The field of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) has long been a cornerstone of autism intervention, yet it remains one of the most hotly debated topics in neurodiversity and autism advocacy. A recent commentary, “Applied Behavior Analysis in the Crosshairs: Neurodiversity, the Intact Mind, and Autism Politics” by Amy Lutz (2025), highlights the growing divide between ABA practitioners, parents, and neurodiversity advocates.
Lutz argues that ABA is indiscriminately attacked as “dehumanizing” and “torture” in online spaces, with some pushing for an outright ban. Much of this opposition is rooted in the intact mind assumption—the belief that all autistic individuals, regardless of cognitive ability, have an intact intellect hidden beneath their challenges. This perspective fuels the idea that traditional autism interventions, including ABA, are unnecessary or even harmful.
However, many families and practitioners argue that ABA is one of the few evidence-based interventions available for individuals with profound autism. They emphasize that it helps develop life skills, enhances communication, and ensures safety—far from the accusations of coercion or harm.
Where Do You Stand?
✔️ Is ABA still the gold standard for autism intervention, or is it time to rethink and modernize our approach?
✔️ Are criticisms of ABA valid, or do they stem from misunderstandings of its evolution from past, outdated methods?
✔️ How do we balance the need for individualized support while respecting the broader neurodiversity movement’s concerns?
Join the Discussion
I want to hear from you—parents, educators, therapists, researchers, and self-advocates. Where do you see the future of autism intervention heading? How do we bridge the gap between effective support and the need for ethical, person-centered approaches?
Drop your thoughts in the comments or continue the conversation on my blog: NhanceAutism.blog
🔗 Follow for more autism research and discussions: https://lnkd.in/gbdgzpDG