Stimming question

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it still be cute or ok in 5 years? If not you should fix it.

Myself and another poster explained that the stim could very well fade. It's not something to 'fix'. He isn't broken.

Or it could become a bad habit like biting nails... you choose how to frame it...

that’s not actually how stims work. Stims come and go - sometimes it’s flapping, sometimes pacing - and you’re never going to cure a kid with autism out of repetitive behaviors because the underlying impulse is literally necessary for the dx. When a kid gets older, if they are normal IQ/language, then you can teach them at a higher level about stimming and how others perceive them. But 4? no. you focus on the stims that are disruptive or dangerous, but you can’t extinguish the drive to stim.

You can’t extinguish “the drive to stim” completely but you absolutely can teach competitive behaviors and reinforce those more heavily than self-stimulatory behavior so the opportunity for it to occur across the day is minimized. So if a kid loves hand flapping then teach them to love riding a bike or jumping rope. The two can’t be done simultaneously. Or teach them to play T-ball, or swing, or rock climbing, or play dough, or crafts, or yoga, or swimming, or a myriad of other things incompatible with hand flapping. You teach new skills and new behaviors that over time decrease the opportunity for the occurrence of hand flapping. You literally keep them busy all day and minimize down time. This way you avoid it getting to the point where all they do is walk around flapping. If you just ignore it and don’t do anything to prevent or minimize it, don’t teach new skills, then you get to the point it’s much harder to intervene. 4 is a perfect age to address this because life is full of new skills. You just have to think strategically about which skills you select next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it still be cute or ok in 5 years? If not you should fix it.

Myself and another poster explained that the stim could very well fade. It's not something to 'fix'. He isn't broken.

Yeah it is something to fix. Fix doesn’t mean never allowing it. It does mean establishing places it’s appropriate and not appropriate. Like it’s ok in your bedroom or in the bathroom or at recess but not at school during class. You can also shape the behavior to one that’s less disruptive/distracting/more socially acceptable. It’s just a fact that there’s no better way to make your kid the social outcast than flapping around other NT kids. A person saying quiet hands understands that’s just life. If they said it 24/7 that would be an issue, if they’re saying it in a social context where it’s preventing the child from interacting and building social skills then you should be thankful they’re willing to address things that are difficult.

This is a FOUR year old. The amount of effort needed to extinguish all stims in a kid that age would be totally disproportionate, wasted, and cruel. Nobody is saying and older kid shouldn’t be taught or that dangerous or loud stims be addressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it still be cute or ok in 5 years? If not you should fix it.

Myself and another poster explained that the stim could very well fade. It's not something to 'fix'. He isn't broken.

Or it could become a bad habit like biting nails... you choose how to frame it...

that’s not actually how stims work. Stims come and go - sometimes it’s flapping, sometimes pacing - and you’re never going to cure a kid with autism out of repetitive behaviors because the underlying impulse is literally necessary for the dx. When a kid gets older, if they are normal IQ/language, then you can teach them at a higher level about stimming and how others perceive them. But 4? no. you focus on the stims that are disruptive or dangerous, but you can’t extinguish the drive to stim.

You can’t extinguish “the drive to stim” completely but you absolutely can teach competitive behaviors and reinforce those more heavily than self-stimulatory behavior so the opportunity for it to occur across the day is minimized. So if a kid loves hand flapping then teach them to love riding a bike or jumping rope. The two can’t be done simultaneously. Or teach them to play T-ball, or swing, or rock climbing, or play dough, or crafts, or yoga, or swimming, or a myriad of other things incompatible with hand flapping. You teach new skills and new behaviors that over time decrease the opportunity for the occurrence of hand flapping. You literally keep them busy all day and minimize down time. This way you avoid it getting to the point where all they do is walk around flapping. If you just ignore it and don’t do anything to prevent or minimize it, don’t teach new skills, then you get to the point it’s much harder to intervene. 4 is a perfect age to address this because life is full of new skills. You just have to think strategically about which skills you select next.

You’re describing child abuse. Note: I am not against behavioral modification at all but that level of effort to change hand flapping is abusive and wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it still be cute or ok in 5 years? If not you should fix it.

Myself and another poster explained that the stim could very well fade. It's not something to 'fix'. He isn't broken.

Or it could become a bad habit like biting nails... you choose how to frame it...

that’s not actually how stims work. Stims come and go - sometimes it’s flapping, sometimes pacing - and you’re never going to cure a kid with autism out of repetitive behaviors because the underlying impulse is literally necessary for the dx. When a kid gets older, if they are normal IQ/language, then you can teach them at a higher level about stimming and how others perceive them. But 4? no. you focus on the stims that are disruptive or dangerous, but you can’t extinguish the drive to stim.

