Mixing Misinformation with Magical Thinking: Thoughts about the Telepathy Tapes (Episode 8)

Telepathy Tapes ReviewFC in the Media
Written By Janyce Boynton

Today’s blog post is a review of Episode 8 of the Telepathy Tapes. I’ve put links of the reviews I’ve done of Episodes 1-7 in the References and Recommended Reading list below.

Image by Almos Bechtold

If there was any doubt about host Ky Dicken’s stance regarding Facilitated Communication (FC) or telepathy, this episode clearly delineates between any skepticism she expressed at the beginning of the series and the pseudoscientific, anti-scientific stance she takes in this episode. In many ways, Dicken’s credulous journey into the belief system that is FC epitomizes the path many parents, educators, and reporters have taken before her. She may have started out thinking she was “scientific” in her approach to investigating FC and telepathy in nonspeaking individuals with autism, but she, like many before her, appears to have fallen into a trap of believing that she knows more than the experts do about autism, about test design, about the dangers of FC, and about telepathy. None of the experts she’s invited to speak on the Telepathy Tapes podcast disagree with her stance that the facilitator-dependent techniques being featured (e.g., FC/S2C/RPM) produce independent communication or that nonspeaking individuals with autism have telepathic abilities.

For someone like me who went down a similar path of believing in FC (but not telepathy), it’s painful to listen as she becomes more entrenched in her belief and more evangelistic about it. Her heart is in the right place (I think) but wow, wow, wow is she misguided. I eventually learned the truth about FC when I participated in reliably controlled authorship testing (just like hundreds of others—see Controlled Studies and Systematic Reviews) and stopped using the technique, so I empathize with Dickens’ (and others’) journey into self-delusion about the technique. But, good intentions and belief in FC/S2C/RPM doesn’t make it right to subject vulnerable people to a technique that was discredited by the scientific community some 30+ years ago.

We’ve already learned in the previous episodes that Dickens makes no distinction between anecdotes and testimonials and rigorously controlled authorship studies. While anecdotes and testimonials in and of themselves are not good or bad, they are not evidence. Most, if not all the claims being made in the Telepathy Tapes fall into the “anecdote” category. In Episode 8, for example, we’re told that

  • A parent can hear her child’s unspoken thoughts telepathically (confirmed only via FC-generated messages and the parent’s say-so).

  • A child, who appears to have savant abilities in music, shows up as an apparition in his mother’s dreams to compose music with her. She thinks of the lyrics and melody and teaches it to him the next day. He can sing but supposedly can’t talk. Why does he just sing the songs to his mother in real life?

  • A child (via FC) via spells words in languages other than his/her native language. It would be interesting to know whether the facilitators involved with these children know the languages. What would happen if, for example, a facilitator who only knew English facilitated the child. Could the child then type (via FC) in Spanish, French, Hebrew or the like?

  • A child (via FC) can relay information that (purportedly) the facilitator does not know. Facilitators make this claim all the time, but it’s common for facilitators to share information with family members or other facilitators and for the facilitator not remember having heard the information. This is an extremely poor and unreliable way to “prove” independent communication. What would happen if the facilitator and child participated in reliably controlled testing where the facilitator was blinded to test stimuli (e.g., pictures, words, random numbers) but the child was not?

Dr. Howard Shane from Boston Children’s Hospital conducts a controlled test to determine authorship in Facilitated Communication (from Prisoners of Silence, 1993).

I’ve talked about other claims in my previous blog posts, but hopefully, you get my point. Basically, these stories, though interesting, can be explained by the fact that the children are being facilitated by a parent or teacher who knows or believes they know what their child is thinking. Of course, the nonspeaking individual has very few resources to confirm or deny the words being generated on their behalf. Facilitators take compliant behavior (often learned after weeks or months of practice) as proof the words are coming from their child or client when, likely, the FCed individual has abdicated control over to the facilitator. (See Abdication Patterns in FCed individuals) And, while proponents of FC (in all its variant forms) believe that FC-generated messages are “independent,” the reliably controlled testing done primarily in the 1990s showed that the facilitators were the authors of the messages, not those being subjected to the technique.

