The evidence supporting applied behavior analysis is flimsy at best (if you want it to be)


Algorithmically I was exposed to Jonah Davids’ piece entitled “Are we treating autism properly? The evidence supporting behavior analysis is flimsy at best” (linked later for reasons you’ll see momentarily). Why read it? Why write about it? Why indeed. Why…

City Journal (not linked for reasons you’ll see momentarily) is an online rag published by the Manhattan Institute (not linked for reasons you’ll see momentarily) that produces mainstream Republican content with an artificial academic sheen. Reading its pages is the Olestra of complex thought; if you feel like you’re absorbing something from it, you’re just shitting yourself. For example, Wikipedia notes that throughout the years, they’ve championed:

Why bother talking about them at all if they’re so clearly focused on politics, and not evidence? In a case of weapons-grade stopped-clock syndrome, they (Connor Harris) wrote an article that does a decent job of summarizing some evidence for Direct Instruction, phonics, and spaced responding. These are all topics covered in more depth (spaced responding, described by Ebbinghaus), and better (phonics has made the news frequently in the past several years, including an excellent podcast from NPR), in other places (Direct Instruction), but stumbling across something competent that references evidence-based practice in education is unusual. After all, the What Works Clearinghouse says that the evidence for the effects of DI is “Uncertain.” (Zig Engelmann was big mad about that) That first story, encountered some months ago, made me think that Olestra might be OK to eat, just this one time.

And if City Journal is a lab-engineered fat molecule (it definitely is), then Jonah Davids’ piece is…a wet fart? That’s actually a perfect summation of his damning conclusion: