possible and likely facilitating goes on without touch. I get that. But what you might consider is that researchers/scientists don't continue studying something that they consider pseudoscience, especially when the FC world will not test. Scientists move on to researching possible things that might work, it is not our function here on Wikipedia to tell science what to study or publish on. FC is fringe, it is a pseudoscience and continuing to argue that you saw a video (produced by the FC world) and YOU (who do not work in this field) can't see any cueing, so maybe it is possible is not a good use of time. How many hours have you devoted to this already? (your time is your own, but seriously think about this)
In this multi-part article by Katharine Beals she discusses a pre-trial hearing for a possible FC vs school case. In the article she describes being shocked that the mother agreed to participate in a message passing test. Beals describes that when shown a photo that the mother (who was acting as the facilitator) could not see, the person being facilitated (A.L.) described "sweets with kids". The photo was actually a picture of a tornado approaching a house. [ https://www.facilitatedcommunication.org/blog/spelling-to-communicate-goes-on-trial-part-vii-the-conclusion] After this disaster, the parents decided to drop the case against the school and settled with the district. I'm mentioning this not because it has anything to do with Higashida (it does not) but to show how rare it is that the FC community would agree to any kind of controlled test.
Wretches and Jabberers (which I have seen) is not evidence of anything other than a movie with an agenda to gain views, produced by a company that wasn't testing these individuals, no controls, just trying to sell a story to viewers.
The burden of proof lies firmly in the camp of FC and all it's cousins. With the exception of the Beals article I'm not aware of any current testing that has been done, or will likely to be done. In the Kevin Plantan case, his ex-wife was fine with locking him up in jail for 10 months, but when she was told she would have to prove her daughter was capable of communicating with FC, the mother refused and withdrew. [https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/a-life-shattered-by-pseudoscience/]. Did you read about the Anna Stubblefield case? Watch Tell Them You Love Me or read the Wikipedia article, another case where horrible harm was done when Stubblefield (the facilitator) believed her student was in love with her and sexually harmed him, again ... no testing.
Next year we are going to be dealing with the upcoming documentary for The Telepathy Tapes and this is why I want this sorted out now, we editors need to have a firm background on what FC is because it is going to be a mess over here on Wikipedia with fans wasting our time with vandalism and trying to shift the burden of proof to science ... and to editors to prove that it is not possible that these children are using telepathy to communicate. FactOrOpinion, I hope now that you have a much better understanding of FC that when these attacks come, you will be fighting shoulder to shoulder with editors to fight back against the vandalism. We have a lot more to do here on Wikipedia, I know I sure do and would like to return to that work. This discussion has gone on for far too long and I want to put a fork in it. Are you with me? Sgerbic (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that researchers don't research things they consider pseudoscience (unless they're trying to research practitioners of pseudoscience, the history of pseudoscience, and the like). But any researcher who claims that it is possible to cue someone to type multiple sentences without touch has a burden of proof to show that it's possible. It's that simple. You keep asserting that it's possible, but you haven't presented any evidence that it's possible. ජපස linked to research that it's possible to cue yes/no, which doesn't surprise me at all. But there's a huge gap between cuing yes/no and cuing multiple sentences of the sort that Higashida is typing. You say "The burden of proof lies firmly in the camp of FC and all it's cousins," but what you seem not to understand is that everyone has a burden of proof for their own factual claims. FC folks have a burden of proof for the things they claim, and people like Beals and Boynton have a burden of proof for the things they claim. This is the nature of burden of proof. It is not one-sided unless the other side is mute.
As for "continuing to argue that you saw a video (produced by the FC world)," please produce evidence that the NHK vidoes were produced by "the FC world." I've devoted several hours to this because it interests me. I devoted even more hours to trying to learn about autism, understand the conflict at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Autism and see if there was any way that I could be helpful (I think I mostly failed at that). You do not have to share my interests.
Re: "I'm mentioning this ... to show how rare it is that the FC community would agree to any kind of controlled test," you seem not to get it: what I'm asking for evidence of does not in any way rely on the FC community's participation. Beals could try this out with Boynton (one of them cuing the other), since they both seem to think it's possible to cue complex sentences without touch, where the cues are quite subtle visually. I want them to prove that this is possible.
"Wretches and Jabberers (which I have seen) is not evidence of anything other than a movie with an agenda to gain views" is false. I've carried out research involving videotaped interactions, and you can tell some things from video even when the video was not designed with that thing in mind. That you believe it is impossible for the film to provide any data whatsoever only means that you don't have experience with this kind of research. (And that's fine: just like there are things I do and don't have expertise with, there are things that you do and don't have expertise with, and the same for everyone else.)
If "we editors need to have a firm background on what FC," then a good place to start is with a definition. You cannot have a firm background if you have no way of ruling things in (this is FC) and ruling things out (this is not FC).