I believe 2014 was the last authorship study designed specifically to rule in or rule out letter selection. (See Saloviita, 2014). After that, facilitators have aggressively avoided testing authorship using this test design and claimed they have to be in the same room with their client for “support” (despite claims that their telepathic abilities cross the boundaries of space and time). In addition, I’m told, facilitators are now saying it’s against their “code of ethics” to test for authorship which, IMO, is a huge load of hooey. Facilitators have the conviction of their beliefs to (falsely) accuse people of abuse based on FC-generated messages, but would rather drop the charges than participate in reliably controlled authorship testing in a court room setting. I find that behavior by the facilitators quite distasteful. (See When nothing else works: Blaming the scientific method instead of the pseudoscience)

Researchers at the O.D. Heck Center in Schenectady, NY conducted one of the first reliably controlled tests of their Syracuse-trained facilitators in 1993. All of the answers were based on pictures the facilitators saw, not on pictures their clients saw. (See Wheeler et al., 1993) (Image from Prisoners of Silence, 1993)

I should point out, too, that the 1990s tests often involved facilitators who were equally sincere about the efficacy of the technique as the facilitators being featured on the Telepathy Tapes. Most authorship tests were not conducted because of abuse allegations but because the professionals wanted to understand who was controlling the letter selection. These educators and, in some cases, parents, agreed to the testing because they thought the tests would prove what they believed—that their students were communicating independently. Many of the facilitators who participated in the early reliably controlled studies were either trained at Syracuse University or trained by the university’s “master trainers” in workshops throughout the United States. But, despite all efforts to create naturalistic testing situations using test stimuli (e.g., words, pictures) familiar to the clients, the testing consistently and reliably showed that FC messages were facilitator authored. These tests, cumulatively, involved hundreds of facilitator/client pairs and thousands of trials. How many times does a test have to be replicated before proponents believe the results?

Dickens rails against the American Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA) in this episode for their stance against FC as well as its variant forms, Spelling to Communicate (S2C) and Rapid Prompting Method (RPM). Just to be clear, ASHA isn’t against spelling. It's against facilitator-dependent techniques, like FC/S2C/RPM, that have no reliably controlled evidence to prove communication independence in their users. ASHA’s willing to revisit this issue if proponents can show reliably controlled proof of their claims. The onus is on supporters of FC/S2C/RPM to demonstrate the validity of their techniques. I’ve linked articles regarding ASHA’s position against these methods below.

Note: ASHA is not the only organization opposing FC/S2C/RPM. See Opposition Statements for more information.

Joe from Arizona seems to be Dicken’s “expert” on S2C and RPM even though, based on a description of the jobs he’s held (as a lawyer and “special needs” minister), he doesn’t appear to have any formal training in the speech and language remediation of individuals with autism. He was introduced to the podcast in Episode 7 and appears again in Episode 8 claiming that S2C and RPM are “newer,” improved versions of the original touch-based form of FC. S2C and RPM are not new and they certainly are not “improved.” (see Boynton, 2021). In fact, there is no reliably controlled testing that proves proponent claims of communication independence with S2C and RPM (or any other form of FC) in which the facilitator holds the board in the air for the person being subjected to the technique. Facilitator cueing can and does occur even if the facilitator isn’t directly touching their client. (See An FC Primer)

Sid, from the film “Spellers” pokes at the letter board without looking while his facilitator calls out letters and attributes the FC-generated message to him. (Image from Spellers, 2023).

Dickens mentions the film “Spellers,” which heavily promotes the idea that S2C/RPM and the “Spellers Method” are independent forms of communication because there is limited to no touch. But facilitators using these forms of FC are encouraged to “prompt their hearts out” using cues that help determine letter selection. These cues include, but are not limited to

  • changes in vocal inflection or verbal instructions and hand signals to indicated where to point on the letter board (e.g. “up, up, up!” or “right next door!”)

  • controlling access to the letter board to indicate when to start or stop a spelling session (e.g., known as “resetting the board”)

  • selecting which stencil board to use

  • shifts in body weight, head nods, etc. to indicate where to point on the letter board

  • hand signals held within the individuals’ peripheral vision that are used by facilitators to direct the individual to move his/her outstretched pointed finger to specific areas of the letter board.

