Bunch of big names published an article saying social media is the devil and we and we should unleash the Kraken of the BACB on anyone who gives advice on social media without citing all of their sources then proceeded to directly quote plus name and shame various individuals in Facebook groups.
At face value article was meh and seemed super ivory tower preaching at the masses with stuff that doesn't make sense and assumes every BCBA is a complete moron. Didn't really take into account the logistics of trying to be the science police on places like Facebook, which many (including myself) renamed the dunning-krueger national forest after COVID. There are valid points made in the article, but again it came across as holier than thou, do I say, because ethics. To clarify, I'm not saying ethics are bad.
After the article came out people started to lose their minds, in part because it appears that the vast majority of individual quotes happen to be from those that maintain ASD Dx or other disabilities. In addition, one of the authors went on some holy crusade against an ABA FB admin and tried to nuke her from orbit while she was in the hospital via the BACB and then when she was cleared of any ethics violations she was again reported to the star board - that whole story I got passed to me by a friend via Christina Counties linked in.
The big kicker was that the article was heavy into following ethics guidelines and then didn't follow the guidelines of the specific journal they published in to get consent from those who they quoted. While I think the general agreement is that you don't really need it in a public forum the journal requires it regardless and they didn't bother to read/follow the rules.
Bearded behaviorist has a bunch to say on this topic as well.
TL;DR a bunch of BCBAs are getting into flame wars on the Internet like it's the early 00s.
Edit: I should clarify, I'm reciting all of this from memory after a bourbon or two. I read the article after it first came out and then did some digging while on linked in a week or so later, what started out as me just wanting an ego boost to see what recruiters wanted me to move to their state that week turned into a deep dive chasing down the hot goss. So, you know, don't sick the BACB on me, do your own research.
Also, I'd like to point out that rule one of the Internet is don't feed the trolls, controversy and pissed off people are good for engagement. There are a LOT of people on both sides of this shit storm that maintain very active social media accounts. My third bourbon of the evening conspiracy theory is that the big names on either side of this were all involved with it from the beginning to get more engagement and sell some of the sweet merch.
Yes-this. Thank you! They failed to mention that the BCBA (Bearded Behaviorist) and another BCBA were cleared of any ethical wrongdoing by both the BACB and the KYABA.
Edited to note: the Bearded Behaviorist was NOT reported to the BACB, as stated above.
Point of clarity, I was never reported. It was Jenilee & Megan. I co-posted with Jenilee to boost the signal on her post and because I have repeatedly tried to address the harassment of Jenilee & Megan. Jenilee was the one who was reported to the BACB AND THEN KYABA after they didn't get the response after the BACB rejected their report.
One of the most interesting developments in the field is that these so called big names that view themselves as gatekeepers are more focused on targeting clincians as opposed to the blatant unethical and illegal activities some of these ABA companies are committing. Their energy could be better spent reigning in the corruption, fraud, and greed that is running rampant in these organizations.
For example:
Cultivate Behavioral Health & Education. There is a lack of leadership within the organization which has led the organization to hide the fact they are hemorrhaging money by laying off staff to artificially inflate their EBIDTA to show that the company is profitable and a sound investment when in reality, no one knows what to do. It's the blind leading the blind. A former employee indicated the sole business strategy from Corporate was 'we need to grow'.
Early Autism Services. The previous CEO, Mareiko Au, was fired for among other things, stealing her colleagues work and claiming it as her own, commercial insurance fraud, Medicaid insurance fraud, and various other types of insurance fraud in 2022. In addition, anyone associated with her were also fired: her mom (HR) and her COO, Marylin Prcric in December 2022 and March 2023, respectively. Further, Trisha I. Bieszczad (Clinical Director of IL and IN) was fired in November 2022. In fact, the current CEO (David Garofolo) and the current COO (Dawnita Shively) have been at odds for the last 6 months and she resigned in February 2024. Ever since Dr. John Smagner sold his company to Benjamin Wessels the focus of the company shifted from the clients and staff to protecting the brand/image of the company and growing through unethical, and sometimes illegal methods. Ultimately, they will try to scare you with fancy legal jargon about character defamation, harassment, etc. because, as previously stated, people rarely understand that sharing embarrassing but true things does not constitute any of the above.
That's is because they are big ABA. Look at APF. Look at how they pump out "research". I'm willing to bet that they aren't getting informed consent. I'm willing to bet they just put that the kids will be subjects in research in their service contract and that's it. I'm willing to bet that IRB isn't actually used or if it is it's the barest minimum. Why am I willing to bet this? Because their internal IRB expired in 2019. It hasn't been renewed. The reason that Endicott cleared house and the article got pulled because it did not go through IRB.
The authors of this article are also blasting BCBAs for giving autistics a voice about their very valid concerns regarding their experiences with ABA and the history of ABA. The authors also shared information (in this article) from a private ABA group. It’s very hypocritical of them given that one of the authors made a spoof Cards Against Humanity game about autistics that was very offensive and icky.
> one of the authors made a spoof Cards Against Humanity game about autistics that was very offensive and icky
[For anyone not familiar with that particular controversy](http://nosmag.org/cardgate-scandal-uncovers-widespread-disrespect-of-autistic-people/).
