残障研究 社会接纳 融合教育 其它 及 辅助交流法FC

zchi_su

抱恙中。。。

回回生病我家AS都会体贴入微关怀备至。以后谁再说AS不把亲人当人我跟谁急。

面对病中的亲人，AS除了会像总理一样“很心痛”外，还会像总理一样“送温暖”。

他嘘寒问暖的方式基本是两样。

1．“我也病了”

阿柔母抱病给阿柔公做好晚饭。阿柔G呼噜呼噜往嘴里耙拉饭，抬头发现阿柔M只能小口喝汤，
G：（突然地）我好像也病了
M：（嘲讽地望着G）
G：（认真地）真的，真的，我头有点儿疼，好像耳朵这儿也开始疼了，就跟前几天一样。
M：(指着空碗) 您这，是不是还得再来一碗饭呐？
G：（直接上台词，我爱我家宋丹丹的）“嗯？病了？不可能啊，志新病什么样儿我知道啊那得不停嘴儿的要吃要喝呀”（译文：我胡吃海塞不代表我没生病）
M：（台词也得跟的上，我爱我家贾志新的）“得，您也传上喽。您是准备用气功战胜病魔呢，还是我给你沏袋儿感冒冲剂去?” （译文：别装啦，我还不知道你？）

这句“我也病了”他会一直说，说到我好了。

2．“我带你出去玩儿吧”

M病歪歪躺在床上。G直挺挺站在窗前。
G：你怎么病了？你别病啊？要不我带你出去玩儿去吧？
M：（勉强睁眼）啊？为什么啊？走不动了。
G：真的，多好的天气。走，咱俩上哪哪儿转转去。
M：（气乐了）。呃，你知道吗，这么多年，甭管我感冒拉希还是住院手术，你都说“走，咱俩出去玩儿去吧”。我怎么就那么倒霉催的，每次还真都跟你去了。说说说说，你怎么想的？
G：因为你最喜欢出去玩儿。一出去，你一高兴，病就好了。

谁说我们AS TOM 不好来着？扁！

燕原

1。感性同理心，都同到身体了，强。
2。根据经验和爱好得出的理性最佳方案。

这ToM得太全面了。


我昨天也生病了，不过在第一时间吃了两片药，睡了一觉，今天好像已经好了。

zchi_su

病好了。上山当麻匪去。

先换牌楼。

再换面具。

方静

像总理一样很心痛，又送温暖，这描述简直了。
我病在家中，小石头随时关注着我，一点不对劲就恨不得叫120。
吃什么都检查一下，不吃什么的时候想给你灌水，水温都是正好的。
好还是不好，我不知道了。

秋爸爸

楼主病好了！好！走几步！走一个虎虎生风，走一个一日千里，再走一个恍若隔世。让FC飞！

zchi_su

下面引用由[U]方静[/U]发表的内容：

像总理一样很心痛，又送温暖，这描述简直了。
我病在加重，小石头随时关注着我，一点不对劲就恨不得叫120。
吃什么都检查一下，不吃什么的时候想给你灌水，水温都是正好的。
好还是不好，我不知道了。

送温暖这句送给方老师合适　－－你怎么加重了？你别加重啊？要不我也带你出去玩儿去吧？

玩儿回来虽然更东倒西歪，但保证心情靓丽，很快自愈（赞同燕原的中医理论）。

zchi_su

下面引用由[U]秋爸爸[/U]发表的内容：

楼主病好了！好！走几步！走一个虎虎生风，走一个一日千里，再走一个恍若隔世。让FC飞！

别看你痛贬子弹飞，我看你比我稀饭它　－－可用的台词太多了。

秋爸爸

我还是挺喜欢这片子的，只是不喜欢里面的姜文。
台词挺给力
let son's eggs fly!

马丁

楼上太有才了，看了半天才反应过来。

恭喜楼主更成三条了！

xrs

今天不打酱油了。政府说你们家不能再打酱油了。政府说去年让你们家酱油打得物价飞涨，通货膨胀，总理心痛。

楼主说和Chammi没有过FC的成功经验，但他们还是打出过有意义的单词。比如04年秋天，美国总统大选期间，有天中午Chammi他妈去买吃的，楼主试过和Chammi单独进行FC谈话。楼主问他：你是希望布什（Gorge Bush）赢还是克里（John Kerry）赢？事实上楼主的确是期望他的手指指向B或者K，也可能是G或者J。但Chammi被楼主托着手打出了第一个字母：D。楼主就猜不着他要打什么了。