In addition, we see in the film “Spellers” that individuals who are supposedly communicating independently are not looking at the board. As the documentary Prisoners of Silence clearly showed, it’s not possible to accurately select letters on a keyboard using a one-finger hunt-and-peck method without looking directly at the keys. On the other hand, the facilitators are both looking at the board and calling out letters as they (subtly and probably non-consciously) move the letter board in the air. (See Katharine’s review of the Spellers movie here).

Dickens, through the interviews she conducted in Episode 8, wants people to believe FC was shut down in the mid-1990s solely because of the spate of false allegations of abuse cases (see Auerbach, 2015). These cases, she contends, were the result of overzealous facilitators and poor training. However, Dickens fails to mention that Rosemary Crossley, the inventor of FC, and eight of her facilitators were among the first to bring false allegations of abuse charges against a family of one of their clients. (See the “Carla” case section below). Surely, Dickens isn’t saying Crossley and her facilitators were “poorly trained,” is she? In authorship testing designed to rule in or rule out letter selection, the researchers showed that Carla’s facilitators were the authors of the messages.

Dickens also does not mention in the episode a woman named Gigi Jordan, who was trained by one of Syracuse University’s “master trainers” (and one of the facilitators mentioned in episode 8), Marilyn Chadwick. Jordan ended up feeding her son Jude an overdose of pills based on FC-generated messages (that she facilitated) saying that he wanted to die. Jordan was convicted of manslaughter, but later ended her own life to avoid jail time. (See links below).

Nor does Dickens mention Syracuse-trained facilitator Anna Stubblefield, a former Rutgers University ethics professor whose mother is one of Syracuse University’s master trainers, Sandra McClennen. In addition to being part of FC’s inner circle, Stubblefield participated in a two-day training session much like the one I attended in the early 1990s. Stubblefield used FC as a form of consent to justify raping her client and was convicted of two counts of sexually assaulting a person with disabilities. (See links below)

The FC leadership’s stance on these cases, from the beginning, has been to blame the facilitators and not FC. False allegations of abuse cases continue to this day, although not all of them rise to the level of national or international attention. Recently, a courageous victim of FC and false allegations of abuse came forward and told his story to Stuart Vyse in an article titled “A Life Shattered by Pseudoscience.”

Before closing, I want to mention two more things:

  1. There are a lot of reasons why school systems are not—and should not—endorse the use of FC/S2C/RPM or any other facilitator-dependent techniques. FC and its variants are faith-based, not evidence-based, and have not been proven under reliably controlled conditions. Touch-based FC has been thoroughly discredited. And, largely because facilitators refuse to participate in reliably controlled studies, S2C/RPM-style FC is unproven, but opposed by major speech/language, health, and autism organizations. Using pseudoscientific techniques on their students could make educators and their school systems vulnerable to lawsuits. And, finally, a recent study showed that RPM is costly, especially given the fact that there is no evidence to show that it works. (See Why would a school system be so “dead set” against S2C and RPM and DIRFloortime at What Cost?)

  2. The eye-tracking tests from the University of Virginia Dickens mentioned in the episode were conducted by Vikram Jaswal and did not control for facilitator influence over letter selection. Rather, the facilitator held the letter board in the air during the testing, which likely skewed where the individual was looking. In addition, the facilitator was not blinded to test stimuli and could, therefore, influence letter selection. See Katharine’s review of the Jaswal study here and in the reference list below.

And, finally, I can’t say enough how disappointed I am (but not surprised) at the amount of disinformation included in Episode 8 of the Telepathy Tapes. Dickens, in her attempts to give these families a voice, has, it seems, abandoned any semblance of scientific rigor. The only value I see in this podcast at this point is that 1) it provides us with a treasure trove of evidence of facilitator control over letter selection (it was worth the $9.99 to see the videos behind the paywall),* and 2) it brings to light the magical thinking and poor research practices that appear to be motivating facilitators and researchers to continue to using FC with their nonspeaking children and clients despite all evidence against it.

