''Questionable practices'' in Maxine Aston's Work

Post Reply New Topic

XxXxX,

Please contact me in confidence here: [email protected]

Regards,

Socrates

this woman makes me so cross, not just by what she is saying but in the way she has tainted nearly the whole 'love' field of asperger books and articles. In all the asperger relationships books Ive read she has been referenced and quoted and even in the 'complete guide to aspergers' by attwood. Its wrong that people writing these books have taken her 'research' at face value and reprinted it without further checks, it means all the stuff writen on that subject is tainted by her beliefs and is scewed from being more factual.

Hey Socrates, nice article:

http://the-newrepublic.blogspot.com/2010/07/astons-transexual-marriage-shocker.html.

You obviously wasted no time.

Ah! Jono the cyber-sleuth - I don't suppose by any one-in-a-billion chance you know anyone from Die Antwoord? It's just I want to make them the official band of the New Republic.

Also, do you write? Would you like to write? - I mean I could do with an Africa correspondent.

Regards,

S.

Well this is interesting, I have to confess to having no great love of Maxine Aston. To be blunt her "research" irks and disgusts me. I have attempted to contact her at least twice and she has declined to explain the reasoning and methodology behind her research.

I would like to test Maxine's ideas using the prism of Karl Popper's reasoning.

I imagine that if I was to publish a book or a leaflet suggesting that science suggests it would be a great idea to use Maxine Aston's garden as a land fill site for all the trash of the midlands area. When I imagine that you and Maxine will ask to see the evidence, imagine then when I refuse to show you the evidence or even describe it. That would be very poor "research" work. In my mind when Maxine refuses to discuss or explain her research then her research sinks to the level of the hypothetical study advocating the use of Maxine's garden as the final resting place for the rubbish of Coventry.

I read with interest the remarks made by XxXxX, while I dislike Maxine I would like to remind you of the UK libel laws. Please do not print or post material which could get you or WP into trouble with the libel laws. In the UK any written statement which is untrue and damaging to a person's reputation is a libel.

On the subject of libel I would like to remind you of the absolute defence to a libel action...... Prove what you wrote is true. I would suggest that XxXxX should contact me by PM or if he/she feels bold then post the proof of your rather extreame claims. I am not going to say that the claims are false, they might for all I know be true

No, I don't know any of the people in the band personally. As for your invitation for me to become your correspondent, I'll think about it. I've got my own e-mail address but I'll be at a summer school for three weeks and may or may not have internet access. I'll only be back on 21 August and can only PM you my e-mail address after that date if I choose to take up your offer. I'm leaving tomorrow morning.

Nothing unusual in that. Many find their ways into psychology via that route. And, in the UK, a bachelor degree in a subject like psychology is enough to get you working as an assistant psychologist. Her M. Sc. degree is in Health Psychology, and allows her to practise under supervision as a health psychologist whilst taking the Part 2 qualification with the British Psychological Society. But wait for what I say at the end.



Wrong. Those certificates actually do allow the right to practise: they involve practical work as well as academic work. In effect, they are licences - at least as far as her CGLI certificate is concerned.. Her CGLI certificate allows her to practise as a teacher/tutor in Further Education, and this qualifiation involves teaching practise, under mentorship and supervision; it is an in-service course. her membership of BACP binds her to the codes of ethics and conduct of that overseeing body.



Actually - there's nothing I've seen on her site that says 'licensed psychologist'. It's not a term used in the UK. Not even with the new Health Care Professions Register that now exists in the UK. Indeed, one can call oneself a 'psychologist' in the UK without having the slightest qualification in psychology: if, however, your qualifications allow you eligibility for the BPS Graduate Membership (whether or not they allow you Graduate Basis for Chartered Membership), the BPS recognises you as a 'psychologist'.

