Do FCed Individuals have Telepathic Superpowers?

Facilitated CommunicationSpelling to CommunicateRapid Prompting MethodCritique of Pro-FC Article

Oct 18

One of our readers sent us links to what appear to be facilitated autistic or developmentally delayed individuals being used as human Ouija boards with claims by their handlers that the individuals have “telepathic” or “psychic” abilities. We’ve also occasionally received comments on this website from those supporting the idea, so today’s blog post focuses on FC, telepathy, and psychic abilities.

Photographer Anthony Easton (Wikimedia Commons)

This is not a new concept. In the early 1990s, James Randi, a famous skeptic and magician, was asked by FC advocate Ann Donnellan of the University of Wisconsin to test facilitated individuals there for psychic abilities. The short version of Randi’s experience is that, after observing the individuals being subjected to FC, he suggested the facilitator-client pairs be tested for authorship before testing their psychic abilities. He was let go from the project. (See A Magician Cannot Dispute FC…Or Can He?)

In fact, it seems the idea of FC and psychic abilities is so fringe, even founder Rosemary Crossley rejected the idea. Crossley wrote in her book “Facilitated Communication Training”:

To date I have not heard of any examples of “telepathy” in facilitated communication training that cannot be explained by the processes that operated with Jill. In any instance where paranormal abilities are suggested for or by a communication aid user the first step should be to examine the facilitation process closely, both to see if a mechanism for transmission of information can be discerned and to see if the level of facilitation can be reduced. (p. 111)

In other words, watch for facilitator cues that interfere with letter selection. Too bad Crossley didn’t apply that to all FC sessions, but that’s a topic for another day.

Still, there are some facilitators who are so convinced of the idea, they insist profoundly autistic individuals have metaphysical superpowers. To them, these individuals transcend the realities of this world and, through facilitation, somehow connect to energy in the cosmos, which, in turn serves as a catalyst for their expression in the real world. These individuals (with facilitated support) “demonstrate” sudden literacy skills (e.g. an “expansiveness of consciousness”) far beyond their years, cognitive abilities, or educational experiences.

Supporters of this idea (facilitators or, as I’ve seen in the literature, “Catalysts”) seem baffled when skeptics and proponents of FC alike don’t take them seriously. After all, don’t these FC-generated telepathic messages from individuals with profound language difficulties have the potential of teaching us “more than we could ever teach them?”

Well…no. At least not until two things happen:

First, as, Randi astutely pointed out, proponents of FC (in any of its variant forms) need to establish FC/S2C/RPM as an independent form of communication.

Researchers at the O.D. Heck Center preparing for testing where the facilitators were blinded to test protocols. (Prisoners of Silence, 1993)

It is not “evidence” when facilitators state they “feel” like the messages are independent, prophetic, divinely given, or inexplicable, even when the facilitators are sincere about their beliefs. Unproven claims about FC “successes” are called “anecdotes” and are opinions, not proof that the technique(s) work.

It is also not “evidence” when individuals subjected to FC—and this is key—type with assistance from a facilitator that the words are their own. When two people select letters in tandem, it is impossible to determine the contribution of each in unstructured, uncontrolled conditions. Dependence on a facilitator who holds onto the person being facilitated or holds onto a letter board held in the air to select letters is not independence.

Proponents claim unexpected turns of phrase or unusual sentence structures are “proof” the FC-generated messages are not influenced by the facilitators. But, researchers have a down-to-earth, real-world explanation for unexpected literacy skills stemming from FC/S2C/RPM use: facilitator cueing and control. This is especially true when the individual being subjected to FC/S2C/RPM is not looking at the letter board or attending to the task, but the facilitators’ eyes are, steadfastly, glued to the letter board.

To date, under reliably controlled conditions (e.g., where facilitators do not have access to test protocols), the FC-generated messages are consistently 1) based on information provided to the facilitator during the test, 2) unintelligible, and/or 3) correctly spelled words that have no bearing on the topic(s) being tested. In other words, if the facilitator does not know the answer, the FC-generated responses are incorrect. There is nothing otherworldly about this process or the resulting messages. (See Controlled Studies and Systematic Reviews)

Given that FC/S2C/RPM only “work” when the facilitator is present, “telepathically” produced messages cannot be attributed solely to the individual being subjected to FC without first ruling out facilitator cues (e.g., physical, auditory, visual prompts) that overtly or covertly control letter selection.

"The Boston planchette ... first made in Boston in 1860 ... For sale by G.W. Cottrell, 36 Cornhill, Boston." (Wikimedia Commons)

And second, those believing in telepathic or psychic abilities need to prove these supernatural “skills” are something more than the internal imaginings or dialogue of the psychic or medium making the claims. Researchers testing for psychic abilities know more about the test protocols than I do. However, I’m assuming psychic abilities testing is akin to testing for FC authorship in that the goal is to rule in or rule out the influence of the psychic or medium during the “telepathic” exchange.

As far as I know, no one has successfully demonstrated telepathic or psychic abilities under reliably controlled conditions. Again, anecdotes, however sincere and heartfelt, are not evidence of independent communication (even those divinely inspired).

I find it interesting that facilitators and psychics alike fall back on similar rationalizations as to why controlled testing is impossible: skepticism or doubt somehow interferes with the transactional energy of the situation.

Facilitators claim testing is an affront to the individuals being subjected to FC, thus breaking their “trust” in the facilitator-client bond. It seems odd that FCed individuals are unable to answer a dozen or so questions of which their facilitators don’t know the answers because they are “too anxious” but can “successfully” (with facilitator “support”) graduate from college, present at the United Nations, and bring false allegations of abuse against their teachers, parents, caregivers, or others.

