Talk:Ole Ivar Lovaas

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jeouellette.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
I have deleted the line "Some call him the "father of autism" due to his tactful behavior approach to treating autism." Because (a) googling 'the father of autism' gets more citations for Kanner (which is fair) followed by Shopler (because he died) than for Lovaas, and (b) 'tactful'doesn't really seem to cover the occasional uses by Kanner of physical punishment and LSD.


 * These uses of physical punishment were far from occasional, nor were they in any way mild. He is a filthy torturer of innocent children and belongs in prison.--Ensrifraff 22:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Work with George Rekers on children with non-conventional gender behaviors
I see from the citations in the George Rekers article that in addition to his studies of autism, Lovaas worked with (the now widely discredited) Rekers in several studies involving children whose behavior did not match their expected gender roles. The subject of one of these studies committed suicide as an adult, and his family members blame the treatments described in the journal article by Rekers and Lovaas. Since the CNN article does not mention Lovaas by name (although it's likely that he was the psychologist who "has since died" mentioned in the article), it probably can't be used as a source here.

Lovaas' role in the study isn't entirely clear; it's discussed at this blog, but that doesn't appear to be a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. What may be a reliable source is Gender Shock by Phyllis Burke, which (according to this link, which appears to be an excerpt from the book) identifies Lovaas as the principal investigator in two such studies, and calls him the "kingpin" of the research. Only snippets of this book are available on Google Books, and I don't have access to a university library right now, so I can't read and cite it myself. If anyone has access to the book and can analyze its content and add relevant material to this article, that would be great. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Update: I've since found two news sources (articles from Time and the Huffington Post) which mention Lovaas in connection with this experiment and its unfortunate results, so I think that (and citations to the four articles Lovaas co-authored with Rekers) is sufficient to justify a short section about this. I've also ordered a copy of Gender Shock; when it arrives, I hope to be able to add whatever material it contains (which I gather includes Lovaas' later distancing himself from Rekers and his work). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

A surprising, shocking treatment helps far-gone mental cripples
For anyone who doubts that Lovass' work was anything less than barbaric physical abuse, please read this.

"The most drastic innovation in Lovaas' technique is punishment — instantly, immutably dished out to break down the habits of madness. His rarely used last resort is the shock room. At one point Pamela had been making progress, learning to read a little, speak a few words sensibly. But then she came to a blank wall, drifting off during lessons into her wild expressions and gesticulations. Scoldings and stern shakings did nothing. Like many autistic children, Pamela simply did not have enough anxiety to be frightened."

"To give her something to be anxious about, she was taken to the shock room, where the floor is laced with metallic strips. Two electrodes were put on her bare back, and her shoes removed. When she resumed her habit of staring at her hand, Lovaas sent a mild jolt of current through the floor into her bare feet. It was harmless but uncomfortable. With instinctive cunning, Pamela sought to mollify Lovaas with hugs. But he insisted she go on with her reading lesson She read for a while, then lapsed into a screaming fit. Lovaas; yelling 'No!', turned on the current. Pamela jumped — learned a new respect for 'No.'" --Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Misinformation
Would Alexbrn like to explain why he blatantly misrepresented the contents of | this source as saying "An impact in motor skills and functional skills have been proven, and high-intensity interventions tend to have greater impacts than low-intensity interventions" when in fact it says that the quality of evidence is low, and "There was insufficient evidence to establish a relationship between the amount (per day and total duration) of any form of treatment program to obtain desirable outcomes"? Would he also like to explain why he removed text discussing Lovaas' association with George Rekers in favor of a quote by known quack Bernard Rimland (a close associate of Lovaas) excusing his behavior? Would he also like to explain why he has removed all references to the word "cattle prod" from the article? Until he can do that, I will revert the article to its previous state. Unfortunately, I cannot log in as I have lost my password. --2600:1702:1BD0:6A00:9991:A805:9FDB:F36 (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Check out Help:Reset password 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:9C93:F000:3584:EC2A (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

New changes by User:ATC
User:ATC: As discussed at talk:Discrete trial training and on your talk page, please stop using non-MEDRS sources to make medical claims. Additionally, please stop claiming that this method has been shown to be effective and is "well-established for improving their intellectual performance" when a 2018 Cochrane review finds that it is not. While I would like to believe that this is all in good faith, I have brought these issues to your attention several times, and your editing pattern has not changed. I expect it to change now. This is your last warning. --68.45.46.177 (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I will remove some of the sources that don't meet that criteria (particularly the American Journal on Mental Retardation and Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics)  but Pediatrics and the large literature reviews do meet that criteria of it being evidence based and well established. The Autism article is a FAC and sources the large literature reviews and Pediatrics.  ATC . Talk 00:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User:ATC: I believe that I already responded to much of that on talk:Discrete trial training. Let's continue the discussion there so that its all in one place. --68.45.46.177 (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

User:ATC: I already gave you my "last warning". You have not continued the discussion on talk:Discrete trial training as requested, and instead have reinstated most of your edit without properly responding to my concerns. I should not have to remind you that communication is required. My concerns are as follows:


 * As I have already pointed out to you, a 2018 Cochran review finds that the evidence in favor of this technique is "weak or very weak", and the risk of bias is "high".