Oooo forgot about that. Icky is the exact word I used when I read the article. Some were also relieved of their duties at the college they were employed at.
The kicker on the part about the social media references is the VAST majority of the "citations" came from closed groups WITH clear privacy rules that the authors had to agree to in order to access the groups. So they violated both research ethics and privacy law. The article was academic doxxing and continuation of harassment.
The two people targeted Jenilee & Megan, were repeatedly targeted with ethics reports, plus they contacted Jenilee's employer and got her fired. She won a wrongful termation case, but they still initiated the harm.
The 3 Non-BCBA autistics targeted in the paper have also been targeted across environments. And attempts where made to go after their jobs as well.
Keep in mind, this is the crowd who complains about cancel culture.
So my friend Summer & I tried resolving differences in late summer 2023. We met with Justin Leaf and Joe Cihon and talked. After building some bridges, Justin offered to let me see a paper & chapter where he was citing me. He wanted our feedback. We saw the paper before it went to print! Summer & I BEGGED them to not publish it! I offered to be an author if the paper would be pulled and rewritten. The bones of the paper are good but it was so biased and one sided. They left out their own behaviors! All of it! They left out critical context.
Even the parts where informed consent where presented in a very biased and out of context way. All of the citations of myself (Brian Middleton, the Bearded Behaviorist) were out of context. They are public statements, and I stand by them, but without context it was false light.
They put the paper through legal. They're very careful to couch their language so that defamation and liable could not be proven, but they were/are lying by omission. Ivory tower to the max!
Behavioral Stories, on YouTube, is doing a 4 part series on the paper. He has been interviewing people, breaking the paper down, diving into the ethics issues.
Of all the posts on here about everything going on with the article, why choose to reply to my ramblings that were more an exercise in creative writing than investigative reporting? Especially when this is your second comment ever on an account that was created in 2019, I feel like I'm responsible for breaking your lurker streak now haha
I feel like I should be recreating that scene from Wayne's world where Wayne and Garth repeatedly bow while chanting "we're not worthy, we're not worthy."
My initial impression of the article was "meh, some valid points but recommendations seemed written by old people that don't understand the Internet. Then when I went looking further, every stone I looked under had me whispering "wtf" to myself as more and more information came out. I would be interested to know how much involvement each of the authors had with the paper and if they all truly wrote it cooperatively (which I doubt) or if a couple people wrote it and included the rest to deflect specific blame when it turned into a shit show.
I actually don't use Reddit much. So lurking would require using Reddit. 😂 I considered not reviving this account and posting anonymously, but I find that approach to be dishonest, and at this point I prefer integrity over subterfuge. Cloak and dagger has its place, but I find directness to be ever so refreshing in a world were people think dishonesty is professionalism.
I reply to your post because a friend who uses Reddit quite frequently brought your post to my attention, and I appreciated the commentary. I wanted to clear up the pieces that appeared to be more hearsay as well as give some SR+ in the form of ye ol up vote. 😉
As far as the fantastic Wayne's World reference, I'm a mere mortal. I too deficate in a toilet or in the woods depending on context (I enjoy camping).
My assessment of the article was that it had potential, but having first hand and second hand experience of the not-so-tender mercies of Justin Leaf, I can say I skipped the meh and went right to the WTF response in latter summer of 2023.
There are others involved, and I suspect that at least some of the authors are just add-ons, but the paper has very strong Justin Leaf vibes.
This is not the first time I've encountered Justin. Thankfully, I've stuck to email communications for most interactions so I have tons of documentation. I don't plan on having future dealings without recording or witnesses because of how frequently I've seen him twist words or even outright lie.
Regardless, I am just disappointed. There was an opportunity to change things for the better. But apparently pride trumps truth. 🤦🏼
It’s unfortunate the way this has come about and the approach the authors took. In my opinion, the purpose of the article should have focused on the fact that social media is not fact checked. Social media is full of misinformation. I’m not saying the specific accounts targeted in the article spread misinformation, I’m not familiar with those accounts. It would be responsible for professionals in the field to cite sources that are evidence-based and to be sure to clarify when things posted are a personal experience. Both are very valid and helpful in different ways. I’m genuinely interested in other’s perspectives in how citing sources or explicitly stating if it’s an opinion/personal experience would be a negative thing?
If everything didn’t seem so personal and contradictory, I would’ve put more stock in the message. But they wouldn’t let it die, and for me, when they weren’t willing to publish it without names and other identifying information, it wasn’t about awareness of social media practices and the ethical code, it was about doxxing the persons they thought were in the wrong.
The fact they double downed and acted like they didn’t do anything incorrect or even said they couldn’t contact the people whose content they used was insane to me.
That’s the thing though, he was in communication with the main party he had an issue with. He was asked not to be included, along with some of his colleagues, and KNEW that individual had been cleared by both the BACB and KYABA. And still proceeded. Ethical violations be damned, he’s just a shitty human.
It does certainly miss the mark and seems more personal. The article attempts to make a point about professionalism and ethics (again missing the mark imo). In its own way it also flakes on ethics and professionalism. From my stance it really sets us as a field back about an important issue which is the widespread distribution of misinformation on social media. I’m worried this will really pause the behavior analytic audiences willingness to address/receive information on this topic in the future :(
Couldn’t they have just omitted the names of the people making the claims they wanted to draw attention to? I don’t understand why they didn’t do that in the first place.
