Proving Facilitator Authorship in FC/RPM messages: Thoughts About the Telepathy Tapes (Episode 3)
As I listened to and took notes on Episode 3 of the Telepathy Tapes, I found myself shouting several times at the voices coming out of my computer “That’s not evidence!” If I was talking to the average person on the street or to someone who’s not familiar with the form of Facilitated Communication (Rapid Prompting Method or RPM) being used by the participants in the episode , I wouldn’t be frustrated at all. But the host of the podcast, Ky Dickens, and the academic who inspired Dickens to pursue this project, Diane Hennacy Powell are presenting themselves to the world as experts on conducting “scientific” tests into telepathy (and by default, FC) seemingly without a solid understanding of the differences between anecdotes, testimonials, reliably controlled authorship testing or, for that matter, communication independence in facilitator-dependent techniques like FC/RPM.
Any story preceded with or followed by “I saw it with my own eyes” is, most likely, an anecdote and not reliably controlled evidence. Any story preceded with or followed by “everyone should be doing this” is, most likely, a testimonial. Neither are inherently “good” or “bad,” but anecdotes and testimonials are not reliably controlled evidence.
Image by Kyle Johnson
The Telepathy Tapes: An Exercise in Credulity
Before I explain further what I mean by “reliably controlled evidence,” let me give an overview of the Telepathy Tapes as I see it so far.
As the series progresses, Dickens is, quite credulously, building a case for telepathic abilities in nonspeaking individuals with profound autism. She wants her listeners to believe that the “experts” in the fields of autism, speech/language pathology, and special education (or pretty much anyone who doesn’t take on faith that FC works as an independent form of communication) are somehow against people with disabilities and ableist.
At first, I thought the tests she was doing—sometimes in the presence of Powell, sometimes in the presence of her resident “skeptic,” a cameraman and cinematographer named Michael—were meant to convince the scientific community that she has “proof” of the existence of telepathy. But, after carefully listening to over two hours of the series thus far, I get the feeling that her target audience is actually not the scientific community, but rather those who already believe (or want to believe) in FC and telepathy.
To me (a skeptic of FC and former facilitator) the Telepathy Tapes aren’t proof of the existence of telepathy, but rather a semi-autobiographical documentary showing how, step by step, a well-intentioned individual like Dickens can become enamored by the idea (aka illusion) of FC and telepathy. The promise of releasing nonspeaking autistic individuals from the bonds of silence and broken bodies seems to have overshadowed and dampened Dickens’ critical thinking skills and caused her to rationalize away the most obvious (and already proven) reason why FC seems to “work” in individuals who’ve never been taught to read or write: that (literate) facilitators are authoring the messages through (often inadvertent) cueing. (See Controlled Studies and Systematic Reviews)
In 2018, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) conducted a systematic review of RPM and found no rigorously scientific to back up claims by proponents that RPM-produced messages are independent and free from facilitator control
Misled by Workshop Leaders and Proponents of FC/RPM
I said at the start of my review of the Telepathy Tapes (see links below for previous blog posts) and I’ll say it again here that my criticisms of the podcast are not directed toward the nonspeaking individuals featured in the episodes or their families. I believe these families are sincere and well-meaning both in their use of FC and in their belief in the telepathic abilities of their children. However, I do think they are being misled by FC workshop leaders and practitioners, as well as academics such as Powell, at least one psychologist in Georgia (who recommended RPM to the mother featured in Episode 3), and documentarians such as Dickens who do not inform the parents of the fact that FC (and its variants) are not legitimate, evidence-based forms of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC).
Major speech/language, behavioral, and autism organizations oppose the use of facilitator-dependent techniques such as FC and RPM, citing lack of scientific evidence, prompt dependency, facilitator influence and control over letter selection, and other potential harms, including false allegations of abuse and lost opportunity costs. To date, there is no reliably controlled evidence to prove proponent claims that FC-generated messages are free from facilitator influence and control, but nowhere in the episodes I’ve listened to so far or on the Telepathy Tapes website are people informed of this fact.