You can’t extinguish “the drive to stim” completely but you absolutely can teach competitive behaviors and reinforce those more heavily than self-stimulatory behavior so the opportunity for it to occur across the day is minimized. So if a kid loves hand flapping then teach them to love riding a bike or jumping rope. The two can’t be done simultaneously. Or teach them to play T-ball, or swing, or rock climbing, or play dough, or crafts, or yoga, or swimming, or a myriad of other things incompatible with hand flapping. You teach new skills and new behaviors that over time decrease the opportunity for the occurrence of hand flapping. You literally keep them busy all day and minimize down time. This way you avoid it getting to the point where all they do is walk around flapping. If you just ignore it and don’t do anything to prevent or minimize it, don’t teach new skills, then you get to the point it’s much harder to intervene. 4 is a perfect age to address this because life is full of new skills. You just have to think strategically about which skills you select next.

DP. I thought it was more like replacing hand flapping with fidgeting with a fidget/pen/something small. Or replacing pogoing with toe tapping or something else smaller and less obtrusive. Or, if necessary, for older children, teaching delaying stimming until later/outside/more appropriate. Not distraction every waking moment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it still be cute or ok in 5 years? If not you should fix it.

Myself and another poster explained that the stim could very well fade. It's not something to 'fix'. He isn't broken.

Or it could become a bad habit like biting nails... you choose how to frame it...

that’s not actually how stims work. Stims come and go - sometimes it’s flapping, sometimes pacing - and you’re never going to cure a kid with autism out of repetitive behaviors because the underlying impulse is literally necessary for the dx. When a kid gets older, if they are normal IQ/language, then you can teach them at a higher level about stimming and how others perceive them. But 4? no. you focus on the stims that are disruptive or dangerous, but you can’t extinguish the drive to stim.

You can’t extinguish “the drive to stim” completely but you absolutely can teach competitive behaviors and reinforce those more heavily than self-stimulatory behavior so the opportunity for it to occur across the day is minimized. So if a kid loves hand flapping then teach them to love riding a bike or jumping rope. The two can’t be done simultaneously. Or teach them to play T-ball, or swing, or rock climbing, or play dough, or crafts, or yoga, or swimming, or a myriad of other things incompatible with hand flapping. You teach new skills and new behaviors that over time decrease the opportunity for the occurrence of hand flapping. You literally keep them busy all day and minimize down time. This way you avoid it getting to the point where all they do is walk around flapping. If you just ignore it and don’t do anything to prevent or minimize it, don’t teach new skills, then you get to the point it’s much harder to intervene. 4 is a perfect age to address this because life is full of new skills. You just have to think strategically about which skills you select next.

DP. I thought it was more like replacing hand flapping with fidgeting with a fidget/pen/something small. Or replacing pogoing with toe tapping or something else smaller and less obtrusive. Or, if necessary, for older children, teaching delaying stimming until later/outside/more appropriate. Not distraction every waking moment.

The “distraction at every waking moment” thing is really disturbing. PP must be some kind of poorly trained BCBA working for one of those private equity ABA centers that prey on parents and tell them their kids need 40 hrs of ABA.

Behavioral modification has its place but it’s frankly shocking to describe that level of it for … hand flapping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it still be cute or ok in 5 years? If not you should fix it.

Myself and another poster explained that the stim could very well fade. It's not something to 'fix'. He isn't broken.

Yeah it is something to fix. Fix doesn’t mean never allowing it. It does mean establishing places it’s appropriate and not appropriate. Like it’s ok in your bedroom or in the bathroom or at recess but not at school during class. You can also shape the behavior to one that’s less disruptive/distracting/more socially acceptable. It’s just a fact that there’s no better way to make your kid the social outcast than flapping around other NT kids. A person saying quiet hands understands that’s just life. If they said it 24/7 that would be an issue, if they’re saying it in a social context where it’s preventing the child from interacting and building social skills then you should be thankful they’re willing to address things that are difficult.

This is a FOUR year old. The amount of effort needed to extinguish all stims in a kid that age would be totally disproportionate, wasted, and cruel. Nobody is saying and older kid shouldn’t be taught or that dangerous or loud stims be addressed.

Nobody said anything about extinguishing all “stims”, that’s just not a thing. Also anything dangerous should always take priority. Assuming disruptive/“annoying” but non-harmful behavior, it’s still MUCH easier to address at age 4 vs an older kid.

Think about it this way- the kid flaps an hour a day in multiple settings and you allow it until they start middle school. Now it’s no longer socially appropriate and little Johnny is getting teased about it and you want to fix it.

