• @jeffwOP
    link
    13 months ago

    Interesting. Can you share more about that strong evidence?

    • @quixotic120
      link
      English
      93 months ago

      Essentially there are blinded studies that have had the facilitator and communicator on either side of a “wall”. At the end of said wall they will place images and ask for descriptions. Sometimes the images are the same and sometimes they differ, causing the facilitator and the communicator to see separate non matching images

      The overwhelming majority of the time when the images differ the description of the image matches what the facilitator sees.

      This matters for a few reasons. one is because when fc was huge in the 90s and early 2000s several individuals were charged with sexual abuse claims based on fc. The facilitators had invented narratives about abuse that never occurred (in at least one case a wild claim of a satanic cult that no evidence of which could be found). But the primary reason is because it appears you’re giving a voice to someone who cannot speak and the majority of the time that does not appear to be the case

      This is why basically every speech and pediatric association has firmly spoken out against fc, which is resurging for some reason

      https://www.asha.org/slp/cautions-against-use-of-fc-and-rpm-widely-shared/