Reliably Controlled Testing
One of our readers (thank you!) asked me to clarify what I mean when I use the term “reliably controlled testing,” and Episode 3 provides a perfect opportunity to discuss this topic. For me, and other critics of FC, reliably controlled testing means designing test protocols that separate out facilitator behaviors from those of the individual(s) being subjected to FC. And, while the mechanics of FC don’t necessarily have to change during reliably controlled testing, the facilitator is “blinded” or prevented from having access to the test stimuli (e.g., pictures, words, numbers) presented to the individual during testing. In some cases, facilitators have worn glasses with cardboard inserts to block their view from the letter board or partitions have been used to prevent facilitators from seeing the pictures that their client sees during the testing, but there are other more “naturalistic” ways to accomplish the “blinding” of facilitators. This type of test design (e.g., controlling facilitator behaviors) has two primary purposes:
To give the FCed individual the opportunity to select letters to spell out words without the interference of the facilitator but still receive the physical and emotional support that facilitators claim they need, and,
To give researchers the opportunity to rule in or rule out influence by the facilitator in FC-generated messages. (To date, facilitator influence has only been ruled in).
Comprehensive and Independent Evaluation of Skills
Another component of reliably controlled testing (which I have not heard discussed in the podcast) is often a complete speech/language evaluation (without facilitator interference). Hearing and eye exams, plus Occupational therapy (OT) or physical therapy (PT) evaluations may also be conducted to rule in or rule out the need for specialized equipment to support the individual’s visual and fine or gross motor needs. Current technology allows individuals with major fine and gross motor difficulties to independently interact with communication devices. As I understand it, all someone needs is the ability to twitch a muscle, blink an eye, or blow into a straw—and the capacity to understand language and learn literacy skills—to be appropriately matched with a communication device that allows for independent communication.
It should also be noted that FCed individuals often have the fine and gross motor ability to dress themselves, prepare food, feed themselves, find favorite movies on YouTube using an iPad, etc. (as we heard in Episode 2) and, therefore, should not require further assistance to select letters on a keyboard. (See In Support of OTs against FC/S2C/RPM)
Sid from the pro-FC film “Spellers” pokes at a black stencil letter board with a pencil. The facilitator calls out letters even though Sid is not looking at the board. (Image from Spellers, 2023)
Authorship Tests and Message Passing: There is No “Transfer” of Information (Telepathic or Otherwise)
Authorship tests for FC/RPM fail to be reliably controlled when the facilitators, by mistake or by design, hear or see the test stimuli (e.g., picture, word, number) and thus prevent the FCed individuals to answer questions on his or her own (e.g., without the possibility of facilitator interference).
I don’t buy the explanation that there is a “transfer” of information from facilitator to client or from client to facilitator with FC, even though authorship tests are often referred to as “message-passing.” I’ve found that this idea of a transfer, understandably, is often how people unfamiliar with FC imagine that FC works. Often anecdotal accounts of FC “working” for the first time seem unbelievable, mystical, and miraculous to those involved. But, if FC worked (and it doesn’t), the FCed individual would simply select letters on his or her own to spell out his or her own thoughts. In other words, they would type their answers. Facilitators aren’t supposed to interfere with the letter selection in any way.
But, based on what we know through reliably controlled tests, what really happens is that (literate) facilitators, often unwittingly, guide the FCed individual to the letters and words they want to spell, through the use of cues that can be as subtle as shifting the letter board slightly in the air or as blatant as hand signals or verbal utterances that direct individuals to specific areas of the letter board or stencil. In fact, facilitators are encouraged to “prompt to their hearts content” without any seeming concern that the facilitators, not the individuals being subjected to FC/RPM, are doing all the work. And, as we learned in Episode 1, proponents of FC/RPM believe that the individuals being facilitated don’t even have to look at the letter board when the facilitators call out letters. Sadly, there is also some evidence that the individuals being subjected to FC abdicate responsibility for communicating (e.g., become more passive) during FC use, which increases the chance for facilitator control over letter selection the more the technique is used. (Bebko et al., 1996)
The Role of Anecdotes in the Process of Scientific Inquiry
Dickens and Powell, in conducting their experiments, believe they are testing for telepathic abilities in nonspeaking individuals with autism. Their interest and belief in telepathy centers around the emails sent to them from people (facilitators or family members of facilitated individuals) all over the world who believe that they have a telepathic connection with their child, client, or loved one. There isn’t anything odd or strange or wrong about wanting to investigate these claims (or of the claims themselves). But the claims—these stories that are being told—are not evidence that communication independence in FC or telepathic abilities exist. They are anecdotes—interesting stories—that can’t be taken as fact until the phenomenon is scientifically, rigorously investigated.