Chammi最终打出的词是Democrats，民主党人。

我见过Chammi，也去过他家，和他一块儿吃饭，一块儿看哈利波特。我不懂自闭症，不知道Chammi算低功能还是高功能，就知道他进厕所不关门，出厕所不提裤子，这个我印象很深，和这个Democrats印象一样深。楼主和那个叫Nupi的也有过类似的经历。比如有回楼主托着他手问他前一天吃的什么，他打出了一个词，楼主不认识。后来问他妈，他妈说那是他们镇上一饭馆的名字，头天他们是在那儿吃的饭。我也不知道Nupi是什么程度，只知道他老揪楼主头发。Nupi同学可是一大胖子，力大无比，就那么狠揪。看着是挺痛快，不过我有些担心，怕警察认为是我唆使的。

楼主前边提到过一个英文blog里的回帖，非常精彩，怎么没人注意？我再拷贝一遍：

“要说眼见为实，我可也是亲眼见过的。不骗你们，真的特搞。就这么一个生活完全不能自理的人，居然能东张西望着眼睛都不带看键盘的就能打出东西来，更别提英语根本不是他母语，他还能拼出复杂的英文单词来！打出来的东西都是些没什么新鲜的套话，根本看不出是他们自己的个性语言。。。那一屋子残障人士在那儿飞快地“述说”着他们自己的故事，有的还在那儿吟诗作赋的，This is bullshit 我都后悔到那儿去！但我还是想证实一下，我拿出一块字母板儿来，也跟他们似的，握着那人的手，就问了个简单的YES or  NO 的问题，他还真在字母板儿上开始打了。我也试着顺着他手的运动方向给些轻轻的支持。打了四次。 没一回打出什么有意义的东西… nothing…no sense。他刚才那个打字奇迹跑哪儿去了？ 没准儿我应该上那个为期两天的课，到时候我保准就能学会 how to direct his hand to what I think he might want to say. It’s crap!  我不是一自大狂，可能有人真行，但至少对我面前的这人，我敢百分百肯定，他根本就不行！”

怎么样，精彩吧，美国人就是不一般，思维得飞翔到什么高度才能达到这水平。照这说法，我也能证明首都机场上没一架飞机是能飞起来的。不信你们让我挨着个开一遍，我也敢百分百肯定，除了能把机场撞一烂七八糟，一架都飞不起来！要是有一架飞起来了，你们可以当场把我脑袋揪下来。当然前提是你们能在那架飞机的残骸里找着我脑袋。

听说FC的成功率非常低。这很有可能，也很正常。我不是专家不是科学家，我什么都不是，我拍着脑袋也能想出至少两个问题：一是那些辅助者是不是一贯采用正确的辅助方法，更明白地说，是不是合格；二是被辅助者是不是符合可能成功的条件。对于第一个问题，是可以有方法检验的，也是可以提高的。对于第二个问题，坏菜了，没辄了。在一个连原因和分类都说不清楚的前提下，是没法判断结果的。比方说，如果将来发现，只有百分之一的自闭症患者有可能通过FC进行比较流畅的交流，那么现在，如果只有百分之一的成功率，那就不是失败，那简直是完美。

我的看法是，在建立正确观念、执行正确方法的前提下，FC可以一试。我们常说，车祸对于一个城市只是百分之一的事故，但对一个家庭却是百分之百的损失。那么对FC来说，也许只有百分之一的希望，但如果成功，对于一个患者一个家庭，就是百分之百的改变。

不知道把FC称为伪科学的说法从何而来（我觉着就是上边那个精彩的美国人说的）。说到科学，记得看过一文章，作者也是试图论述科学和伪科学，文章当然就要先明确科学的定义，他写道：“我惊讶地发现，原来科学根本就没有个定义！”我也不打算讨论什么是科学，那说来话太长了。我个人是把两个条件作为科学的标准：1）可以进行“可重复实验”；2）在1的前提下，尽量符合“奥卡姆剃刀原理”。

首先，FC不是“非科学”，因为它是可证伪的。（注意：“神创论”属于非科学，但不是伪科学。实事上神创论从来就没宣称过自己是科学）。其次，FC是乐于接受科学检验的，尽管还没什么有效通过的。（听说亲爱的特异功能大师们就不乐意接受魔术师的检验。不知道他们会不会说：切，魔术师又不是科学家！）科学和伪科学的最大区别就在于是否乐于接受可重复实验，而不是实验结果如何。比方说，红药水又叫二百二，据说是试验了二百二十次才成功。我们总不能说只有最后成功的一次是真科学，前边那二百一十九次都是伪科学，那成早知道吃第三个烧饼能饱就不应该吃前两个了。同样，即使二百二十次全都失败了，也不能说是伪科学，因为那就会有第二百二十一次。科学是会有正确的和错误的，但错误的科学不等于伪科学。比如地心说就不是伪科学，燃素说也不是。