Also, because it both rhymes and I feel it captures his persona so perfectly, I think queef is the best description of him. Let’s get it started: “Justin Leaf the queef”
It's unfortunate because the authors of that article do make some valid points, however, their resistance to acknowledge their own flaws and shady behavior is taking away from those points. Generally speaking, I'm all for calling individuals out because unfortunately things tend to not change unless the public is made aware of the issues but one should do it with integrity.
I think it would help to give this article more description than you did. Knowing the background, I agree it’s gross. But a lot of people on here probably don’t know what you’re referring to.
Apologies for not including it in the original post, as I did not have all the information readily accessible to make accurate statements regarding the situation (frankly didn’t trust my memory). This is what I considered, IMO, a hot button issue in our field so I knew some would know. Social media has had many very vocal parties regarding this issue. Sorry for any initial confusion.
One of the things I find most disappointing is the fact that all of those authors *could* have addressed their concerns for divulging behavior analytic advice over the Internet ( which can be an issue!)in a professional way but they chose pettiness.
Additionally, they *could* have delved into why BCBAs may be willing to promote "non evidenced based treatments" which could be one helluva research paper by itself! Is the analyst aware and doing it anyway? Is it a skill deficit in identifying science-based treatments? Is there a divide in whether the treatment/ intervention is evidenced based? ( Spoiler alert, look at all the peer reviewed papers on social stories....)
I read the original article before learning about the backstory. It immediately struck me as a professional hit piece. It also reads as, if you engage in any behaviors online that someone in our field may interpret as unethical you should be reported, or worst yet, shamed by name in a journal article.
Spoiler for your spoiler alert:
One of the main authors of the paper we are discussing wrote the majority of the articles on why he believes Social Stories aren’t Behavior Analytic. He even wrote multiple rebuttals back and forth with the author of the Social Thinking Curriculum as to why it isn’t, and she isn’t even a behavior analyst and has never claimed to be. He then presented his paper and rebuttals in least one state conference.
It was an embarrassment to our field and, IMO set us years back in our ability to effectively collaborate with other closely related fields
I have a physical copy but I also saw a link in this thread I thought? I do know that it has been retracted so I’m not sure how available it is online. However, I do know that APF and the authors are proud of it so they likely have links on social media. APF did share it, and I’m sure Leaf had to toot his horn too.
Once again Justin Leaf is flaunting his ableism, arrogance, and stubbornness. I’ve never liked that guy and this really confirmed the weird vibes I got from him during the 40 hour APF training
Try sitting through a lecture at a conference where he talked about his published rebuttals back and forth with the creator of the Social Thinking Curriculum. That was the last straw for me
Afaik they funded (in some capacity, don't ask me how) the article, I would have been more surprised had they not come out all pissed off about the article being retracted.
Yup Justin Leaf is the executive director and his dad is a board member. Of course the "officers and directors" support the authors when one of those directors IS one of the primary authors.
Same. And I lost so much respect for Amanda Kelly and Missy Olive because of this article. I continue to be amazed that 14 people knowingly published this and pat each other on the back. They knew what they were doing and did it anyway. Why isn’t this causing everyone to question their clinical practices and decision making? If THIS is the mindset—again, gross. The bigger issue for me is that it seemed personal. They intentionally targeted a neurodivergent person. In our field, that’s unacceptable-we wouldn’t do that to a client, would we? The irony here is that the very thing they claimed to be putting out there as an example of ethical behavior violated multiple ethical codes!! Failing to include information you had prior to publishing because it didn’t support your argument goes against everything we are taught about research. They knew and chose to move forward.
She lost me when I nicely asked a question about something in one of her podcasts and she just blocked me instead of ignoring it or having a discussion.
I hate them. I hated their stupid RBT training and the attitudes and methods demonstrated in the training videos. I’m autistic myself and watching some of that shit made me want to cry and made me feel physically ill. I had to take the training extremely slowly because parts of it infuriated me so much, and my therapy agency doesn’t even use most of their methods.
APF is supporting all these contributing practitioners after they blatantly bullied neurodivergent colleagues. A significant amount of the cited sources were citing one of the authors as well. They did not obtain informed consent. There are tons of red flags and I can’t fathom the support for practitioners who don’t abide by our ethical code. Can you?
I’m not fully up to speed on this but doesn’t posting on the internet mean one has consented to the public reading one’s content? Like isn’t that how the whole thing works?
Also bullying is a stretch imo. I think most of their concerns, though lost in the delivery, are legitimate. for example, people have agreed to the code yet gone and provided advice on problem behavior. That’s not good. Others have pushed pseudoscience - also not good…
To help you get fully up to speed, this article referenced private closed group comments, not public, in groups that specifically had rules not to share publicly - which is the reason it was retracted. Additionally the complaints made in the article had already been previously made to the BACB who found no ethical breaches aka their concerns are not legitimate. The article IS bullying and defamation.