No, I'm not ready to put a fork in it. One key sticking point is the one I pointed out above: Beals and Boynton both seem to think it's possible to cue complex sentences without touch and without predictive text, where the cues are quite subtle visually. I want them to prove that this is possible; Beals can cue Boynton or vice versa. Or you try it out with a friend. Let your friend choose a paragraph at random from a book of their choosing, but where you don't know the book, and let your friend try out any subtle cues they want and see if your friend can cue you to type their paragraph on your computer. It would even be fine with me if the two of you discussed the cues ahead of time, even though that's presumably not happening in the FC cases. See if you can do it, and report back. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, you won't put down the stick will you. You want Beals and Boynton to do a test ... for you? These people working with their facilitator take hours and possibly hundreds of hours to get to the point where cueing non-touch looks seamless. The burden of proof is on the FC world, not on Wikipedia editors or even the world of science. Why aren't you getting this? FC is pseudoscience, they are making the claim and THEY WILL NOT TEST. Put down the stick Fact. Sgerbic (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of burden of proof. Every person has a burden of proof for their own factual claims. If Beals makes a claim about FC, she has a burden of proof for it. If someone who promotes FC makes a claim about it, they have a burden of proof for it. If I make a factual claim, I have a burden of proof for it. If you make a factual claim, you have a burden of proof for it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite correct because not all claims are created equal. If I am an advocate of Last Thursdayism and you say, "I dismiss this out-of-hand", the burden of proof is on me... not on you... to explain why an out-of-hand dismissal is or isn't warranted. jps (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say or imply that all claims are created equal. Among other things, I limited my statement to factual claims (more specifically, T/F claims, as contrasted with claims that don't have a truth value, like the opinion "Mozart is the best composer ever"). You didn't say what the first person's claim was, so I can't assess whether it's a factual claim. I'd say that "I dismiss this out-of-hand" is true by virtue of being claimed, at least if you modify it with "right now" and the dismissal is not intended as a joke: you are enacting the dismissal by saying it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Last Thursdayism is correct" is a T/F claim. jps (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. And if your first person made that claim, they'd have a burden of proof to demonstrate it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Telepathy Tapes podcast and associated videos have provided us all with a trove of accounts of complex vocabulary, and in some cases complex sentences, being cued by facilitators. Unless, of course, you accept the Telepathy Tapes' explanation for this phenomenon, which is... telepathy. 2601:47:4A03:B8F0:F766:D206:7BE5:8249 (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In your work, is it pedantic to distinguish between planets and non-planets? Absolutely. jps (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this may distill exactly where our disagreement lies. The real world is mushy and weird and that we can say anything at all about reality is pretty remarkable. Getting caught up in precise definitions and wording is a surefire way to miss forests for trees... and that's what I'm seeing here and calling out as a kind of "pedantry". jps (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really? If you make a statement that's only true of planets, and someone presents a star as a counterexample, you don't say "But that's not a planet"? The real world is not nearly as "mushy" as you seem to think. Mass is not weight. A flower with bilateral symmetry is not a flower with rotational symmetry. Are there some fuzzy boundaries? Sure. But there is no reason to think that the boundary between FC and not-FC is one of them. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This really is the problem. There is no statement I can make that is only true of planets.
There are meaningful distinctions that people make between terms for pedagogical reasons (mass vs. weight) or in formal systems (types of symmetry).
But here you are insisting that nonFC/FC distinctions are definitionally rigid. I am saying any demarcation of what constitutes a kind of "FC" is at best a heuristic in part because it is necessarily separate from contexts like pedagogy and formal systems.
jps (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about astronomy. Given a claim of the form "Our solar system has eight __[plural noun]__ and many more dwarf __[same plural noun]__," what else besides "planets" would make it true?
I don't agree that the distinction between mass and weight is purely pedagogical, or that symmetry is simply part of a formal system, but I'm not going to get distracted arguing either point here. And I doubt that FC is totally separate from pedagogy (people get trained to carry out FC) or formality (people carry out formal research on FC). FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So many options for the fill in the blank! "planetary systems", "local-minimum gravitational potential wells", "main orbital bodies with orbital eccentricities less than 0.25"
If you can point me to a serious researcher who teaches about FC in their classes, that would be really interesting. jps (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way for me to assess what people teach in the absence of their syllabi.