而且，我认为FC是符合“奥卡姆剃刀原理”的。所谓奥卡姆剃刀原理，简单地说就是，“一个现象可能存在多个不同的解释，最简单的那个往往就是最正确的”。所谓最简单，也可以说是所需假设条件最少的，“如无必要，勿增实体”。

06年世界杯荷兰对葡萄牙开赛前20分钟，我激动地说我如何期待这场球，Chammi母亲扶着Chammi的肩膀，Chammi通过键盘告诉我他讨厌足球这类暴力运动。解释1，Chammi和他母亲合伙作秀欺骗我，以期4年半后的今天我能在这里宣扬FC；解释2，我们仨都受到某种自然或超自然力的催眠，不知不觉中只是在那里胡言乱语自说自话；解释3，Chammi可以通过FC进行一般性谈话；解释4，国际赌球集团操纵谈话，以便影响下注结果（他姥姥的那场球果然暴力非凡，有无数队员被红牌罚下，场上剩的人数都快赶上篮球比赛了）。根据奥卡姆剃刀原理应该选哪个解释是很明白的。

据说FC混到今天这步田地也是咎由自取罪有应得。早年间它把自己打扮得太神乎其神包治百病了。毛主席教导我们，“凡神乎其神包治百病的都是伪科学”（见《毛选》第四卷第673页“陈毅是个好同志”句后第5行）。现在倒好，FC走下神坛，而且是“天使在人间，脸朝下着地”。我看这是个好事。我希望FC能接受更多更严格的科学分析和验证，哪怕最终证明其成功率只有千分之一、万分之一。那样我们就能知道，这百分之一、千分之一、万分之一，是有着坚实基础的。崔永元所推崇的哲学信仰依然在公共厕所里回响：

“向前一小步，文明一大步！”

binfeng2000

我好像和上面这位喝过酒。

马丁

楼主去弄“残障研究 社会接纳 融合教育”这三条去了，敬仰。楼主先生接着讲FC，支持。不过我去查了你引用的毛主席的那句话“凡神乎其神包治百病的都是伪科学”，不对，原文应该是：凡神乎其神包治百病的都是娘西匹。

秋爸爸

的确，他说那话的时候，还不是主席，是委员，官配六筒面具，跟着委员长闯江湖，耳濡目染，学了很多九筒的家乡话。

zchi_su

没动静啊

让子弹飞一会儿！

枪在手，跟我走！杀四郎，抢碉楼！
枪在手，跟我走！杀四郎，抢碉楼！
枪在手，跟我走！杀四郎，抢碉楼！
枪在手，跟我走！杀四郎，抢碉楼！
枪在手，跟我走！杀四郎，抢碉楼！
枪在手，跟我走！杀四郎，抢碉楼！
枪在手，跟我走！杀四郎，抢碉楼！

。
。
。
跟来三只呆鹅 （俺算 P 民，嘻嘻）。

燕原

人来了，我感觉FC成功者可能算savant的一种，语言类的，有音乐雨人，也可以有打字雨人。

如果是savant，那就是科学，虽然几率很低，用现有逻辑解释不了，但是的确存在。

燕原

语言类的savant比其他类别的都少，但是也存在，如果你老板有兴趣，可以联系 Darold A. Treffert,听听他的意见，如果算，那样你们就真正进入纯科学领域了，但是也就和FC没啥关系了，FC就是音乐雨人面前的钢琴，他们的语言能力是基因记忆里面自带的功能。

zchi_su

你说真的呐？我以为你在开玩笑。

1.Savant的特殊能力应该是对比正常人来说的，而不是其他自闭症人。FC user　的语言能力是普通人的水平，并不超常。
2.不能陷入这样的分类陷阱。先不说 Savant syndrome 都不是正式的诊断标签，即便是，我们又能怎么用呢？维基上长长的savant名单上的人，画家也好音乐家也好，还不都是要在好的教育环境下发现培养出来的？
3.能不能挤进科学领域，是不是打字雨人，FC 都只是音乐雨人面前的钢琴。FC 从来都说自己是交流工具，不是治疗手段。

燕原

savant很特殊，但是最终能力可以不特殊，特别是针对残疾人群，我刚看完 Darold A. Treffert 的书，他的观点在最近十年有很大变化。
savant能力不是教育出来的，是天生基因携带，savant可以继续被教育，但是他们本来的特殊能力决不是被教育出来的。
savant在科学中的最大用处是基因和大脑研究，而不是被训练和治疗。

