The Resurgence of Facilitated Communication
The persistent attractiveness of certain practices that resist rational scrutiny may surprise an observer. One such phenomenon is facilitated communication (FC), a contentious approach that purports to enable people with severe communication difficulties to express themselves through a facilitator. Despite official refutations from various professional organizations, FC has enjoyed a revival in popularity. Exploring this puzzling subject reveals that human psychology, the potency of anecdotal evidence, and an intrinsic drive for connection all play critical roles in maintaining belief systems.
FC’s allure stems from its promise to transform the understanding of people with disabilities. Advocates saw it as a method to empower those previously stigmatized as unteachable. This movement aimed to treat people with disabilities with dignity and respect, challenging conventional biases. Despite the evidence against FC, believers stayed firm, demonstrating the human tendency for confirmation bias (Andrade, 2020). Thus, the power of belief, along with the desire to enhance the lives of people with disabilities, may have obscured the judgment of well-intentioned facilitators.
Designing a Crucial Experiment for Ouija Board Communication
To evaluate the effectiveness of the Ouija board, a crucial experiment can be devised to identify whether the spirits of dead people are truly moving the device. A group of volunteers with a track record of successful communication with the Ouija board would be chosen. The participants would be separated into two groups: the first would utilize the Ouija board normally.
In contrast, the second group would unknowingly use a modified Ouija board controlled by an external device. Both groups would be asked a series of questions; the objective would be to compare the accuracy of the responses. If the responses from both groups show no substantial difference, it will imply that spirits do not impact the planchette’s movements. Instead, the findings would support the theory that the participants cause the motions.
Believers’ Perceptions in Facilitated Communication
When considering the motivations of FC believers, it appears that they considered themselves dedicated to helping people with disabilities communicate. After experiencing positive results, they felt validated, reaffirming their conviction in FC’s effectiveness (Twachtman-Cullen, 2019). However, when FC was finally proven to be a hoax through scientific investigation, believers became disillusioned, questioning their former principles (Twachtman-Cullen, 2019). It could have been a difficult realization, as their good intentions and genuine desire to serve had led them astray. On an unconscious level, when an FC facilitator accused a client’s parents of sexual assault, they may have believed they acted in their best interests. They could have been impacted by a strong belief in FC’s efficacy, which led them to misinterpret the client’s intentions.
Testing the Effectiveness of Alternative Treatments
Essential oils can be used as an example of a similar practice that can be experimented upon. A double-blind, randomized controlled trial would be used to evaluate the effects of essential oils (Zabor et al., 2020). The study would entail volunteers suffering from anxiety or insomnia, who would be randomly assigned to one of three groups: essential oil, placebo, or control (Zabor et al., 2020).
Participants in the essential oil group would be given essential oil. The placebo group would be given a product that looked like essential oil but had no active ingredients. The control group would receive no therapy or placebo and serve as a baseline for comparison. Using standardized measuring techniques, participants would be asked to self-report their symptoms relevant to the targeted condition. If the essential oil group improved statistically more than the placebo and control groups, it would imply that the essential oil has an actual therapeutic effect. Conversely, if the placebo group improved at the same rate as the essential oil group, any reported benefits would be attributable to a placebo effect.
Examining the belief in FC reveals that deeply rooted psychological variables can frequently overcome the weight of empirical data. The appeal of connection, the human propensity to prefer anecdotal evidence, and the urge to find meaning in the face of communication disabilities have all contributed to FC’s persistence. Current treatments must be subjected to rigorous study that distinguishes between legitimate therapeutic effects and the placebo response.
References
Andrade, G. (2020). Medical conspiracy theories: cognitive science and implications for ethics. Medicine Health Care and Philosophy, 23(3), 505–518. Web.
Twachtman-Cullen, D. (2019). A passion to believe: Autism and the facilitated communication phenomenon. Routledge.
Zabor, E. C., Kaizer, A. M., & Hobbs, B. P. (2020). Randomized controlled trials. Chest, 158(1), S79–S87. Web.