Thanks for giving some examples of other ways that the blank could be filled in and produce a true statement. As I said, I don't know much about astronomy. But when I looked at planetary system just now, the description made me think that "Our solar system has eight planetary systems and many more dwarf planetary systems" would be false. Does the WP statement "The Solar System is an example of a planetary system ..." (singular) need to be corrected? I'll have to figure out where I can learn about "dwarf local-minimum gravitational potential wells," as that phrase doesn't make sense to me. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to belabor the point, but this is exactly why I call your sticking to strict denotation to be pedantic. In some contexts "planetary system" can mean "a system of planets around a star". In other contexts it can mean "the system of objects gravitationally bound to a planet". jps (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that info, though it seems to me that in both cases, one must understand what a planet is in order to make sense of "a system of planets around a star" and "the system of objects gravitationally bound to a planet." I do recognize that a single word or phrase can have more than one meaning, and one has to determine the meaning in context (e.g., "bank," "theory," "literal"). Perhaps "FC" is such a phrase, where it sometimes has a meaning that excludes RPM and other times has a meaning that includes RPM. If so, then anyone who has a good understanding of this phrase is able to determine which meaning is intended when. Are you saying that "facilitated communication" is such a phrase? FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
where it sometimes has a meaning that excludes RPM and other times has a meaning that includes RPM. If so, then anyone who has a good understanding of this phrase is able to determine which meaning is intended when. Are you saying that "facilitated communication" is such a phrase? Yes. jps (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And do you think all knowledgeable users of the phrase "facilitated communication" will agree on the meaning in a given context (as would be the case with knowledgeable users of "bank," "theory," "literal")? In particular, do you believe that all researchers say that Higashida is using FC? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation is going nowhere. It is not important to Wikipedia if we "believe". FactOrOpinion either drop the stick or write the darn article you so badly want to write and we will deal with it then. But you can already see there will be resistance if you write that Higashida has "written" or is independent. Sgerbic (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there is ever any agreement possible among "all knowledgeable users" and "all researchers". Again, the point is that there is an understandable meaning when someone says, "facilitated communication was used" even while it was RPM or some graduated in-the-room-but-not-touching cueing. All I ask is that you show some grace about these different senses and sensibilities. jps (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that all knowledgeable users of the mathematical term/concept of "prime" (for example) agree with each other. I will try to show some grace moving forward, and I ask that you and Sgerbic also show some grace to those of us who want some research evidence that visual cuing of complex sentences is possible. I will work on an article for Higashida, but it will take me some time, and of course I will try to accurately describe those things that are disputed. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because you have not defined "complex sentences" with reliable sources, I have no way to judge what you mean by "visual cuing of complex sentences is possible". jps (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For this purpose, let's use the standard grammatical definition for complex sentence, though I wasn't intending to be that formal. If that's not acceptable to you, just say. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me a citation that is not Wikipedia? jps (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will this work for you? FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Find a linguist or a linguistic anthropologist or a neurolinguist. jps (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why? One of the meanings of "complex sentence" is a purely grammatical one. It's not the one that I initially intended, but it's a good enough proxy. You do not need a linguistic anthropologist or a neurolinguist for a grammar lesson. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Grammar" is not a field of study that makes any claims whatsoever on complexity. Linguistics does on the other hand. jps (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken that "'Grammar' is not a field of study that makes any claims whatsoever on complexity." Just as grammar defines "noun," "verb" and "adjective," it also defines "complex sentence" (see the source I already gave you). In discussing sentence complexity, researchers often refer to grammatical elements. Since you presumably want peer-reviewed or university press citations, here are a few:
  • Diessel, Holger. The acquisition of complex sentences. Vol. 105. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press, 2004. ("Complex sentences are grammatical constructions consisting of multiple clauses. They are commonly divided into two types: sentences including co-ordinate clauses, and sentences including a matrix clause and a subordinate clause," p. 1, and he elaborates later in the book)
  • Balthazar, Catherine H., and Scott, Cheryl M. "Targeting complex sentences in older school children with specific language impairment: Results from an early-phase treatment study." Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 61.3 (2018): 713-728. ("A number of grammatical features contribute to sentence complexity; these include embedding/subordination, word order variations, and long-distance dependencies as found in wh-object questions or object relative clauses," p. 713) The same authors give a longer discussion in another paper, starting on p.18)
  • Lust Barbara, Foley, Claire, and Dye, Cristina D. The first language acquisition of complex sentences. In: Bavin, E.L. (Ed.) The Cambridge handbook of child language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp.237-258. ("The term ‘complex sentence’ generally describes all sentences which are not ‘simple’ sentences. It traditionally covers all cases where more than a single clause is involved, as in sentential coordination (e.g. Mary dances and Anne sings), adverbial subordinate clause adjunction (e.g. Anne dances when Mary sings), and cases where some form of sentence-internal clausal embedding is involved as in sentence complementation (e.g. [Mary claims [that Anne wrote a book]]) or relativization (e.g. [Mary reads the book [that Anne wrote]]) (brackets display the multi-clausal factor). This descriptive characterization is not fully valid however. Sentences with non-clausal coordination (e.g. Mary and Anne wrote a book) or various forms of nominal and verbal embedding or adjunction (e.g. the enemy’s destruction of the city) fall between ‘simple’ and ‘complex’ categories. In fact any ‘simple’ sentence which involves an operation, such as question formation, implicitly involves a relation between distinct clausal variations." p. 237)
Depending on their role, the words "yes" and "no" can be sentence fragments, simple sentences with implicit noun and verb, or interjections. As you can see from the descriptions above, they are not complex sentences. Are the sources above sufficient? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Now show me where it is demonstrated that such sentences cannot be prompted through cueing or conditioning as you contended. jps (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't contend that. Please do quote where you think I I contend that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you didn't contend that. I guess, then, that we don't need to be having this discussion. jps (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing. You ask me for a demonstration of something I didn't claim, but you do not ask Sgerbic for a demonstration of something she did claim, like "That video [filmed in 2014 by Japanese public TV] ... shows he is being facilitated.” Notice that (a) this implies a claim that it's possible to visually cue someone to type complex sentences without word prediction or to sound out complext sentences, and (b) she doesn't cite a secondary source to back up her claim. As far as I know, there is none. Sgerbic said as much on Talk:Ido Kedar: "I do not know of any FC controlled trials that tested visual cuing." She simply assumes it's occurring. Also notice that the null hypothesis in this case is that it's not possible.