Psychics claim the negative energy of doubters might cause harm to both the “Catalyst” (aka facilitator) and to the non-speaking or minimally verbal individual subjected to the psychic activity, though they don’t explain exactly how this superstitiously ominous-sounding “harm” will manifest itself.

Indeed, both facilitators and psychics alike show an extraordinary lack of curiosity when it comes to exploring “why” and “how” the FC sessions “work,” even though the ideomotor response is a well-documented phenomenon and may well explain the (often) non-conscious muscle movements that contribute to facilitator cueing. Indeed, proponents describe their own experiences with FC as “magical,” “mystical,” “inexplicable,” and “being in a different zone.”

In my opinion, FC/S2C/RPM “works” in large part because facilitators, over time and with practice, lose awareness of their own behaviors (e.g., physical movements or vocalizations) during the letter selection activity. Facilitators are trained to focus all their attention on their client or the spelling activity itself. Even when facilitators intend not to influence letter selection, actively facilitating requires multi-tasking (e.g., calling out letters, asking and answering questions, redirecting the client to look at the board). No facilitator is able to do all that and maintain 100% awareness of their own verbal and physical cues 100% of the time. To the contrary, the more “fluid” the FC-sessions become (e.g., the more the facilitator relaxes and “goes with the flow”), the more “successful” the sessions seem. If facilitators don’t (consciously) test for facilitator control in themselves or others in reliably controlled conditions, they are not going to find it.

As we’ve seen in pro-FC movies like Spellers and The Reason I Jump, proponents of FC/S2C/RPM express frustration at skeptics, researchers, and scientists who (from facilitators’ perspective) do not seem to want to investigate the “inexplicable, energetic, soul connection” between facilitators and their clients.

But the truth is skeptics have explored the topics of authorship in FC, telepathy, and psychic abilities for years. As James Todd wrote in a 2012 article:

Long before they even thought to put pen to paper and write their extravagant tales of extraordinary reawakening…they [founders Douglas Biklen and Rosemary Crossley] should have heeded not just the technical lessons of Clever Hans, but the findings of more than a century of scientific and practical investigations of automatic writing, experimenter bias, mental telepathy, unconscious influence, subjective validation, stimulus leakage, expectancy effects, deception, and self-delusion (p. 2)

The sad reality is that proponents do not like what researchers found about FC and psychic abilities.

Todd continues:

Had they exercised due scientific diligence, the developers of FC would have quickly realized that they had done nothing better than turn pliant arms into Ouija planchettes and reinvent the seance. (p. 2)

The evidence against FC/S2C/RPM favors facilitator control over FC-generated messages (whether purportedly “telepathic” or not). As noted earlier, facilitator control has never been ruled out in tests where facilitators are blinded to test protocols. Facilitator control, though often non-conscious, comes in the form of facilitators’ verbal, auditory, and physical cues during the letter selection process.

Psychics, on the other hand, tend to rely on two major forms of trickery:

Hot reading (e.g., researching the sitter ahead of time and revealing this information during the “reading”), and
cold reading (e.g., fishing for information by asking a lot of general questions during the session that trigger an emotional response and “over sharing” from the sitter).

Hot reading is a deliberate action by psychics who often use social media, news reports, obituaries, and the like to obtain information about their sitters.

Cold reading can be a more “intuitive” process and, of the two, is the most similar to facilitators who unwittingly author FC-generated messages themselves but then attribute the “communications” to their client. In an odd twist, psychic facilitators, it seems, not only attribute FC-generated messages to their clients but to “spirits” or other-worldly beings as well.

In one article I read, the psychic directly asked about facilitator control: “How much do I, like other Catalysts, unknowingly influence the person being subjected to FC?,” so it’s not like they don’t know that facilitator cueing is a problem. Douglas Biklen’s own facilitators asked the same questions in his 1990 article “Communication Unbound” that introduced FC to the United States. (See Rationalizations Abound: Stopping Just Shy of Knowing) But, neither psychics nor FC proponents seem motivated to find out the answer by voluntarily undergoing reliably controlled tests. Each facilitator or psychic, I think, believes they are the exception to the rule (e.g., facilitator control happens in other people, but not to them).

As far as I am concerned, anyone working with individuals with complex communication needs has an ethical and professional responsibility to make sure that the “support” they provide (in this case, with letter selection) does not interfere with the individuals’ abilities to communicate their own thoughts and desires.

I am truly astounded that proponents of FC/S2C/RPM (including those who believe in psychic abilities and telepathy) are not lining up for double-blind testing to make sure they’re not the ones controlling the FC-generated messages. The problem of facilitator cueing isn’t magically going to go away, no matter how much proponents wish it would.

And, while I think it might be fun to contemplate shifts in consciousness that could, perhaps, lead to an expanded understanding of the universe, I find it equally tragic that individuals with profound social and language difficulties (often the most vulnerable people in our communities) are being exploited by facilitators (psychic or not) who make extraordinary claims without an apparent interest in ruling out factors that could—with real world consequences—explain just who is controlling letter selection during FC/S2C/RPM sessions.

Do FCed Individuals have Telepathic Superpowers?

FC-friendly trends in autism diagnoses

Social Deficits Correlate with Motor Deficits: Commentary on the last bit of “research” cited by the pro-FC organization United for Communication Choice.

Facilitated Communication: a thoroughly discredited yet persistent technique