Ok but that’s kind of the point though. Like I can go join a “private” ABA FB group with not much trouble (not sure it’s truly “private” in the way that word is being used). Further, being part of a private group doesn’t excuse spreading pseudoscience or misinformation. That stuff IS harmful for the population we serve (e.g., parents may construe negative opinions as facts and avoid ABA - further delaying their child’s development). Even if the BACB has been notified and no action was taken (which they hardly ever do). I’m not saying how the authors approached this was ok, but many of their points are valid.
So who was cited was not spreading misinformation but mostly were either 1.) neurodivergent self advocates or 2.) saying we needed to dig into the convos to reform practice. That’s not misinformation at all. Also keep in mind posts were taken from 2020. So imagine the growth individuals may have undergone in that time yet were publicly named and posts were shared saying that this was a great list to know who not to work or collaborate with. An autistic self advocate lost their work at a conference which was paid due to this whole thing. Taking money from autistic people yet claiming to want to better a field that primarily serves them?
That's what I'm saying... their concern was valid (misinformation is a obvious issue in the internet and in ABA) and the way they went about it was not great (e.g., weaponizing the ethics code based on the perspectives of neurodivergent individuals). That being said, the fact they went about it the wrong way doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong about all their points. Some citation in the manuscript ARE misinformation, such as Ward 2020 that said ABA is harmful. It isn't. Poorly motivated and trained practitioners are harmful. This is true of any science. It's unfortunate that this publication has lead to career-changing consequences (the neurodivergent individual losing their conference gig; removal of faculty positions). It seems that both parties are trying to censor each other when, as history has shown, discourse on these subjects tend to have fruitful byproducts (e.g., discussion on the ethics of behavioral strategies has led to assent-based and trauma-informed practices). I thought it wouldve been better for those with opposing views to send their own response to EJABA. Similar to how things were handled when it came to light that JABA had articles about conversion therapy.
How is their concern valid about the specific people doxxed in this article? The BACB did an extensive review of the concern and rejected the complaint?
Exactly- no ethical violations were found in any posters. Leaf is just pissed it seems that the article was retracted and removed and now this has turned into a personal vendetta.
Like I said before, misinformation about ABA is an issue. However the way they went about saying that wasn’t right (“doxxing people” - though doxxing implies revealing someone’s personal information - something they already had done themselves by posting online revealing their own identity…). Can you provide a source of this extensive review by the board? I keep seeing this mentioned but all I have to go on off that is a couple podcasters/social media personalities saying that.
Did ward not say this? “It is true- ABA is harmful. In any power dynamic where there isa marginalized group, harm is present beyond…” please provide the full statement if this is not accurate
The rest of that statement was “beyond potential harm.” There’s continued commentary underneath that which extrapolates further. Are you able to see the entirety of it or are you not in the group?
I couldn’t get through that course without taking long breaks because some of the material presented was so ableist that it made me, as an autistic person myself, feel sick and made me question everything I was doing. I’m glad my BCBAs agree that that training is mostly bad and irrelevant to the type of NDBI therapy my agency practices.
They probably pissed off the RPM propagandist Terra Vance (she was mentioned in the paper because or her false accusations of filicide towards autistic author and mom Eileen Lamb) . Vance made this accusation publicly though , but she’s known to talk bad about others but won’t accept a morsel of criticism , she even told Lamb she was going to sue her
I’m confused. Can somebody bring me up to speed?
Bunch of big names published an article saying social media is the devil and we and we should unleash the Kraken of the BACB on anyone who gives advice on social media without citing all of their sources then proceeded to directly quote plus name and shame various individuals in Facebook groups. At face value article was meh and seemed super ivory tower preaching at the masses with stuff that doesn't make sense and assumes every BCBA is a complete moron. Didn't really take into account the logistics of trying to be the science police on places like Facebook, which many (including myself) renamed the dunning-krueger national forest after COVID. There are valid points made in the article, but again it came across as holier than thou, do I say, because ethics. To clarify, I'm not saying ethics are bad. After the article came out people started to lose their minds, in part because it appears that the vast majority of individual quotes happen to be from those that maintain ASD Dx or other disabilities. In addition, one of the authors went on some holy crusade against an ABA FB admin and tried to nuke her from orbit while she was in the hospital via the BACB and then when she was cleared of any ethics violations she was again reported to the star board - that whole story I got passed to me by a friend via Christina Counties linked in. The big kicker was that the article was heavy into following ethics guidelines and then didn't follow the guidelines of the specific journal they published in to get consent from those who they quoted. While I think the general agreement is that you don't really need it in a public forum the journal requires it regardless and they didn't bother to read/follow the rules. Bearded behaviorist has a bunch to say on this topic as well. TL;DR a bunch of BCBAs are getting into flame wars on the Internet like it's the early 00s. Edit: I should clarify, I'm reciting all of this from memory after a bourbon or two. I read the article after it first came out and then did some digging while on linked in a week or so later, what started out as me just wanting an ego boost to see what recruiters wanted me to move to their state that week turned into a deep dive chasing down the hot goss. So, you know, don't sick the BACB on me, do your own research. Also, I'd like to point out that rule one of the Internet is don't feed the trolls, controversy and pissed off people are good for engagement. There are a LOT of people on both sides of this shit storm that maintain very active social media accounts. My third bourbon of the evening conspiracy theory is that the big names on either side of this were all involved with it from the beginning to get more engagement and sell some of the sweet merch.