And if you misinterpret this as me asserting something like "such sentences cannot be prompted through cueing or conditioning as you contended," no, what I'm asserting is that I think this is a situation with an unknown truth-value, so I'm not going to act as if the truth value is known. And I wish the two of you could also accept that the truth-value is unknown. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Unknown" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Not unlike the guy who said that the chances of CERN ending the world were 50/50 because either it would or it wouldn't. jps (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quite unlike that guy, since I haven't given any odds and wouldn't calculate them that way.
I'm baffled by your response. It's central in science to distinguish among true, false, and has an unknown truth-value. Is it really that uncomfortable to say "we don't know"? FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mistake the existence of any uncertainty with a complete lack of knowledge. However, the best sources we have on the subject of FC-related claims push the scales down in favor of likely not evidence of communication. Got it? jps (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"You mistake the existence of any uncertainty with a complete lack of knowledge." What total BS. I'm well aware that some things are uncertain but likely and other things are unknown but unlikely. And yet others are sufficiently unknown that we don't even have a good way to gauge likelihood. I don't understand it: it's as if you and Sgerbic have this caricature of me in your minds, and you'd rather disagree with your caricature than have a discussion with the actual person I am. You and Sgerbic have both admitted that you know of no research (none!) that supports it being possible to visually cue the creation of complex sentences in the absence of a sign language. On a scale of 1-99 (almost certainly false to almost certainly true), where would you rate the likelihood that it's possible to visually cue the creation of complex sentences in the absence of a sign language? FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you know of no research (none!) that supports it being possible to visually cue the creation of complex sentences in the absence of a sign language because this is an extravagant ask as there has been no controlled demonstration of the production of complex sentences. The null hypothesis is that this is a learned response to a prompt. Whether it is visually cued or otherwise conditioned is not something we can interrogate because there was no test done! No, originally researched interpretations of videos that you think you have special insight into do not count. jps (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The null hypothesis is that this is a learned response to a prompt." What is the referent of "this"? (For example, is it something like "all production of complex sentences in the absence of a sign language"?) Also, re: the null hypothesis, Sgerbic's claimd (again) was "That video [filmed in 2014 by Japanese public TV] ... shows he is being facilitated,” that is, that Higashida's mother is authoring the text/speech in that video (fine by me to say either "visually cued or otherwise conditioned"). Seems to me that the null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between the variables (his mother's actions there and his production of that text/speech). Maybe you and I have different variables in mind? What are you calling the variables here? FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This" refers to all claims of unprompted or uncued communication. jps (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Seems to me that which is the claim and which is the null hypothesis depends on the claim. We have two claims and two null hypotheses:
For a claim is that unprompted or uncued communication is occurring, you say that the null hypothesis is: this is a learned response to a prompt.
For Sgerbic's claim "That video [filmed in 2014 by Japanese public TV] ... shows he is being facilitated," I say that the null hypothesis is: his mother's actions aren't cuing or prompting his production of text and spoken sounds/words.
Are we on the same page that these are the two claims + corresponding null hypotheses?
As for it being "an extravagant ask" to show that it's possible to visually cue the creation of complex sentences in the absence of a sign language, I don't think it's so extravagant to ask that two non-autistic people show it's possible to do this, where the sentences are produced in response to questions over which the pair have no control (clearly it's possible for someone to visually prompt a previously learned response, but it's harder to show that is would be appropriately responsive to a question over which one has no control). FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have that detailed of accounting here because, crucially, there is no test presented so there is no hypothesis to test. The last time someone tested the claim that FC/RPM-related communication was possibly representative of some communicative agency on the part of the autistic person, the result was consistent with a response in the negative. In that sense, the null hypothesis was not rejected. Since then, no tests have been done, so that null hypothesis still stands. I am unwilling to go further than that because there is no controlled study that has happened. Everything else is essentially "noise" as far as I'm concerned. jps (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely limited by my insufficient knowledge of this research literature, and my insufficient knowledge about autism more generally. For example, today I read an article by Hari Srinivasan, a minimally-speaking autistic man who uses a text to speech application and seems to be accompanied by an aide at least part of the time (but I don't know if it's all the time). He pointed out that autism researchers have a significant sampling bias, oversampling "the same, narrow band of what are considered the easily 'researchable autistics,'" but then expecting findings/applications/interventions to apply to all autisitc people, where the exclusionary criteria include things like IQ cut-offs, not being able to sit still, and having a complex combination of autism issues (for him: ADHD, "somatosensory and sensorimotor dysregulation challenges, OCD, mood regulation issues, social anxiety, and allergies"). I'd thought a bit about the sampling in the FC studies, but this particular issue was one I had never considered. Not sure whether you'd say that Srinivasan, currently a neuroscience doctoral student, is in the same category as Higashida.
Have we reached the end of our discussion? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Srinivasan article is fine, but looks to be entirely irrelevant to our discussion, so if that's where you're headed, perhaps we have no more to discuss, indeed. jps (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see it as potentially relevant in two ways: (1) whether the FC controlled trials included high-IQ non-speaking/minimally speaking subjects, and (2) whether you'd put Srinivasan in the same category as Highashida (in the only video I've seen of him typing, there was an aide next to him, mostly off-screen), and if not, what the difference is for you. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(1) How does one measure IQ independent of communication? If you are alleging an unintentional bias in the controlled studies' sampling of test subject, I guess you would have to interrogate those studies directly. But this would have to be done independent of Wikipedia.