这几个成功FC使用者，很难被归为是被ABA训练出来的，无论是打字还是语言能力，因为ABA是普适方法，如果一个例子行，下一个例子也行。而FC除了个别人其他都被证明不行。那些个别人就很有可能本身就有不需要被教育的天生携带语言能力，而FC只是他们的表达工具。

这种不需要被教就有的语言能力可能是基因的隐表现，只有在基因变异（大多数变异导致大脑有损）的案例下才可能表现出来，这就是savant人群的本质，因为语言savant被发现的太少了，如果你们这群人也算，那就是科学家最喜欢看到的被研究人群。

zchi_su

唉，真是鸡同鸭讲。

看来还是得以毒攻毒。

俺去找那个AS来。。。

zchi_su

只说一下这个：“而FC除了个别人其他都被证明不行”　－－　这事关研究方法上的路线斗争。

这儿有个支持 FC 有效性的研究单子，有兴趣的话可以去看：　

Studies Supporting Authorship:

Broderick, A. A. & Kasa-Hendrickson, C. (2001). “Say just one word at first”: the emergence of reliable speech in a student labeled with autism. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26, 13-24.

“This article presents a qualitative, interpretivist research study that documents the emergence, in the context of typed expression, of increasingly useful and reliable speech for a young person labeled with autism (13).

“Jamie’s experience presents a challenge to us as researchers, theoreticians, and educators to broaden the theoretical and conceptual frameworks that we use in order to account for the complexity of this young man’s experience. We are challenged to account for Jamie’s experience by understanding it not as a model, nor as an exceptional or anomalous case, but as a vision of possibility that may illuminate the experiences of others whose language development falls outside of our current conceptual models (23).


Calculator, S. & Singer, K. (1992). Preliminary validation of facilitated communication.
     Topics in Language Disorders, 12, ix-xvi.         

“The purpose of this study was to validate the impact of facilitated communication on uncovering students’ underlying communication skills…Thus, this study was undertaken with the intention of providing accurate diagnostic information on students as a basis for designing appropriate educational programs (xi).

Cardinal, D. N., Hanson, D. & Wakeham, J. (1996). Investigation of authorship in
     facilitated communication. Mental Retardation, 34, 231-242.

“There were two main findings of the study. First, under controlled conditions, some facilitated communication users can pass information to a facilitator when that facilitator is not aware of the information, and second, the measurement of facilitated communication under test conditions may be significantly benefited by extensive practice of the test protocol. This latter result could partially account for the inability of several past studies to verify facilitated communication-user originated input (238).

Emerson, A., Grayson, A., & Griffiths, A. (2001). Can’t or won’t? Evidence relating to
authorship in facilitated communication. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 36 (Supp), 98-103.

“Data for 14 of the participants who have been introduced to FC is included in this paper…The summarized data relate to the issue of ‘authorship’, i.e. the question of which of the communication partners (facilitator or user) is really responsible for the emergent text. The data come from two main sources- controlled tests (in the style of published experimental studies) and transcripts or diary records of routinely occurring FC sessions (99).

“Evidence from this project shows similar findings to many of the published studies that conclude, having undertaken controlled tests, that FC is not a valid strategy to use. However, evidence from the same project also suggests that the overall picture with regard to FC may be more complex than this. The same participants who do not provide authorship evidence in controlled trials provide data which indicate that they are authoring their communications when given the opportunity to communicate about things of their own choosing (100).


Janzen-Wilde, M., Duchan, J., & Higginbotham, D. (1995). Successful use of facilitated
communication with an oral child. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 658-676.

“A 6 ½-year-old child’s oral and spelled utterances were compared over a 3-month period as he was trained to use Facilitated Communication (FC), a method of augmentative and alternative communication. The child’s language with FC was significantly better than his oral language in length of utterances, novelty of utterances, and syntactic complexity. His language with FC also contained more function words and over time was more intelligible and required less verbal scaffolding than his oral communication. Evidence that he was authoring his own messages during his facilitated spelling was found in his idiosyncratic use of language and his ability to convey verifiable information that was unknown to the facilitator (658).

“Andy’s introduction to FC allowed people to see areas of his competence that were previously unknown to those around him. It is hoped that this study will promote further research to increase understanding of FC and its role in language intervention. Such understanding can only serve to benefit individuals like Andy, who have much to say (671).


Niemi, J. & Karna-Lin, E. (2002). Grammar and lexicon in facilitated communication: A
     linguistic authorship analysis of a Finnish case. Mental Retardation, 40, 347-357.