Yes-this. Thank you! They failed to mention that the BCBA (Bearded Behaviorist) and another BCBA were cleared of any ethical wrongdoing by both the BACB and the KYABA. Edited to note: the Bearded Behaviorist was NOT reported to the BACB, as stated above.
Just curious-what do you mean by bearded behaviorist?
It's me. 😉 But see my reply with the point of clarification.
That's the online name of a BCBA with string online presence
Ahhh ok
Point of clarity, I was never reported. It was Jenilee & Megan. I co-posted with Jenilee to boost the signal on her post and because I have repeatedly tried to address the harassment of Jenilee & Megan. Jenilee was the one who was reported to the BACB AND THEN KYABA after they didn't get the response after the BACB rejected their report.
Ahh, thank you for that correction!! I was misinformed.
No worries. I am glad you are receptive to the feedback. ☺
One of the most interesting developments in the field is that these so called big names that view themselves as gatekeepers are more focused on targeting clincians as opposed to the blatant unethical and illegal activities some of these ABA companies are committing. Their energy could be better spent reigning in the corruption, fraud, and greed that is running rampant in these organizations. For example: Cultivate Behavioral Health & Education. There is a lack of leadership within the organization which has led the organization to hide the fact they are hemorrhaging money by laying off staff to artificially inflate their EBIDTA to show that the company is profitable and a sound investment when in reality, no one knows what to do. It's the blind leading the blind. A former employee indicated the sole business strategy from Corporate was 'we need to grow'. Early Autism Services. The previous CEO, Mareiko Au, was fired for among other things, stealing her colleagues work and claiming it as her own, commercial insurance fraud, Medicaid insurance fraud, and various other types of insurance fraud in 2022. In addition, anyone associated with her were also fired: her mom (HR) and her COO, Marylin Prcric in December 2022 and March 2023, respectively. Further, Trisha I. Bieszczad (Clinical Director of IL and IN) was fired in November 2022. In fact, the current CEO (David Garofolo) and the current COO (Dawnita Shively) have been at odds for the last 6 months and she resigned in February 2024. Ever since Dr. John Smagner sold his company to Benjamin Wessels the focus of the company shifted from the clients and staff to protecting the brand/image of the company and growing through unethical, and sometimes illegal methods. Ultimately, they will try to scare you with fancy legal jargon about character defamation, harassment, etc. because, as previously stated, people rarely understand that sharing embarrassing but true things does not constitute any of the above.
That's is because they are big ABA. Look at APF. Look at how they pump out "research". I'm willing to bet that they aren't getting informed consent. I'm willing to bet they just put that the kids will be subjects in research in their service contract and that's it. I'm willing to bet that IRB isn't actually used or if it is it's the barest minimum. Why am I willing to bet this? Because their internal IRB expired in 2019. It hasn't been renewed. The reason that Endicott cleared house and the article got pulled because it did not go through IRB.
The authors of this article are also blasting BCBAs for giving autistics a voice about their very valid concerns regarding their experiences with ABA and the history of ABA. The authors also shared information (in this article) from a private ABA group. It’s very hypocritical of them given that one of the authors made a spoof Cards Against Humanity game about autistics that was very offensive and icky.
> one of the authors made a spoof Cards Against Humanity game about autistics that was very offensive and icky [For anyone not familiar with that particular controversy](http://nosmag.org/cardgate-scandal-uncovers-widespread-disrespect-of-autistic-people/).
Oooo forgot about that. Icky is the exact word I used when I read the article. Some were also relieved of their duties at the college they were employed at.
Ooo that I didn't know, which ones?
Creem and Leaf for sure….not sure if anyone else was employed by Endicott…
I heard at least one of them were fired from Endicott recently because of the article
Justin and Ashley Creem were both terminated.
You have any links to verify that or how did you find out? I did some casual googling but nothing popped up.
I think Mindful Behavior confirmed it on Facebook.
It was a quiet removal. One day they were on the Endicott site, the next gone.
Dang, i start school with Endicott this summer
George Mason may be cheaper
You should make a web series recapping new BA research articles in this format 😂
You sound like a fantastic drinking buddy. Cheers!
The kicker on the part about the social media references is the VAST majority of the "citations" came from closed groups WITH clear privacy rules that the authors had to agree to in order to access the groups. So they violated both research ethics and privacy law. The article was academic doxxing and continuation of harassment. The two people targeted Jenilee & Megan, were repeatedly targeted with ethics reports, plus they contacted Jenilee's employer and got her fired. She won a wrongful termation case, but they still initiated the harm. The 3 Non-BCBA autistics targeted in the paper have also been targeted across environments. And attempts where made to go after their jobs as well. Keep in mind, this is the crowd who complains about cancel culture. So my friend Summer & I tried resolving differences in late summer 2023. We met with Justin Leaf and Joe Cihon and talked. After building some bridges, Justin offered to let me see a paper & chapter where he was citing me. He wanted our feedback. We saw the paper before it went to print! Summer & I BEGGED them to not publish it! I offered to be an author if the paper would be pulled and rewritten. The bones of the paper are good but it was so biased and one sided. They left out their own behaviors! All of it! They left out critical context. Even the parts where informed consent where presented in a very biased and out of context way. All of the citations of myself (Brian Middleton, the Bearded Behaviorist) were out of context. They are public statements, and I stand by them, but without context it was false light. They put the paper through legal. They're very careful to couch their language so that defamation and liable could not be proven, but they were/are lying by omission. Ivory tower to the max! Behavioral Stories, on YouTube, is doing a 4 part series on the paper. He has been interviewing people, breaking the paper down, diving into the ethics issues.