(2) I see no sources which indicate that Srinivasan was ever subject to FC-like interventions. Nor do I see any sources questioning his communication. Do you? I go by sources that discuss the issue at hand. I don't go by video watching or perceived similarities to other videos.
jps (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(1) There must be some way to measure IQ independent of communication, since several of the FC studies in Mostert's 2001 review identified their subjects as "mentally retarded."
(2) I just took a look, and Katherine Beals wrote "This last message [from Grant Basko] is part of a more concerning trend: FCed messages that call on researchers to include FCed individuals as research collaborators. Other FCed messages along these lines are found in a recent commentary in Time Magazine, attributed to Hari Srinivasan, entitled Who Autism Research Leaves Out. ..." I don't see why she'd characterize anything in that column as "FCed messages" (and use "attributed" rather than "written") unless she thinks it was written using FC. (FWIW, I didn't know that she'd commented on that column when I linked to it above.) This interview says that he was initially trained by Janna Woods via "supported typying." She identified herself as teaching FC. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are at the point now where your inquiries go well beyond what we are equipped to handle at Wikipedia. You need to inquire directly to Beals or Mostert to find out what the answers to your questions are or encourage the creation of sources which pose relevant arguments. But these questions of yours, having no comparable alignment with independent sources that I can find, are not something we can work with on Wikipedia. jps (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

I've now skimmed that paper a bit more, and I'll just say that I think there's a big difference between communicating yes/no and having a conversation with someone using complex sentences. Can that be cued? I don't know. Do you know of any research showing that it can? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "complex sentence"? jps (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly want to check the movie out again and then transcribe it, but this different video excerpt has a bit, so you can judge for yourself. (I'm going to trust that the English translation is accurate; I'm not sure how to find an active Japanese-speaking editor to help.) From what I understand, he's using a Roman alphabet to sound out Japanese words because he finds it easier to deal with only 26 letters instead of the larger number of symbols he'd need for kanji. He also uses a QWERTY keyboard on his laptop, which then transliterates the syllables into kanji. No word prediction. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not judge for myself. I want a reliable source which makes this distinction. jps (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable source that makes a distinction between yes/no and (series of) complex sentence(s)? Why would anyone need to say "a series of sentences like 'I'm very happy when I draw. It is as if drawing fills holes in my heart. My goal is to paint pictures that go with my writing, so that I can convey my whole world' is a lot more complex than yes/no" for you to conclude that those sentences are a lot more complex than yes/no? Truly: in the absence of a sign language, and without predictive text, please propose a means of cuing someone to type those sentences with a QWERTY keyboard. Do you think his mother is cuing "type I, space, A, M, space, V, E, R, Y ..." and that he can read it aloud without understanding what it says? Do you think he's going to read aloud his mother's words over and over without wanting to say anything himself and being able to do so? If he understands the letters well enough to follow these "cues" and well enough to read, how is it that he doesn't understand these letters well enough to spell himself?
And even if you want a source making this distinction, I encourage you to watch anyway, so at least you understand in more detail what I am saying. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a source which makes the same distinction you do, or even approximates it, that will suffice. jps (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After you answer what I asked: Why would anyone need to say "a series of sentences like 'I'm very happy when I draw. It is as if drawing fills holes in my heart. My goal is to paint pictures that go with my writing, so that I can convey my whole world' is a lot more complex than yes/no" for you to conclude that those sentences are a lot more complex than yes/no? FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nah... I'm interested in sources, not debate. jps (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to look up specific citations, but as a start, you could look at discussions of how the acquisition of language progresses in young children. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've demonstrated above that you have not investigated the linguistic implications of your language arguments close enough to be opining here. It is concerning that you won't provide sources. I suspect you have none. jps (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my response to you above. I didn't think that you'd need academic sources for this, but clearly I was mistaken. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if you watch it, you'll see that he is not getting any physical support consistent with definitions of FC, and as best I can tell, is not in physical contact. Sorry. Given the fraud, confirmation bias, and motivated reasoning swirling about in this topic, "as best I can tell" and "if you watch it" isn't good enough confirmation of anything. We have documentation of people being cued without physical contact, after all. jps (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But my claim was not about whether he was being cued. Here's what I said: Higashida isn't using FC in Wretches and Jabberers. Again: every description I've seen involves physical contact somewhere on an arm/hand: support to a finger, wrist, or forearm, or perhaps touching a shoulder, and some do not include that last one. And that simply isn't occurring in the film. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are splitting hairs here. The goal of FC/RPM practitioners is to get further and further away from the person in settings where the communication is meant to be demonstrated to outsiders. This is a well-documented practice. jps (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