Well that’s about 8 more years of reinforcement history you’re now up against at age 12 vs age 4. I’d just tell you good luck I can’t help you, you should’ve addressed it when they were younger. Or if you’re lucky enough I do help you I’m going to tell you pick one setting because total elimination is almost impossible at that age with that learning history.

You are doing the child a huge disservice if you knowingly do absolutely nothing at age 4 and just wait until they are older. Calling it cruel, disproportionate, and absurd is literally absurd. And yes, it requires a LOT of effort, but still easier and less effortful at 4 than 14.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it still be cute or ok in 5 years? If not you should fix it.

Myself and another poster explained that the stim could very well fade. It's not something to 'fix'. He isn't broken.

Or it could become a bad habit like biting nails... you choose how to frame it...

that’s not actually how stims work. Stims come and go - sometimes it’s flapping, sometimes pacing - and you’re never going to cure a kid with autism out of repetitive behaviors because the underlying impulse is literally necessary for the dx. When a kid gets older, if they are normal IQ/language, then you can teach them at a higher level about stimming and how others perceive them. But 4? no. you focus on the stims that are disruptive or dangerous, but you can’t extinguish the drive to stim.

You can’t extinguish “the drive to stim” completely but you absolutely can teach competitive behaviors and reinforce those more heavily than self-stimulatory behavior so the opportunity for it to occur across the day is minimized. So if a kid loves hand flapping then teach them to love riding a bike or jumping rope. The two can’t be done simultaneously. Or teach them to play T-ball, or swing, or rock climbing, or play dough, or crafts, or yoga, or swimming, or a myriad of other things incompatible with hand flapping. You teach new skills and new behaviors that over time decrease the opportunity for the occurrence of hand flapping. You literally keep them busy all day and minimize down time. This way you avoid it getting to the point where all they do is walk around flapping. If you just ignore it and don’t do anything to prevent or minimize it, don’t teach new skills, then you get to the point it’s much harder to intervene. 4 is a perfect age to address this because life is full of new skills. You just have to think strategically about which skills you select next.

DP. I thought it was more like replacing hand flapping with fidgeting with a fidget/pen/something small. Or replacing pogoing with toe tapping or something else smaller and less obtrusive. Or, if necessary, for older children, teaching delaying stimming until later/outside/more appropriate. Not distraction every waking moment.

The “distraction at every waking moment” thing is really disturbing. PP must be some kind of poorly trained BCBA working for one of those private equity ABA centers that prey on parents and tell them their kids need 40 hrs of ABA.

Behavioral modification has its place but it’s frankly shocking to describe that level of it for … hand flapping.

I said nothing about distraction at every waking moment. I’m talking about a day full of various skill-building activities, some of which compete with naturally occurring self-stimulatory behaviors. The opposite would be ignoring them and letting them “stim” in a corner, which it sounds like you prefer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it still be cute or ok in 5 years? If not you should fix it.

Myself and another poster explained that the stim could very well fade. It's not something to 'fix'. He isn't broken.

Yeah it is something to fix. Fix doesn’t mean never allowing it. It does mean establishing places it’s appropriate and not appropriate. Like it’s ok in your bedroom or in the bathroom or at recess but not at school during class. You can also shape the behavior to one that’s less disruptive/distracting/more socially acceptable. It’s just a fact that there’s no better way to make your kid the social outcast than flapping around other NT kids. A person saying quiet hands understands that’s just life. If they said it 24/7 that would be an issue, if they’re saying it in a social context where it’s preventing the child from interacting and building social skills then you should be thankful they’re willing to address things that are difficult.

This is a FOUR year old. The amount of effort needed to extinguish all stims in a kid that age would be totally disproportionate, wasted, and cruel. Nobody is saying and older kid shouldn’t be taught or that dangerous or loud stims be addressed.

Nobody said anything about extinguishing all “stims”, that’s just not a thing. Also anything dangerous should always take priority. Assuming disruptive/“annoying” but non-harmful behavior, it’s still MUCH easier to address at age 4 vs an older kid.

Think about it this way- the kid flaps an hour a day in multiple settings and you allow it until they start middle school. Now it’s no longer socially appropriate and little Johnny is getting teased about it and you want to fix it.

Well that’s about 8 more years of reinforcement history you’re now up against at age 12 vs age 4. I’d just tell you good luck I can’t help you, you should’ve addressed it when they were younger. Or if you’re lucky enough I do help you I’m going to tell you pick one setting because total elimination is almost impossible at that age with that learning history.