 * As I have already pointed out to you, the studies that you have cited are more ten years old, and this means that they fail MEDRS.


 * As I have already pointed out to you, these studies do not say what you claim they say. Some are are mixed reviews and others are at best suggestive. They do not claim that the technique has been shown to be effective.

This is the second time that I have given you a "last warning". There will not be a third. If you continue to refuse to engage in discussion, I will report you to ANI. Please do not edit the article further until you have continued the discussion at talk:Discrete trial training, as requested. --68.45.46.177 (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As I just pointed out on Talk:Discrete trial training, after reexamining the article 2018 Cochrane review, it states the following: it "is one of the more well‐established treatments for ASD" and "We found evidence at post‐treatment that EIBI improves adaptive behaviour", "We found evidence at post‐treatment that EIBI improves IQ (MD 15.44 (assessed using standardized IQ tests; scale 0 to 100, normative SD = 15), 95% CI 9.29 to 21.59, P < 0.001; 5 studies, 202 participants; low‐quality evidence) and expressive (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.90, P = 0.01; 4 studies, 165 participants; low‐quality evidence) and receptive (SMD 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.87, P = 0.001; 4 studies, 164 participants; low‐quality evidence) language skills" but "additional studies using rigorous research designs are needed to make stronger conclusions about the effects of EIBI for children with ASD". ATC . Talk 19:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As pointed out at Talk:Discrete trial training, that is not what the article says. And as pointed out above, please no not edit the page again without consensus, and please do keep the talk at Talk:Discrete trial training. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out on Talk:Discrete trial training, per WP:MEDRS on the section of "Use up-to-date evidence", "there are exceptions to these rules of thumb:
 * History sections often cite older work", which I was doing using reliable sources, such as Pediatrics and the Surgeon General." ATC . Talk 00:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User:ATC: Yes, but you were using those sources to imply that the study was well-conducted, when it was not. It is not appropriate to use those sources to make health claims. I see that you have returned those sources to the article again, and that you are threatening me with a block. That's a new one. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Aversives
User:ATC: You claimed here that there is no evidence that the JRC used any form of physical aversives apart from electric shocks. This is blatantly untrue. Please read Judge Rotenberg Center, Graduated Electronic Decelerator, and Matthew Israel. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

User:ATC: You have now claimed in the article that Lovaas only used physical aversives to prevent aggressive an self-harming behavior. This is not true, as you can see here, here, and here. But you surely know this, as you were the one who removed these sources from the article. This whitewashing and refusal to discuss is way past out of hand. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

User:ATC: I see now that you have also seen fit to remove from the article that the guy openly admitted to poking kids with a cattle prod. Seems like a significant fact, don't you think? But I'm sure you did this with the utmost respect for WP:NPOV. Anyone who would like to read my preferred version of the article may view it here. --66.244.121.212 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Massive removal of sourced content
User:ATC: You have removed almost the entire "research" section. Explain why you did this. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It was not the entire research section. I only removed the content and sources that came from unreliable media press releases/articles, which go against WP:MEDRS. ATC . Talk 04:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for acknowledging me. Please keep it up. The content that you removed may be found here. Your explanation for the removal does not make sence, as the section contains no health claims. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I added that source and sentence back but where does it talk about Lovaas' use of aversives in the 1960s? Because I didn't find anything about it. The Pediatrics study Scream, Slaps, and Love that I sourced might have more info on that history. ATC . Talk 05:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please return the entire section, not just that one sentence. If you find any statement lacking a source, please add a "citation needed" tag rather than removing the entire section that contains it. If you are lacking a source for that statement, this paper states that he started his research on aversives in the 1960s. While it is not entirely reliable (it is an obituary and a bit of a whitewash) it should be reliable as a source for that statement. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 06:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It says in the abstract that he developed ABA-based interventions in the 1960s (but does not give full access to the article without subscription) and nothing about aversives being used during that time. That was during the 1970s and early 1980s, i.e., see here: and .  ATC . Talk 16:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Screams slaps and love shows that he had been using aversives for some time before 1965. That means he was using them very nearly from the beginning. Also, you have still not explained why you removed all that content. Massed content removal like that without proper explanation is completely unacceptable. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: I am the same person as the IP on this page. I am editing while logged in now. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That link you just sourced from is a Life Magazine article pasted onto neurodivrsity.com website, both of which are unreliable sources. Anyway, I changed the wording to “during this time” to describe when he used the aversives. ATC . Talk 16:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The hosting website is irrelevant. The source is life magazine, which is reliable for what it is being used for. Lovaas himself did not dispute those claims, only their framing. And you still have not explained you massive removal of content. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And, it is a biography about Lovaas. He has nothing to do with JRC (and neither the Autism Society of America nor The Lovaas Institute used them), and it is highly irrelevant for the article. Your writing of the article also went against WP:POV. ATC . Talk 22:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confused. This page is about Lovaas, not the JRC. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly so I removed the content on the JRC because it is not relevant for this page. The info on JRC is more relevant for the JRC, Aversive therapy, behavior modification, and positive behavior support Wikipedia articles. ATC . Talk 22:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) You have changed the subject again. 2) You have still not explained the initial massive content removal. 3) The statement about the JRC was included in the article because they used aversive techniques that Lovaas first introduced, such as electric shocks. The founder of the JRC even credited Lovaas' research for giving him the idea, which was all explained in the article before you removed it. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You sourced Forbes, a magazine article, for that claim. There is no way to validate whether it was quoted accurately or not based on the source you provided, and media sources generally go against WP:MEDRS.  ATC . Talk 00:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) You have still not explained the initial massive content removal. 2) I am done trying to explain WP:MEDRS to you. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