E.g.. They admit that this is their goal. The problem is, of course, that the person that is supposedly communicating don't do well in controlled settings where the tutor is absent. This is the only real way to remove that bias, but this kind of testing is refused by FC/RPM practitioners. jps (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that Higashida ever used FC; I'd have to see if I can find more info about his early training. He isn't using FC in any video I've seen (and I've now watched several, from different years and in at least three different settings: home, presentation in Tokyo, presentation in NYC). Has anyone ever asked Higashida whether he'd participate in a controlled trial? Has he actually refused? FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, ask his facilitator? Sgerbic (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean ask him. He's able to understand speech, and he's an adult. He can make the decision for himself. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to right great wrongs, but we can see from the sources that there is considerable controversy over what is actually being presented in these demonstrations. jps (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which "demonstrations" and sources are you referring to? FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any video or report of communication. jps (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've referred you multiple times to video of communication. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand me. The videos and reports of the same are demonstrations. From sources that discuss this sort of thing, it is clear there is considerable controversy over what precisely is being presented in them. jps (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Doesn't do well" is being kind jps. Sgerbic (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a real problem with this entire subject. The fact that the believers in FC/RPM-type interventions stopped going to independent, academic evaluators to verify communication casts a pall on the entire endeavor. This means that even if there was a person who potentially was a counterexample, it's likely not going to be known. jps (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not splitting hairs. The meanings of words matter. If I made a claim about bonobos, and you said "that's not true," and you then gave a counterexample that involved chimpanzees rather than bonobos, I'd point out that your so-called counterexample isn't actually a counterexample, because chimpanzees aren't bonobos. I made a specific claim: Higashida isn't using FC in Wretches and Jabberers. My claim is true. If you metamorphosize it into a claim that's not limited to FC, then maybe it would be true, but it wouldn't be my claim. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's absolutely not how we resolve things here. You know that, I think. We aren't here to engage in formalized debate. We are here to discuss what actually is seen in the sources. What we see in the sources is that FC/RPM practitioners move away from the people they are "tutoring" in demonstrations they offer to media (mostly, they now avoid independent researchers completely) of supposed communication. But the media are not equipped to decide the bar has been met in the same way that, for example, James Randi was sent by Nature (magazine) to go to Jacques Benveniste's lab and show that he had deluded himself into believing in water memory effects. Simliar to n rays. This is the standard for demonstration, not the other way around.
In other words, we just don't take people at their words for WP:ECREE scenarios.
jps (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but when you ask me about how I know that my own claim is true (me: "Higashida isn't using FC in Wretches and Jabberers," you in response: "How do we know this?"), that's is indeed about my meaning. I don't know what sources you're referring to, and I'm not taking anyone at their word other than the translators (where I have no choice because I do not read/speak Japanese — if you know an editor who speaks Japanese, we can ask them to check the translation). FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not do original research. But for my own curiosity I am going to ask for a translator to tell me what he is saying. Not for use here obviously. Just FYI Sgerbic (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great. And OR is allowed outside of mainspace, and is even common for some things, like the RSN.
FWIW, it was interesting to me to watch the 6 min. excerpt with English translation and then see that same segment in the context of the full hour (mostly in Japanese, no translation, but still interesting to me to watch), in part because the Japanese version (here, I'd intended to link to it above but looks like I forgot) has the kanji syllables appearing as subtitles as he's sounding out the words, presumably to make it easier for people to follow. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
N.b. In general, when I ask how we know something is true, I want an WP:Independent source. jps (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I don't know why Beals, for example, hasn't said anything about all of the videos of Higashida other than to note that his mother is within cuing distance. Why hasn't she done an analysis of a video of Higashida and his mother like she did with Kedar and his mother? As best I can tell, she has never addressed in writing the differences between the videos of Kedar and those of Higashida (e.g., Higashida is able to read his typed text aloud, he isn't using predictive text, he is often sounding words out as he types or points, differences in the mother's body language). Do you know of anything she's written that really addresses Higashida and cueing other than "There is, however, no evidence that any of the above-cited individuals is able to communicate without a facilitator within cueing range"? She doesn't even say what evidence did she investigated before making this claim, nor to my knowledge, has she ever provided any evidence that a facilitator can communicate complex sentences even with someone who is literate and verbal (e.g., that she can do this with Janyce Boynton). FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Beals addresses Higashida's readaloud skills here. https://www.facilitatedcommunication.org/blog/the-reason-i-jump-self-promotion-trumps-intellectual-honesty-part-ii
We've also seen this sort of thing before with other facilitated kids--the ability to read letters and words out loud after they've been cued, as well as an entire transcript of what they've spelled out after the fact. The ability to name letters and sound out words (aka hyperlexia) doesn't require actual comprehension, and hyperlexia is common in autism, including in nonverbal autism.