You'll notice that her M. Sc. is in Health Psychology. This allows her to practise, as I said, under supervision whilst gaining experience for Chartered Membership of the BPS. What it does not do is qualify her to make diagnoses. And Univ. Coventry's M. Sc. is BPS accredited, as is their B. Sc. degree. But psycho-diagnostics is not taught in the Coventry B. Sc. or M. Sc. degrees that she has. And diagnosis is more than just checking boxes in checklists and looking at criteria.

Some people are happy with her work in diagnosis. I was diagnosed by someone else so I cannot comment on that. My beef with her is this CADD crap that she sells. As has been mentioned many times since she brought it up, Maxine Aston's CADD is not a recognised diagnostic category. It has no scientific validity and it is not based on a reliable diagnostic protocol.

The BACP Ethical Framework says the following about values:



I've emboldened the values that this whole CADD thing goes against, in one way or another. Her practice is value-less.

I could go on. But I can't be arsed. There's to much to say and I've only one lifetime.

Last edited by kostopsykologi on 01 Aug 2010, 6:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

She isn't in the US: those rules do not apply. Use the BACP site for more info on what she's doing wrong. The codes of ethics and practice are there.

Avoid doing that, that is really just low and people see it as an unprofessional "politician level" of attack since most people DO spell bad too (see your quote above) and you're not winning any sympathy - spelling and grammar its not something you want to attack with and shows you have SOME respect for the opponent.

However, IF the opponent challenge your more scientific approach (fact checking, peer review etc) with namecalling, you can always degrade to their level and point out the misspellings, bad grammar and make a joke about its quality, for effect - but save if for when it is really needed, like in front of a jury where it matters.

Last edited by Ichinin on 01 Aug 2010, 8:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

kostopsykologi,

As you will probably realise, the Relate, City & Guilds and BACP thing are the absolute bottom rung of that which aspires to clinical/paedagogical practice.

I neither understand (nor like the tone of) many of the remarks in this thread, which are an attack on the person as opposed to an attack on her work, her ethics or her credibility.

However, the whole Cassandra thing seems to be motivated by the creation of a monopoly enterprise based on charging people money. I am very suspicious of anyone running a secretive diagnosis, treatment and conference programme.

I would hope that a medical profession who sincerely believed what she has written and promoted would disseminate her findings in appropriate scientific journals, and answer the criticism of other medical professionals.

You got it. Sorry if this thread was accusatory to her. She as a person is irrelevant, only that she misreprents herself as a medical professional and expert on Asperger's. Her books are popular literature, they are not scientific underneath it all. The research studies she cites have very poor validity. Basically, she takes her opinion and presents it as results of research. Nobody in the scientific community calls her out.

Don't know if anybody's said this already, but this CADD thing looks to me like a perfect example of one of those tricks that bogus clairvoyants use - there are some feelings that pretty much everybody gets but most people think that they're the only one who feels that way, because they're usually too shy to share that feeling with others. Feeling like Cassandra, a voice crying out unheard, is just that kind of thing. So along comes the all-loving guru and makes this amazing revelation to you, that you don't get listened to enough. Reality check: most people don't get listened to enough, simply because there aren't enough good listeners to go round, and the smart ones charge £££ for it and call it counselling. The very fact that a person seeks professional counselling is often down to the fact that they can't get their friends to listen to them - obviously there are exceptions where the subject matter is outside the scope of lay people, but many of the problems which get presented at counselling would be soluble by supportive, thoughtful friends. The impartiality of a counsellor is also something the client might not easily get from friends, but I don't see anything impartial about Ms. Aston. She clearly has her own agenda.

That's as may be, but they still qualify for a job. I'm not saying that Aston is good... I'm not even saying that she's adequate. I just want the poster dealing with those issues first to be aware of a few things.

Personally, I think that Aston is not someone I'd want to be counselled by or assessed by. Her professional practice seems - from what I know of this whole CADD thing - to be based on prejudice, with practically no science coming into things at all.

Tough-Diamond...

Hammer, Nail-head.
Nail-head, Hammer.

You aren't wrong.

I was on good form that day