You are doing the child a huge disservice if you knowingly do absolutely nothing at age 4 and just wait until they are older. Calling it cruel, disproportionate, and absurd is literally absurd. And yes, it requires a LOT of effort, but still easier and less effortful at 4 than 14.

You are a) describing something far from what OP describes and b) wrong.

OP never said her kid is hand flapping for hours alone. And if that was the case then the intervention would be to put the kid in a more enriching environment, not to target the flapping. It would be to ask why the child feels the need to stim intensively and change the environment.

You are also wrong because as many parents have told you (and I sense you are not a parent but I could be wrong) stims come and go and change with time an age. Spending excessive effort at 4 to extinguish one type of stim makes zero sense unless it is dangerous or really disruptive. Conversely, extinguishing the propensity to stim altogether is as impossible at 4 as it would be at 14.

Teach the kid to sit and attend the teacher for an age appropriate time period? Yes. To walk safely through and intersection instead of skipping? Of course. To stop hand flapping when excited? Total waste of effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it still be cute or ok in 5 years? If not you should fix it.

Myself and another poster explained that the stim could very well fade. It's not something to 'fix'. He isn't broken.

Or it could become a bad habit like biting nails... you choose how to frame it...

that’s not actually how stims work. Stims come and go - sometimes it’s flapping, sometimes pacing - and you’re never going to cure a kid with autism out of repetitive behaviors because the underlying impulse is literally necessary for the dx. When a kid gets older, if they are normal IQ/language, then you can teach them at a higher level about stimming and how others perceive them. But 4? no. you focus on the stims that are disruptive or dangerous, but you can’t extinguish the drive to stim.

You can’t extinguish “the drive to stim” completely but you absolutely can teach competitive behaviors and reinforce those more heavily than self-stimulatory behavior so the opportunity for it to occur across the day is minimized. So if a kid loves hand flapping then teach them to love riding a bike or jumping rope. The two can’t be done simultaneously. Or teach them to play T-ball, or swing, or rock climbing, or play dough, or crafts, or yoga, or swimming, or a myriad of other things incompatible with hand flapping. You teach new skills and new behaviors that over time decrease the opportunity for the occurrence of hand flapping. You literally keep them busy all day and minimize down time. This way you avoid it getting to the point where all they do is walk around flapping. If you just ignore it and don’t do anything to prevent or minimize it, don’t teach new skills, then you get to the point it’s much harder to intervene. 4 is a perfect age to address this because life is full of new skills. You just have to think strategically about which skills you select next.

DP. I thought it was more like replacing hand flapping with fidgeting with a fidget/pen/something small. Or replacing pogoing with toe tapping or something else smaller and less obtrusive. Or, if necessary, for older children, teaching delaying stimming until later/outside/more appropriate. Not distraction every waking moment.

The “distraction at every waking moment” thing is really disturbing. PP must be some kind of poorly trained BCBA working for one of those private equity ABA centers that prey on parents and tell them their kids need 40 hrs of ABA.

Behavioral modification has its place but it’s frankly shocking to describe that level of it for … hand flapping.

I said nothing about distraction at every waking moment. I’m talking about a day full of various skill-building activities, some of which compete with naturally occurring self-stimulatory behaviors. The opposite would be ignoring them and letting them “stim” in a corner, which it sounds like you prefer.

Nobody said that. And the reason to give a child a full education and build skills is to *educate the child.* It’s not to extinguish stims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it still be cute or ok in 5 years? If not you should fix it.

Myself and another poster explained that the stim could very well fade. It's not something to 'fix'. He isn't broken.

Or it could become a bad habit like biting nails... you choose how to frame it...

that’s not actually how stims work. Stims come and go - sometimes it’s flapping, sometimes pacing - and you’re never going to cure a kid with autism out of repetitive behaviors because the underlying impulse is literally necessary for the dx. When a kid gets older, if they are normal IQ/language, then you can teach them at a higher level about stimming and how others perceive them. But 4? no. you focus on the stims that are disruptive or dangerous, but you can’t extinguish the drive to stim.

You can’t extinguish “the drive to stim” completely but you absolutely can teach competitive behaviors and reinforce those more heavily than self-stimulatory behavior so the opportunity for it to occur across the day is minimized. So if a kid loves hand flapping then teach them to love riding a bike or jumping rope. The two can’t be done simultaneously. Or teach them to play T-ball, or swing, or rock climbing, or play dough, or crafts, or yoga, or swimming, or a myriad of other things incompatible with hand flapping. You teach new skills and new behaviors that over time decrease the opportunity for the occurrence of hand flapping. You literally keep them busy all day and minimize down time. This way you avoid it getting to the point where all they do is walk around flapping. If you just ignore it and don’t do anything to prevent or minimize it, don’t teach new skills, then you get to the point it’s much harder to intervene. 4 is a perfect age to address this because life is full of new skills. You just have to think strategically about which skills you select next.