The fact that some of these kids can pronounce what they type is actually problematic for those who try to justify FC. That's because it raises questions about why these kids need to type at all: why can't they just speak? The answer, of course, is that speech can't be cued the way typing is. Unfortunately, all the evidence indicates that these kids have very low comprehension levels and can't independently produce much meaningful language. 2601:47:4A03:B8F0:F766:D206:7BE5:8249 (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Beals says “What has inspired Mitchell’s revelation about autism is a single book of questionable authenticity: Naoki Higashida’s The Reason I Jump. … drawing on his single, highly questionable source (the book he helped translate) …” She is willfully ignorant, as Mitchell has made it abundantly clear that it was not solely the book that inspired his belief. She says “all videos of Higashida,” but she cannot be bothered to identify what videos she has watched, and I personally doubt that she attempted to find all of the videos of him; she certainly doesn't describe how she went about finding them. As a start, did she contact Fein and Kamio and get a copy of the DVD they used in 2014? She claims “FC doesn’t require physical contact. Thus, the newer versions of FC—Rapid Prompting Method and Spelling to Communicate—are still FC,” but she doesn't bother to define FC so that there is a way of assessing (independently of her personal views) whether something is/isn’t FC. She says “Mitchell neglects to explain why Higashida can fluently read what he has typed—but only after he has typed it out,” but she fails to consider whether it's true that Higashida can only fluently read what he has typed, and how she tested that he is unable to read books by others, emails from others, etc. I'll stop here. Yes, Mitchell has his blind spots. So do I. So do you. So does Beals. The difference is: Mitchell is not talking about his area of expertise, but she is. She should not be making some of these mistakes that a researcher would easily avoid. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really trying to impeach a source by the one expert we have considered here? If an expert says of a claim, "This is wrongo bongo." ours is not to decide to say that they didn't do the takedown in the right way. We say, "The expert said, 'it is wrongo bongo.'" jps (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a source says something demonstrably untrue (as with Beals' claim that the sole source of Mitchell's inspiration is the book The Reason I Jump), or asserts multiple things as true when their actual truth-value is unclear and needs justification, it impeaches itself. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. There is nothing "demonstrably untrue" in the source. Your opinion that it is "untrue" is based on your own misunderstanding. That's fine, but we can't move forward with article writing or editorial principles if you won't admit that your opinion about this being "demonstrably untrue" is your opinion and not an objective fact. jps (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's demonstrably untrue that “What has inspired Mitchell’s revelation about autism is a single book of questionable authenticity: Naoki Higashida’s The Reason I Jump." If someone asserts "there was a single inspiration for X" when X was actually inspired by a combination of things (not any one of them), then the claim "there was a single inspiration for X" is false. What do you think I've misunderstood? For the record, I'm quite committed to acknowledging that I've made a mistake when I believe that I've made a mistake; just convince me. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are taking statements too literally again. You are complaining, I surmise, that Mitchell has things other than the book upon which he is basing his evaluations. But an equally valid reading of Beals is that when they say "single book" they are speaking with synecdoche about claims from those responsible for the book. jps (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But Mitchell's clear that it's not just the book + claims from those responsible for the book either. Beals could know that just from the Hill-Mitchell interview that Beals was responding to, at least if she bothered to listen to the entire interview. I suspect that she didn't listen to it, as all of the quotes come from the written excerpts (even including the bracketed text added by the interviewer or her editor) and none from the rest of the interview. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a whole lot of assuming and WP:OR on your part. Thumbing your nose at experts like this is not a good luck. jps (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OR is allowed outside of mainspace. "I suspect" = "I hypothesize," not "I assume." Beals has expertise that I lack, but the converse is also true. Her analysis of the interview isn't a skilled analysis. It's also surprising that she made absolutely no mention of what he said about FC. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to show me anything that indicates the converse is true. I'm thinking even a blogpost where someone identifies how their expertise complicates Beals. If you don't have that, I'm just going to go ahead and dismiss your opinion as WP:PROFRINGE. jps (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a normal setting, I'd share some of my published work, but I don't actually care to identify myself on WP. When I have time, I'll give an example of more expert analysis of some of the Kim-Mitchell interview, though I'm not keen to listen to the whole thing again. I don't know what you mean by "complicates Beals" (was that a typo?). I'm not pro-fringe. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just asking for a source and not your opinion. "Complicates Beals" was not a typo. jps (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then I don't understand. I said "Beals has expertise that I lack, but the converse is also true," i.e., the converse is "I have expertise that Beals lacks." You responded "Feel free to show me anything that indicates the converse is true," i.e., "Feel free to show me anything that indicates ['I have expertise that Beals lacks'] is true." There is no source that is going to compare me with her. The only option is for me to show you that I have expertise that she lacks. If you interpreted "converse" in some other way, just clarify what you meant. And given that I told you "I don't know what you mean by 'complicates Beals,'" I'd appreciate your explaining. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have found no example of any expertise backing up your belief. You are not a good enough source to attest to your expertise. Beals has expertise. jps (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The people who've drawn on my work attested to my expertise. And I offered to demonstrate some of my expertise here, in analyzing more of the interview. But if you're not interested, OK. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to consider any source you provide. jps (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that you are a notable expert on a subject that pertains to this discussion? Or just some general expertise in some other subject? Are you holding back on us? Do you have a Wikipedia article here somewhere we should know about? And if you do have expertise do you also have a COI? Please explain. Sgerbic (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that I've published peer-reviewed work using interview (and other) data, and that's relevant to my claim that "it's demonstrably untrue that “What has inspired Mitchell’s revelation about autism is a single book of questionable authenticity: Naoki Higashida’s The Reason I Jump." I have neither a WP article (nor would I want one) nor a COI. The sole reason that it came up here is because of Beals making that false claim about Mitchell based on the Kim-Mitchell interview, and some other sloppiness in her column. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still not understanding ... what do you mean you have published peer-reviewed work using interview? You claim to have an expertise that is unknown, but you keep telling us that you have testimonials and you say you want to demonstrate your expertise. How are you going to do that when we don't know who you are. If you aren't going to tell us, then why do you keep bringing it up? Sgerbic (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that researchers gather and analyze diverse kinds of data, some researchers gather and analyze data from interviews, interview data is among the kinds of data I've used in my research, and I've published peer-reviewed articles involving analysis of this data. The Kim-Mitchell interview was not a research interview, but one can still analyze it as a researcher. I don't "want to demonstrate" my expertise. I'm willing to, but not by publicly identifying myself. And if you simply stopped asking me for more info about my background, we could draw this to a close. I'll remind you that "Comment on content, not on the contributor" is part of WP:TPG#YES. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but YOU brought it up and then keep bringing it up. So you have published analyzing interviews and now you think that you have the expertise to spend ... what are we on now ... tens of thousands of words since August 9th, and before that if I remember correctly ... that you are going to analyze and research this topic to prove that FC might NOT be pseudoscience. Do you not see how condescending that is to other editors? To all the experts who have been researching FC for decades? How you have an agenda and are dealing in original research to prove your point? The fact is that you are responding in minutes after each post, probably feeling attacked because you seem to be obsessing over this topic. I strongly suggest you pick another topic or take some time away from the computer. This attention does not seem healthy. Sgerbic (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I brought it up in response to this comment from ජපස yesterday, and only because he raised the issue of expertise in response to my having noted Beals' false claim about Mitchell. It's total BS that I "keep bringing it up." It would have been limited to my one response to ජපස had the two you not pursued it, demanding that I prove that I actually have this expertise.