It might surprise some people to learn that anecdotes frequently form the basis of scientific inquiry. It’s where the questioning starts. Stories of telepathy or unexpected literacy skills in individuals being subjected to FC/RPM aren’t taboo, as Dickens asserts. But they are just stories. As I mentioned in a previous blog post, the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) and the Center for Inquiry (CFI) regularly investigate claims of paranormal, occult, or supernatural abilities.
With scientific inquiry, it is helpful if the scientists, researchers, educators, documentarians looking into anecdotal accounts such as the ones being featured in the Telepathy Tapes haven’t formed an opinion about the existence of the phenomenon under study (pro or con) when they start their investigation, but researchers are human and, therefore susceptible to believing in all kinds of wild and wonderful things even when they think they are being “skeptical.”. And that’s exactly what scientific inquiry and Institutional Review Boards are for—especially when the phenomena being discussed involves human subjects.
Scientific inquiry is a process that allows researchers to go beyond a “seeing is believing” approach or a gut feeling about a phenomenon and objectively investigate the factors that make up the phenomenon. The results of this type of investigation does, however, threaten to shatter dearly held beliefs (e.g., about FC authorship and/or telepathic abilities) and I suspect that may be the reason why staunch believers in FC are resistant to it.
Facilitator Belief that FC-Generated Messages are Real
I speak from personal experience when I say that one of the hardest things for me to wrap my head around after participating in FC authorship testing in the early 1990s was that the tests showed that I was, essentially, carrying on a conversation in my own head with myself—and not with the student I was working with. But, emotionally, to me, the interactions seemed real. They felt real.
It seemed like a crazy idea to me to think that the FC messages I generated were, for the most part, made up of small bits of truth (e.g., things I observed directly during interactions with my student), mixed with fabricated information about what I thought might be happening in my student’s mind. I didn’t know that this was possible.
But, then, after talking to experts who knew much more about the mechanics and psychology of FC than I did at the time, I realized that the idea was not so far-fetched after all.
Writers of fiction have internal conversations with themselves all the time. They create characters in their heads, make up conversations among the characters they’ve created who “sound” different from each other, and fabricate dialogue that includes varied syntax and unusual turns of phrase that make each character’s language usage unique. These made up conversations between made up characters can make us laugh or cry when we read them and the emotions we feel, though instigated by a fictional source, are real.
In addition, writers can feel a bond with the characters they’ve created out of thin air for their stories. I’ve heard many writers in interviews say that they’ve cried when they realize they have to kill off a favorite character for the sake of the plot. In other words, these manufactured relationships with fictional characters seem palpable and real.
Writers also talk about a “flow” state or a “stream-of-consciousness state where they are writing and the written output seems automatic (to some, even divinely produced). To me, this is what facilitation felt like when it was “working.”
The best way I can think to describe what I believe is happening in the facilitation process is that facilitators are having “conversations” with an idealized version of their child or client—the child, for example who isn’t destined to spend their educational career in a life skills class who can now, with FC, go to college or write a book or marry or live a life more closely aligned with a neurotypical person.
I also think it’s plausible that facilitators can feel like the “conversations” they are having in their own heads are originating from their client or loved one. Studies on automatic writing and Ouija board use allude to this sensation. As I’ve mentioned before, facilitators are often unaware of the extent to which they cue their clients with physical, verbal, and auditory cues or of the impact their own behavior has on letter selection, which make the communications feel real (especially during the times when their child or client are not resisting the process).