*See Stuart Vyse’s article “The Telepathy Tapes Tries to Silence a Critic—and Fails” to read about how they tried to put a copyright strike my YouTube channel (FCisNotScience) when I posted a video critique of a telepathy test session that showed facilitator cueing in a no-touch form of FC.

For critical reviews of the Telepathy Tapes, please check out the Podcasts section of our website.

References and Recommended Reading

Auerbach, D. (2015, November 12). Facilitated communication is a cult that won’t die. Slate.

Beals, Katharine (2021, May 11). A recent eye-tracking study fails to reveal agency in assisted autistic communication. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention. Vol. 15 (1), pp. 46–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/17489539.2021.1918890

Beals, Katharine (2023). A Review of the Movie Spellers: a Documercial for Spelling to Communicate.

Boynton, J. (2021 March 24). Rapid Prompting Method: A New Form of Communicating? Hardly. The Skeptic.

Gorman, B.J. (2011). Psychology and Law in the Classroom: How the Use of Clinical Fads in the Classroom may Awaken the Educational Malpractice Claim. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2011 (1), 29-50.

London, William (ed.). (2023, June 11) Autism expert slams movie promoting facilitated communication technique. Consumer Health Digest, Issue #23-24. National Council Against Health Fraud Archive.

Lutz, Amy (2023, May 24). Call on Researchers, Not Filmmakers, to Test Facilitated Communication: A Commentary on Spellers. NCSA.

Saloviita, T, Leppanen, M, and Ojalammi, U. (2014). Authorship in facilitated communication: An analysis of 11 cases. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30:3, 213-225. DOI: 10.3109/07434618.2014.927529

Vyse, Stuart. (2024, August 19). A Life Shattered by Pseudoscience. Skeptical Inquirer.

Wheeler, DL, Jacobson, JW, Paglieri, RA, and Schwartz, AA. (1993). An experimental assessment of facilitated communication. Mental Retardation. Vol 31 (1), 49-60.

Carla Case False Allegations of Abuse Case with Rosemary Crossley and Nine of her Trained Facilitators

Geschke, Norman. (1993, May 10). Report on the Investigation of a Complaint of Unjust Dismissal Because of Allegations Made by Facilitated Communication. Melbourne: L.V. North, Government Printer.

Heinrichs, P. (1992, February 16). Suffering at the Hands of the Protectors. The Sunday Morning Herald.

Heinrichs, P. (1992, February 16). State 'tortured' family – 'tragic'. Sunday Age (Melbourne, Australia) Late Edition, pp. 1

Heinrichs, P. (1992, February 23). 'Tortured' family may call for probe on facilitated evidence. Sunday Age, Melbourne, Australia, Late Edition, pp. 8

Heinrichs, P. (1992, February 23). More families take on CSV 'zealots'. Sunday Age, Melbourne, Australia, Late Edition, pp. 7

Heinrichs, P. (1992, April 12). Taxpayers will foot bill for 'Carla' case. Sunday Age, Melbourne, Australia, Late Edition, pp. 11

Heinrichs, P. (1992, May 17). US courts to rule on disability method. Sunday Age, Melbourne, Australia, Late Edition, pp. 9

Heinrichs, P. (1992, May 31). 'Carla' case prompts overhaul of system. Sunday Age, Melbourne, Australia, Late Edition, pp. 10

Heinrichs, P. (1992, September 6). New ordeal for 'Carla' family. Sunday Age, Melbourne, Australia, Late Edition, pp. 7

Heinrichs, P. (1992, September 13). Carla payment hope. Sunday Age, Melbourne, Australia, Late Edition, pp. 8

Heinrichs, P. US courts reject facilitated communication. Sunday Age, Melbourne, Australia, Late Edition, pp. 7

Heinrichs, P. (1993, January 17). 'Carla' cost may force family to sell home. Sunday Age, Melbourne, Australia, Late Edition, pp. 6

‘'The Sunday Age' wins readers, award. (1992, November 29). Sunday Age (Melbourne, Australia) Late Edition, pp. 1

Unknown. (1992). A facilitated communication “horror story.” Autism Research Review International. Vol. 6(1), pp. 1 and 7.

Janyce Boynton
Next

Spelling to Communicate Goes on Trial: Part III