"you think ... that you are going to analyze and research this topic to prove that FC might NOT be pseudoscience"
That's a total figment of your imagination. I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but it's not true. Glad we sorted that out. If that is the lens through which you've been interpreting all of my comments, you've been misinterpreting them.
"Do you not see how condescending that is to other editors?" Do you not see that you're projecting garbage onto me and then pretending that I'm responsible for your false projection? Stop it.
I don't value advice from someone who has projected garbage onto me, and I again encourage you to "Comment on content, not on the contributor." FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the opening paragraphs from the Hill-Mitchell interview:
"When author David Mitchell's son was diagnosed with autism at three years old, the British author and his wife Keiko Yoshida felt lost, unsure of what was happening inside their son’s head.
In an effort to find answers, Yoshida ordered a book from Japan written by non-verbal autistic teenager Naoki Higashida. Entitled The Reason I Jump, the book was a revelation for the couple who gained a deeper understanding into their son’s behaviours.
The pair went on to translate the book into English, and it has since inspired a documentary film of the same name, following the daily experience of five people with non-verbal autisms.
Mitchell is the author of Cloud Atlas, The Bone Clocks, Number9Dream, Utopia Avenue and more.
He told Kim Hill that Higashida's book has highlighted the mismatch between how society boxes people with autism, and their capacity.
"It revealed to me that primarily autism is a communicative disorder, not a cognitive one. That it is always best and most helpful to assume competence. That even in the case of a non-verbal autistic person, what is going on in their heads is as imaginative and enlightened as what is going on in a neurotypical person's head.
"The old myths of autism - meaning that the autistic person hasn't got emotions or has no theory of mind, or doesn't get that there are other people in the world that have minds like they do - these are exactly that; myths, pernicious and unhelpful myths, that exacerbate the problem of living with autism in a neurotypical world."
You can read the rest here, and judge for yourself whether David Mitchell mentions any other sources for his view of autism other than Higashida: https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/2018805360/david-mitchell-new-documentary-a-window-into-non-verbal-autism 2601:47:4A03:B8F0:F766:D206:7BE5:8249 (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not notice that there is a ~42 minute audio accompanying the written excerpts?!? I'm talking about the entire interview, not the written excerpts. Which is why I said "if she bothered to listen to the entire interview." FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any source which mirrors your critique? Any at all? jps (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anyone else GAF about what Beals self-published about Mitchell in 2021 based on an interview he gave? A Google search indicates that the only person who mentions that Beals column is a single person participating in a subreddit r/Autism_Parenting discussion, plus another blog that simply copied Beals' column without comment. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's sorta been my point all along. Beals is the end of the line. That's who should get the last word. jps (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She's the end of the line for you. She is not the end of the line for me. I always feel free to note that someone has made a false statement — presumably though error here, rather than intentionally, but still indicative of not having been careful enough with the relevant evidence. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have no source which identifies a false statement, we're done here. jps (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to think that it's not possible to convince person A that person B is wrong, absent a source saying so. Interesting. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering how many words have been spilled on this topic I think continuing it would become a part-time career. Sgerbic (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that moving the page to Naoki Higashida would make sense, regardless of whether he wrote the books or what it is appropriate to say in wikivoice about whether he wrote the books. Since we've included both The Reason I Jump and Fall Down 7 Times, and we've included a lot of information about his authorship, I think Naoki Higashida is the most appropriate title, and then the current title should redirect to Naoki Higashida. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just replaced the Naoki Higashida redirect with an article. It draws on content from the earlier article (the article that existed before it was partially merged, partially deleted, and turned into the redirect), but I tried to improve it significantly (more fully sourced, and additional content). I hope that others will now improve it further. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.