Internal Dialogue of the Facilitators and Confirmation Bias
FC/RPM messages are generated in a stream-of-conscious style, and, in that state, it’s easy for facilitators to convince themselves that the communications are coming from the other person and not themselves. These internal conversations (aka FC-generated messages) also explain why it can feel like the other person knows the facilitator’s every thought. Simply put, the facilitator is thinking the thoughts, writing them down, and then attributing those thoughts to their client or loved one.
The internal dialogues feel intimate and comfortable to the facilitators because the thoughts being generated originate from within the minds of the facilitators and are their own. It is, in my opinion, also why facilitators can feel like the other person has transferred information to them telepathically.
As we’ve seen in the Telepathy Tape tests, the facilitators already have the answers to the questions being asked, and the most logical reason for the so-called telepathic message passing is that the facilitators, and not the individuals with autism, are typing out the answers they’ve been given by the researchers.
In every day use, facilitators participate in FC sessions with their client or loved one, then (unwittingly) “confirm” the communications by noticing the behaviors or responses from the nonspeaking individual they’re working with that match their belief that FC (or telepathy) “worked” (e.g., selecting numbers or letters that match the test stimuli).
Remembering the “Hits” and Forgetting the “Misses”
Facilitators (also unwittingly) downplay, rationalize away, or ignore the behaviors or reactions from the individual they’re working with that disconfirm their belief in FC (e.g., the fact that the individuals are not looking at the letter board during the letter selection activity, or bite, hit, or scratch during the FC session). These instances are easily forgotten or dismissed because they run counter to what facilitators expect and believe. Facilitators are primed by workshop leaders and other believers in FC/RPM not to question the FC-generated responses but to just keep trying if the FC session fails. (See Rationalizations Abound: Stopping Just Shy of Knowing)
Researchers at the O.D. Heck Center in Schenectady, NY were among the first in the United States to conduct reliably controlled tests using message-passing. Facilitators were blinded to the pictures being shown to their clients. All the responses to the test stimuli were based on the pictures the facilitators saw and not the pictures their clients saw. (From Prisoners of Silence, 1993)
Reliably Controlled Tests: Shining a Light on Facilitator Behavior
Reliably controlled tests for authorship, however, shine a spotlight on facilitator behaviors. During the testing I participated in, for example, I caught myself in what I now call “breakthrough” moments when I thought things like “I wonder what picture she’s being shown?” or “I wonder what the color of uncle so-and-so’s car is?”) in response to test stimuli I couldn’t see or didn’t know the answers to.
I suspect these thoughts happen more frequently than facilitators would like to admit (e.g., “I moved the kid’s hand or the letter board this time, but I won’t next time”) but are easily dismissed from the facilitators’ minds in less structured and uncontrolled settings and with time and practice. (FC feels more real the less self-conscious the facilitator becomes).
Facilitators are poorly equipped to determine authorship in FC when it comes to their own behavior (and, sometimes as lookers-on when other people are facilitating). They’re simply too close to the situation, both physically and emotionally, to separate out their own thoughts and behaviors from the behaviors of the individual(s) being FCed. Facilitators are also multi-tasking (e.g., asking and answering questions, responding to client behaviors, selecting appropriate stencils for the words they want to spell, holding the letter board in the air, remembering letter sequences) and, as a result, lose track of their own behaviors that can interfere with letter selection. And, though facilitators may intend to do more good than harm, there are often unintended consequences to their actions.
Allegations of Abuse
It particularly worries me that, in one of the examples of FC/RPM-generated communications in Episode 3, the content alluded to abuse allegedly perpetrated by a family member. It may be that the mother/facilitator both experienced and witnessed abuse by her ex-husband and that those accounts of the abuse (based on the facilitator’s personal experience) were generated during an FC session (and attributed to the FCed individual). However, it’s important to note that most organizations opposing FC/RPM warn against using facilitator-dependent messages for making decisions about major life events (e.g., health and medical issues, relationship issues, allegations of abuse, guardianship and housing). Countless families have been ruined because of unproven allegations of abuse generated by facilitators using FC. Some people have had their children removed from the home and/or been jailed for crimes they did not commit based on FC-generated allegations of abuse. (See A Life Shattered by Pseudoscience for a current-day account).
