Today’s episode argues that demanding Randomised Control Trials (RCTs) for Gestalt Language Processing (GLP) is ethically flawed because it would require withholding necessary support from GLP children, thereby demanding harm as a precondition for evidence. The author of the source article, Dr. Jaime Hoerricks, contends that the behaviorist-oriented standards (such as those used in ABA research) fail to measure meaningful progress in gestalt learners, focusing instead on analytic outcomes that are irrelevant or actively detrimental to this population. Dr. Hoerricks asserts that the lack of RCTs in GLP is a sign of ethical strength—a refusal to sacrifice children for data—and proposes alternative, more ethical research designs, such as longitudinal studies and practice-based registries. Ultimately, she claims that the current evidence hierarchy is a political tool used by established fields like ABA to maintain power and dismiss lived autistic experience and testimony as legitimate proof.
Here’s the link to the source article: https://open.substack.com/pub/autside/p/when-evidence-requires-harm-glp-beyond
Let me know what you think.
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.