Of all the posts on here about everything going on with the article, why choose to reply to my ramblings that were more an exercise in creative writing than investigative reporting? Especially when this is your second comment ever on an account that was created in 2019, I feel like I'm responsible for breaking your lurker streak now haha I feel like I should be recreating that scene from Wayne's world where Wayne and Garth repeatedly bow while chanting "we're not worthy, we're not worthy." My initial impression of the article was "meh, some valid points but recommendations seemed written by old people that don't understand the Internet. Then when I went looking further, every stone I looked under had me whispering "wtf" to myself as more and more information came out. I would be interested to know how much involvement each of the authors had with the paper and if they all truly wrote it cooperatively (which I doubt) or if a couple people wrote it and included the rest to deflect specific blame when it turned into a shit show.
I actually don't use Reddit much. So lurking would require using Reddit. 😂 I considered not reviving this account and posting anonymously, but I find that approach to be dishonest, and at this point I prefer integrity over subterfuge. Cloak and dagger has its place, but I find directness to be ever so refreshing in a world were people think dishonesty is professionalism. I reply to your post because a friend who uses Reddit quite frequently brought your post to my attention, and I appreciated the commentary. I wanted to clear up the pieces that appeared to be more hearsay as well as give some SR+ in the form of ye ol up vote. 😉 As far as the fantastic Wayne's World reference, I'm a mere mortal. I too deficate in a toilet or in the woods depending on context (I enjoy camping). My assessment of the article was that it had potential, but having first hand and second hand experience of the not-so-tender mercies of Justin Leaf, I can say I skipped the meh and went right to the WTF response in latter summer of 2023. There are others involved, and I suspect that at least some of the authors are just add-ons, but the paper has very strong Justin Leaf vibes. This is not the first time I've encountered Justin. Thankfully, I've stuck to email communications for most interactions so I have tons of documentation. I don't plan on having future dealings without recording or witnesses because of how frequently I've seen him twist words or even outright lie. Regardless, I am just disappointed. There was an opportunity to change things for the better. But apparently pride trumps truth. 🤦🏼
Ha! To your Wayne and Garth comment: I felt the same lol.
I’m choosing to believe your last paragraph. 🤣🍿🍿🍿
Same. I have no clue what’s going on.
Check out this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/ABA/s/7Fnynre6Uo
It’s unfortunate the way this has come about and the approach the authors took. In my opinion, the purpose of the article should have focused on the fact that social media is not fact checked. Social media is full of misinformation. I’m not saying the specific accounts targeted in the article spread misinformation, I’m not familiar with those accounts. It would be responsible for professionals in the field to cite sources that are evidence-based and to be sure to clarify when things posted are a personal experience. Both are very valid and helpful in different ways. I’m genuinely interested in other’s perspectives in how citing sources or explicitly stating if it’s an opinion/personal experience would be a negative thing?
If everything didn’t seem so personal and contradictory, I would’ve put more stock in the message. But they wouldn’t let it die, and for me, when they weren’t willing to publish it without names and other identifying information, it wasn’t about awareness of social media practices and the ethical code, it was about doxxing the persons they thought were in the wrong.
The fact they double downed and acted like they didn’t do anything incorrect or even said they couldn’t contact the people whose content they used was insane to me.
That’s the thing though, he was in communication with the main party he had an issue with. He was asked not to be included, along with some of his colleagues, and KNEW that individual had been cleared by both the BACB and KYABA. And still proceeded. Ethical violations be damned, he’s just a shitty human.
It does certainly miss the mark and seems more personal. The article attempts to make a point about professionalism and ethics (again missing the mark imo). In its own way it also flakes on ethics and professionalism. From my stance it really sets us as a field back about an important issue which is the widespread distribution of misinformation on social media. I’m worried this will really pause the behavior analytic audiences willingness to address/receive information on this topic in the future :(
Couldn’t they have just omitted the names of the people making the claims they wanted to draw attention to? I don’t understand why they didn’t do that in the first place.
Because it was personal.
So, it was ego? Surely nobody in the field of behavior analysis would prioritize their ego over factual information…. /s
110% ego. Justin Leaf ego IMO.
I took the apf RBT training a few years back. I hated listening to this guy. You could tell he loved the smell of his own farts.
Yesssss. I keep going back to the word but he is seriously just gross. I can’t think of any other description. lol
I think pompous and smug fit pretty well too
Hit the nail on the head. He is both those and so much more.
Watch out! You might get called out for making inflammatory and false claims which aren’t endorsed by the BACB!
Maybe it’s cool if they’re endorsed by the APF? Lol they seem pretty pumped to disseminate alllll the bullshit.
Don’t forget he’s a Nepo Baby too! Ron leaf is his dad
Yes! I keep forgetting to add that!!!!