MEDRS
User:ATC: As I have stated more times than I can count by now, studies older than five years should not be used to make health claims in this article. The "historical exemption" argument does not work when you are using these articles to make health claims in the "Literature reviews" section. Additionally, the you have continued to represent the Cochran review as being in favor of discrete trial training when (as I have pointed out many times before) it says that evidence is "weak" and at "high risk of bias". The quality of evidence could literally not be any worse than that unless no studies had been conducted, or if it had been totally debunked. I have brought these issues to your attention multiple times. I expect you to respond. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I see that there has been a lot of debate about sources on here...
So I'm going to try to go through Lovaas' papers and see if I can add some info, as I can (just compiling sources for now):

This paper is kind of an overview on how ABA works. I saw one of the points of contention (if that's the right word) was who Lovaas used aversives (specifically electric shocks) on, and whether it was limited to just patients who self-harm. - The paper mentions "a slap on the buttocks" as an aversive for undesirable behavior (undesirable behavior is defined at the beginning and throughout the paper), which makes it pretty clear that he believed spanking could be used as an aversive for non-violent behavior. - The paper also mentions giving aversive shocks for patients who smear feces. So he believed in aversive shocks for at least one kind of non-violent behavior. Otherwise, unless I missed it, it never really goes into much detail about when aversives are and aren't to be used, so I'll have to look in other papers to see if he ever mentions it.

This paper does mention young children being given ABA, for what it's worth (3 years old). Doesn't talk about treatment changing with age, though. A quote from the paper about the purpose of ABA: "Throughout, there was an emphasis on making the child look as normal as possible, rewarding him for normal behavior and punishing his psychotic behavior, teaching him to please his parents and us, to be grateful for what we would do for him, to be afraid of us when we were angry, and pleased when we were happy. Adults were in control. In short, we attempted to teach these children what parents of the middle-class Western world attempt to teach theirs. There are, of course, many questions that one may have about these values, but faced with primitive and psychotic children, these seem rather secure and comforting as initial goals."

(The words "primitive" and "psychotic" are used repeatedly throughout this paper)

Two other things I saw that were edited out were the claims that he experimented on patients with LSD and whether he kept a cattle prod in his office to use on patients. I don't think any of his own work would admit to the latter, and I can't find any sources on it that would fit the guidelines. As for the former, https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/ajp.122.11.1201 this was all I can find. Because there's a paywall, I can't tell his level of involvement with this study or what the nature of it was. If I find any info about him using chemical experimentation on his patients, I'll pop it in here. Sjbennington (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is an abstract that talks about using electric shocks on 5 year old twins, which was considered effective. Self-harm isn't mentioned (just: "they manifested no social responsiveness, speech, nor appropriate play with objects. They engaged in considerable self-stimulatory behavior, and in bizarre, repetitive bodily movements.") Unfortunately, I can't find the full text of this one, only a contemporary making comments on it (Louis Breger). Those comments don't mention any other behaviors besides the ones in the abstract. (Based on Breger's comments and from context, it seems like Lovaas used "schizophrenia," "psychosis," etc. interchangably as synonyms for autism, or for any behavior deemed deviant.) Wish I could find the source text. Sjbennington (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey! Nice finds on those sources. Nice finds on those articles. For a good source on Lovaas's use of the cattle prod, Google "O. Ivar Lovaas Interview With Paul Chance". I can't post it here because its a WP:copylink. You may have noticed that all references the the words "cattle prod" have been removed from this article. As for the LSD studies, it is of note that he did them, but it is not entirely clear that they were unethical. LSD was prescribed at the time as Delsid, and was/is believed to have many therapeutic qualities. Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism
I can't say I disagree with what information has been added here, but this may not be the best approach to informing people about the harm caused by ABA. 2A00:F41:83F:A69:D5EE:CBB7:5DA:77B (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)