“This case study adds a new dimension to the discourse on the authorship issue in facilitated communication. The linguistic structure produced by a young Finnish man with severe cerebral palsy was examined. Data are based on transcripts he produced from 1993 until 1996 after facilitated communication had been introduced to him. In the data analysis, as explicit criteria for his idiosyncrasies, we used patterns typical of children acquiring Finnish as their first language and those found in normal slips of the tongue, acquired aphasia, and specific language impairment. Based on the analysis (i.e. the idiosyncrasy and agrammaticality of word-forms and sentences), we strongly suggest that his output can hardly be a product of any other speaker of Finnish, including that of his facilitators (347).

“Even though this study has a limited amount of data from a person using facilitated communication, our results provide strong evidence for the claim that the text produced by facilitation originates from the author, not from the facilitator (355).


Rubin, S., Biklen, D., Kasa-Hendrickson, C., Kluth, P., Cardinal, D., & Broderick, A.
(2001). Independence, participation, and the meaning of intellectual ability. Disability & Society, 16, 415-429.

“This article presents a non-speaking person’s perspectives on independence and the implications of newfound communication abilities for her participation in the world and upon the meaning of intellectual ability. The person with the communication disability also has autism and, early in her life, was classified by school officials as ‘severely retarded.’ The narrative focuses especially on the concepts of independence, participation, and intellectual competence or intellectual performance, and their relationship to the concepts of democracy, freedom, and identity, all from a non-essentialist perspective. In addition, the article addresses practical questions about how, from her perspective, the non-speaking person developed the ability to communicate without physical support (415).

“Rubin: Because of the way we move and our lack of speech we were assumed to be retarded. I was thought to be retarded (but) all this changed…once I could type without support…My very existence challenged beliefs about mental retardation. Able to type independently…my presentations (at conferences) were acts of advocacy (419).


Sheehan, C. & Matuozzi, R. (1996). Investigation of the validity of facilitated
communication through the disclosure of unknown information. Mental Retardation, 34, 94-107.

“Three individuals (8, 10, and 24 years old with diagnoses of autism and mental retardation) participated in a message-passing format to determine whether they could disclose information previously unknown to their facilitators. Results reveal valid facilitated communication from each participant (94).

“The data from the current study lead us to caution that a phenomena as complex as facilitated communication eludes a cursory exploration. Each participant was able to disclose information accurately and deftly at times and was wholly inadequate in his or her attempts at other times…The developing picture of an individual’s validity profile replete with the patterns of required support, inconsistency, language impairment, and strides towards independence may well be the only reasonable evaluation of a validity confidence level (104).”


Tuzzi, A., Cemin, M. Castagna, M. (2004) “Moved deeply I am” Autistic language in texts produced with FC. Journees internationals d’Analyse statistique des Donnees Textuelleds, 7, 1-9.

“Using texts produced through Facilitated Communication (FC), this work is aimed at identifying the characteristic features of the language used by autistic subjects and understanding when these distinctive elements may distinguish it from the language of facilitators.  Preliminary results shows that autistic subjects actually use a special style of writing; this finding supports the hypothesis that texts are the fruit of individual production of autistic subjects, not inevitably influenced by facilitators.  This first work, based on a restricted sample which is not necessarily representative, is important because it has permitted to better specify criteria by which subjects, texts, analyses to carry out and software to be employed will be chosen in future studies.” (1)

Weiss, M., Wagner, S., & Bauman, M. (1996). A validated case study of facilitated
     communication. Mental Retardation, 34, 220-230.

“The case of a 13-year-old boy with autism, severe mental retardation, and a seizure disorder who was able to demonstrate valid facilitated communication is described (220).

It is tempting to offer conjecture about why this procedure or these individuals were able to reveal valid communication with facilitated communication. However, we find it far too premature to draw any such conclusions. Rather, we have chosen to highlight for consideration a small number of factors that may have been relevant (227).

Zanobini, M. & Scopesi, A. (2001). La comunicazione facilitata in un bambino autistico.
     Psicologia Clinica dello Sviluppo, 5, 395-421.

“Studied facilitated communicative interactions among a 7-yr-old autistic boy, his mother, and his teacher. Data on communication was obtained by observation of 28 interactions in natural situations. The Ss' verbal productions were transcribed and evaluated according to context and situation, stylistic consistency, and interaction with mother or teacher.

“The Sphinx Lexica Edition software program (1998) was used. The results show evidence of stylistic consistency but variation according to location at home or school and interaction with mother or teacher. The results suggest that the boy's original and peculiar linguistic behavior may indicate a degree of linguistic independence from facilitation. Implications for improving facilitated communication for autistic children are discussed.”