The Ethical and Professional Duty for Facilitators to Participate in Reliably Controlled Testing
I personally think it should be mandatory to test facilitators under reliably controlled conditions regardless of the content of the FC-generated messages. But if anyone needed a specific reason to test authorship, then FC-generated messages alleging abuses of any kind should certainly rank at the top. And facilitators making allegations of abuse charges should not be allowed to weasel out of authorship testing by dropping the charges (to avoid testing) when they are brought before a judge. If facilitators believe in FC enough to raise questions of abuse, then they should believe in FC enough to submit to reliably controlled authorship testing.
In my opinion, Dickens and Powell don’t seem to be interested in questioning or testing the authorship of FC-generated messages. Either they don’t understand or don’t want to understand that facilitator cueing and control over letter selection exists regardless of whether the facilitator is holding on to the person’s wrist, forearm, elbow, shoulder, neck, face or other body part or if the facilitator is holding the letter board in the air.
As to their “telepathy” tests, Dickens and Powell controlled for some elements of the testing (e.g. whether the FCed individual saw the test stimuli) but failed to rule out facilitator influence and control over letter selection. In every test they described in Episode 3 (as with the other episodes I’ve heard so far), the facilitator was given access to the word, number, passage from the bible, or Uno card. Therefore, facilitator interference with letter/number selection cannot be ruled out.
The process of “receiving” telepathically produced answers may have felt real to the facilitator in Episode 3. I am, in no way doubting the mother’s sincerity, but if Dickens and Powell really want to test for telepathic abilities and have the scientific community take their research seriously, then they are going to have to get past the issue of facilitator authorship in FC. It’s their responsibility to do so. It’s also a big hurdle.
In 30+ years that FC has been active in the United States, no proponent has successfully produced reliably controlled evidence to prove that the messages are independent and free from facilitator control. For a long time after my testing, there was a part of me that still wanted FC to be true, but proponents have had plenty of time to prove their point through rigorous scientific inquiry. And, they haven’t. So, with the scientific evidence heavily in favor of facilitator control, I had to let go of my belief in FC.
Fear of Finding Out the FC-Generated Messages are Not Real (That News is Devastating to Facilitators)
To be honest, I don’t know how many true believers in FC would participate in reliably controlled testing for authorship, given that they are taught to “presume competence” in their clients and to not test for authorship. Testing FC messages (even when the tests are similar to those being conducted in the Telepathy Tapes), purportedly, breaks the facilitator-client trust bond and prevents the FCed individuals from responding accurately under controlled conditions.
In the whole scheme of things, my experiences with FC were short-lived. However, realizing I was controlling the FC-generated messages was devastating. I can’t image how anyone who’s spent years using FC—and building a relationship with their child based solely on FC-generated messages—could withstand the psychological devastation of learning that they, not their nonspeaking autistic child, were generating the FC messages all along. In some cases, the facilitators have been using FC for 20 or 30 years or more. And, as I ask how is that independence for their child or client, I think also that it would take a tremendous amount of personal fortitude and courage by the facilitator to face this fact. They would need an enormous amount of emotional support and compassion from professionals to overcome that kind of devastating realization.
Image by Anima Visual
Dickens has mentioned several times in the episodes I’ve listened to so far that she (and others) believe that doubting FC creates anxiety in the individuals and causes their “telepathic” abilities to suddenly disappear. The reason, we’re told by Dickens, is because of a negative transfer of energy. However, there is no evidence that the individuals who participated in reliably controlled authorship testing in the past were too anxious to participate in the testing. On the contrary, they were paired with their most-successful facilitators and given opportunities to adjust to the testing room(s) before participating in activities that included information from their daily lives and regular educational curriculum (e.g., they weren’t asked trick questions). FC-generated messages were successfully produced during those tests. In some reports, the facilitators even stated that the FC sessions went as expected. But, devastatingly to the facilitators, the results of the tests revealed that the FC-generated messages were based on information the facilitators had access to, but not the individuals being subjected to FC. (Just like we’ve seen in the Telepathy Tape tests).