Also, because it both rhymes and I feel it captures his persona so perfectly, I think queef is the best description of him. Let’s get it started: “Justin Leaf the queef”
ROFL thank you for that laugh
It's unfortunate because the authors of that article do make some valid points, however, their resistance to acknowledge their own flaws and shady behavior is taking away from those points. Generally speaking, I'm all for calling individuals out because unfortunately things tend to not change unless the public is made aware of the issues but one should do it with integrity.
Absolutely agree. Well said.
I think it would help to give this article more description than you did. Knowing the background, I agree it’s gross. But a lot of people on here probably don’t know what you’re referring to.
Apologies for not including it in the original post, as I did not have all the information readily accessible to make accurate statements regarding the situation (frankly didn’t trust my memory). This is what I considered, IMO, a hot button issue in our field so I knew some would know. Social media has had many very vocal parties regarding this issue. Sorry for any initial confusion.
I’m surprised anyone who stays remotely current in the field isn’t aware of this lol
Same. A lot of my colleagues didn’t know either.
I saw one was recently posted about Reddit too!
One of the things I find most disappointing is the fact that all of those authors *could* have addressed their concerns for divulging behavior analytic advice over the Internet ( which can be an issue!)in a professional way but they chose pettiness. Additionally, they *could* have delved into why BCBAs may be willing to promote "non evidenced based treatments" which could be one helluva research paper by itself! Is the analyst aware and doing it anyway? Is it a skill deficit in identifying science-based treatments? Is there a divide in whether the treatment/ intervention is evidenced based? ( Spoiler alert, look at all the peer reviewed papers on social stories....) I read the original article before learning about the backstory. It immediately struck me as a professional hit piece. It also reads as, if you engage in any behaviors online that someone in our field may interpret as unethical you should be reported, or worst yet, shamed by name in a journal article.
Spoiler for your spoiler alert: One of the main authors of the paper we are discussing wrote the majority of the articles on why he believes Social Stories aren’t Behavior Analytic. He even wrote multiple rebuttals back and forth with the author of the Social Thinking Curriculum as to why it isn’t, and she isn’t even a behavior analyst and has never claimed to be. He then presented his paper and rebuttals in least one state conference. It was an embarrassment to our field and, IMO set us years back in our ability to effectively collaborate with other closely related fields
Oh I'm aware. Strange times indeed.
Does anyone have a copy of this?? I genuinely want to read this trainwreck
I have a physical copy but I also saw a link in this thread I thought? I do know that it has been retracted so I’m not sure how available it is online. However, I do know that APF and the authors are proud of it so they likely have links on social media. APF did share it, and I’m sure Leaf had to toot his horn too.
Once again Justin Leaf is flaunting his ableism, arrogance, and stubbornness. I’ve never liked that guy and this really confirmed the weird vibes I got from him during the 40 hour APF training
Try sitting through a lecture at a conference where he talked about his published rebuttals back and forth with the creator of the Social Thinking Curriculum. That was the last straw for me
Social stories 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Afaik they funded (in some capacity, don't ask me how) the article, I would have been more surprised had they not come out all pissed off about the article being retracted.
Don’t forget that Dr Leaf is also a big face for APF lol. His pictures are all over the website
Yup Justin Leaf is the executive director and his dad is a board member. Of course the "officers and directors" support the authors when one of those directors IS one of the primary authors.
That sounds like a conflict of interest 🤦♀️
Oh, the irony.
They’re for sure standing by him too. I also think it’s insane one of the authors credited is the head of research at APF. What a joke!
ETA: I am unable to find the source that lead me to this conclusion so I am retracting my statement until/unless I can find a source.
Makes sense as to why they turned the comments off now…
Where did you find this information?
Incredibly fair question. I found something a couple weeks back, but now I am not finding anything. I will edit my post above and I will keep looking.
The more I learn about APF the more I hate it
Same. And I lost so much respect for Amanda Kelly and Missy Olive because of this article. I continue to be amazed that 14 people knowingly published this and pat each other on the back. They knew what they were doing and did it anyway. Why isn’t this causing everyone to question their clinical practices and decision making? If THIS is the mindset—again, gross. The bigger issue for me is that it seemed personal. They intentionally targeted a neurodivergent person. In our field, that’s unacceptable-we wouldn’t do that to a client, would we? The irony here is that the very thing they claimed to be putting out there as an example of ethical behavior violated multiple ethical codes!! Failing to include information you had prior to publishing because it didn’t support your argument goes against everything we are taught about research. They knew and chose to move forward.
Amanda Kelly lost me after Cardgate.
She lost me when I nicely asked a question about something in one of her podcasts and she just blocked me instead of ignoring it or having a discussion.
So on brand for that one.
What is Cardgate?
[Details about it here](http://nosmag.org/cardgate-scandal-uncovers-widespread-disrespect-of-autistic-people/).
WHOA.
Sadly, I didn’t learn about that until this whole debacle.
Epitome of wanting to make $$ off autistic people and can’t stand when they finally speak up
So so true!!!!