I suspect facilitators fear being found out as the author(s) of FC-generated messages and that is why testing is discouraged. This, not anxiety by the individuals being subjected to FC, is the predominant reason why facilitators don’t want to participate in authorship testing. The FC guidelines have always included a “no test” clause, but this practice (not to test), perhaps became even more strongly enforced when RPM inventor Soma Mukhopadhyay could not pass an impromptu blind test conducted by her own husband with their son, Tito. Nor could she pass a blind test several years later (again with Tito) that was set up by examiners in the United States (See Truth Will Out: Review of Portia Iversen’s “Strange Son”).
Nonetheless, I’d also argue that facilitators have a professional and ethical responsibility to put their own fears aside and make sure that the words being produced by FC/RPM are the words of the individuals they say they care and not their own.
Blog Posts in this Series
FC’s Less Known Side: Thoughts About the Telepathy Tapes (Episode 1)
How Conscious were Dickens and Powell of Facilitator Control in FC? Thoughts about the Telepathy Tapes (Episode 2)
References and Recommended Reading
Bebko, J.M, Perry, A., and Bryson, S. (1996). Multiple Method Validation Study of Facilitated Communication: II. Individual Differences and Subgroup results. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Vol. 26 (1), 19-42.
Green, Gina; Shane, Howard C. (Fall, 1994). Science, Reason, and Facilitated Communication. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, vol. 19(3), 151-72.
Hemsley, B., Bryant, L., Schlosser, R.W., Shane, H.C., Lang, R., Paul, D, Banajee, M., Ireland, M. (2018). Systematic review of facilitated communication 2014-2018 finds no new evidence that messages delivered using facilitated communication are authored by the person with disability. Autism and Developmental Language Impairments, 3, 1-8. DOI: 10.1177/2396941518821570
Jacobson, J.W., Mulick, J.A., and Schwartz, A.A. (1995, September). A history of facilitated communication: Science, pseudoscience, and antiscience. Science Working Group on Facilitated Communication. American Psychologist. 50 (9), 750-765.
Jarry, Jonathan. (2024, December 13). The Telepathy Tapes Prove We All Want to Believe. McGill Office for Science and Society.
Lilienfeld, S., Marshall, J., Todd, J., & Shane, H. (2014). The persistence of fad interventions in the face of negative scientific evidence: Facilitated Communication for autism as a case example. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 8(2) 62-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/17489539.2014.976332
McMahon, Loren, F., Shane, Howard C., Schlosser, Ralf W. 30 Sep 2023): Using occupational therapy principles and practice to support independent message generation by individuals using AAC instead of facilitated communication, Augmentative and Alternative Communication, DOI: 10.1080/07434618.2023.2258398
Saloviita, T, Leppanen, M, and Ojalammi, U. (2014). Authorship in facilitated communication: An analysis of 11 cases. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30:3, 213-225. DOI: 10.3109/07434618.2014.927529
Schlosser, R.W., Hemsley, B., Shane, H. et al. (2019). Rapid prompting method and autism spectrum disorder: Systematic review exposes lack of evidence. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 6, 403–412.
Spitz, H. (1997). Nonconscious Movements: From Mystical Messages to Facilitated Communication. Routledge. ISBN 978-0805825633
Vyse, Stuart. (2022, May 2). The Mind’s Best Trick. In The Uses of Delusion: Why It’s Not Always Rational to Be Rational. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780190079957
Tostanoski, A., et.al. (2014, August). Voices from the past: Comparing the rapid prompting method and facilitated communication. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 17 (4), 219-223. DOI: 10.3109/17518423.2012.749952
Wegner, DM, Fuller, VA, Sparrow, B. (2003, July). Clever hands: Uncontrolled intelligence in facilitated communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 85 (1): 5-19. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.5
Wheeler, DL, Jacobson, JW, Paglieri, RA, and Schwartz, AA. (1993). An experimental assessment of facilitated communication. Mental Retardation. Vol 31 (1), 49-60.