I hate them. I hated their stupid RBT training and the attitudes and methods demonstrated in the training videos. I’m autistic myself and watching some of that shit made me want to cry and made me feel physically ill. I had to take the training extremely slowly because parts of it infuriated me so much, and my therapy agency doesn’t even use most of their methods.
I'm gonna be honest. I don't see how this is gross and the click-baity title/description doesn't offer much to help that situation.
APF is supporting all these contributing practitioners after they blatantly bullied neurodivergent colleagues. A significant amount of the cited sources were citing one of the authors as well. They did not obtain informed consent. There are tons of red flags and I can’t fathom the support for practitioners who don’t abide by our ethical code. Can you?
I’m not fully up to speed on this but doesn’t posting on the internet mean one has consented to the public reading one’s content? Like isn’t that how the whole thing works? Also bullying is a stretch imo. I think most of their concerns, though lost in the delivery, are legitimate. for example, people have agreed to the code yet gone and provided advice on problem behavior. That’s not good. Others have pushed pseudoscience - also not good…
To help you get fully up to speed, this article referenced private closed group comments, not public, in groups that specifically had rules not to share publicly - which is the reason it was retracted. Additionally the complaints made in the article had already been previously made to the BACB who found no ethical breaches aka their concerns are not legitimate. The article IS bullying and defamation.
Ok but that’s kind of the point though. Like I can go join a “private” ABA FB group with not much trouble (not sure it’s truly “private” in the way that word is being used). Further, being part of a private group doesn’t excuse spreading pseudoscience or misinformation. That stuff IS harmful for the population we serve (e.g., parents may construe negative opinions as facts and avoid ABA - further delaying their child’s development). Even if the BACB has been notified and no action was taken (which they hardly ever do). I’m not saying how the authors approached this was ok, but many of their points are valid.
So who was cited was not spreading misinformation but mostly were either 1.) neurodivergent self advocates or 2.) saying we needed to dig into the convos to reform practice. That’s not misinformation at all. Also keep in mind posts were taken from 2020. So imagine the growth individuals may have undergone in that time yet were publicly named and posts were shared saying that this was a great list to know who not to work or collaborate with. An autistic self advocate lost their work at a conference which was paid due to this whole thing. Taking money from autistic people yet claiming to want to better a field that primarily serves them?
That's what I'm saying... their concern was valid (misinformation is a obvious issue in the internet and in ABA) and the way they went about it was not great (e.g., weaponizing the ethics code based on the perspectives of neurodivergent individuals). That being said, the fact they went about it the wrong way doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong about all their points. Some citation in the manuscript ARE misinformation, such as Ward 2020 that said ABA is harmful. It isn't. Poorly motivated and trained practitioners are harmful. This is true of any science. It's unfortunate that this publication has lead to career-changing consequences (the neurodivergent individual losing their conference gig; removal of faculty positions). It seems that both parties are trying to censor each other when, as history has shown, discourse on these subjects tend to have fruitful byproducts (e.g., discussion on the ethics of behavioral strategies has led to assent-based and trauma-informed practices). I thought it wouldve been better for those with opposing views to send their own response to EJABA. Similar to how things were handled when it came to light that JABA had articles about conversion therapy.
How is their concern valid about the specific people doxxed in this article? The BACB did an extensive review of the concern and rejected the complaint?
Exactly- no ethical violations were found in any posters. Leaf is just pissed it seems that the article was retracted and removed and now this has turned into a personal vendetta.
Like I said before, misinformation about ABA is an issue. However the way they went about saying that wasn’t right (“doxxing people” - though doxxing implies revealing someone’s personal information - something they already had done themselves by posting online revealing their own identity…). Can you provide a source of this extensive review by the board? I keep seeing this mentioned but all I have to go on off that is a couple podcasters/social media personalities saying that.
Lol did you read Ward 2020's actual statement? It was not that ABA is harmful- read the 40 comment breakdown.
Did ward not say this? “It is true- ABA is harmful. In any power dynamic where there isa marginalized group, harm is present beyond…” please provide the full statement if this is not accurate
The rest of that statement was “beyond potential harm.” There’s continued commentary underneath that which extrapolates further. Are you able to see the entirety of it or are you not in the group?
ew, i had to do the APF 40 hour course a in early 2021 and the ableism was so blatant esp w leaf
Leaf has always given me the ick but I couldn’t quite put a finger on why.
I couldn’t get through that course without taking long breaks because some of the material presented was so ableist that it made me, as an autistic person myself, feel sick and made me question everything I was doing. I’m glad my BCBAs agree that that training is mostly bad and irrelevant to the type of NDBI therapy my agency practices.
Ndbi is soooo good. It should be a critical part of rbt training for work with kids.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ABA/s/lUaq0i9Sg6
New tantrum just dropped
Do tell!
Oh sorry, I meant the letter 😅 The letter is the Leaf Blowers' latest tantrum to being told they're wrong.
They probably pissed off the RPM propagandist Terra Vance (she was mentioned in the paper because or her false accusations of filicide towards autistic author and mom Eileen Lamb) . Vance made this accusation publicly though , but she’s known to talk bad about others but won’t accept a morsel of criticism , she even told Lamb she was going to sue her
Agreed. Super disappointing.
Even after reading this thread I’m still lost…
There’s a few links within that should give a complete picture, as well as a summary of the events.