DP. I thought it was more like replacing hand flapping with fidgeting with a fidget/pen/something small. Or replacing pogoing with toe tapping or something else smaller and less obtrusive. Or, if necessary, for older children, teaching delaying stimming until later/outside/more appropriate. Not distraction every waking moment.

Replacing hand flapping with fidgeting can be an option but fidgeting isn’t really a new skill, it’s just a temporary replacement behavior. It can be a good bridge to another behavior but I wouldn’t want it to be the end all if given a choice. Nothing wrong with fidget toys in the classroom or something, but it’s like step 1 of a 5 step process. It’s fine but shouldn’t be all that you do. For example, if the behavior happens during class reading time a better replacement might be following along in a book, tapping each word with an eraser. Or if it happens during circle time then you could encourage the teacher to make circle time more interactive (ex. White boards for answers). You can certainly provide access to breaks in a setting where self-stimulatory behavior is not inhibited, but delaying self- stimulatory behavior isn’t really a good solution for multiple reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it still be cute or ok in 5 years? If not you should fix it.

Myself and another poster explained that the stim could very well fade. It's not something to 'fix'. He isn't broken.

Yeah it is something to fix. Fix doesn’t mean never allowing it. It does mean establishing places it’s appropriate and not appropriate. Like it’s ok in your bedroom or in the bathroom or at recess but not at school during class. You can also shape the behavior to one that’s less disruptive/distracting/more socially acceptable. It’s just a fact that there’s no better way to make your kid the social outcast than flapping around other NT kids. A person saying quiet hands understands that’s just life. If they said it 24/7 that would be an issue, if they’re saying it in a social context where it’s preventing the child from interacting and building social skills then you should be thankful they’re willing to address things that are difficult.

This is a FOUR year old. The amount of effort needed to extinguish all stims in a kid that age would be totally disproportionate, wasted, and cruel. Nobody is saying and older kid shouldn’t be taught or that dangerous or loud stims be addressed.

Nobody said anything about extinguishing all “stims”, that’s just not a thing. Also anything dangerous should always take priority. Assuming disruptive/“annoying” but non-harmful behavior, it’s still MUCH easier to address at age 4 vs an older kid.

Think about it this way- the kid flaps an hour a day in multiple settings and you allow it until they start middle school. Now it’s no longer socially appropriate and little Johnny is getting teased about it and you want to fix it.

Well that’s about 8 more years of reinforcement history you’re now up against at age 12 vs age 4. I’d just tell you good luck I can’t help you, you should’ve addressed it when they were younger. Or if you’re lucky enough I do help you I’m going to tell you pick one setting because total elimination is almost impossible at that age with that learning history.

You are doing the child a huge disservice if you knowingly do absolutely nothing at age 4 and just wait until they are older. Calling it cruel, disproportionate, and absurd is literally absurd. And yes, it requires a LOT of effort, but still easier and less effortful at 4 than 14.

You are a) describing something far from what OP describes and b) wrong.

OP never said her kid is hand flapping for hours alone. And if that was the case then the intervention would be to put the kid in a more enriching environment, not to target the flapping. It would be to ask why the child feels the need to stim intensively and change the environment.

You are also wrong because as many parents have told you (and I sense you are not a parent but I could be wrong) stims come and go and change with time an age. Spending excessive effort at 4 to extinguish one type of stim makes zero sense unless it is dangerous or really disruptive. Conversely, extinguishing the propensity to stim altogether is as impossible at 4 as it would be at 14.

Teach the kid to sit and attend the teacher for an age appropriate time period? Yes. To walk safely through and intersection instead of skipping? Of course. To stop hand flapping when excited? Total waste of effort.

Sounds like you’re on a completely different page than I am. I never said anything about completely extinguishing one type of self-stimulatory behavior.

I’m not wrong, and I can tell you with certainty that ignoring it is worse than addressing it.

That’s all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it still be cute or ok in 5 years? If not you should fix it.

Myself and another poster explained that the stim could very well fade. It's not something to 'fix'. He isn't broken.

Or it could become a bad habit like biting nails... you choose how to frame it...

that’s not actually how stims work. Stims come and go - sometimes it’s flapping, sometimes pacing - and you’re never going to cure a kid with autism out of repetitive behaviors because the underlying impulse is literally necessary for the dx. When a kid gets older, if they are normal IQ/language, then you can teach them at a higher level about stimming and how others perceive them. But 4? no. you focus on the stims that are disruptive or dangerous, but you can’t extinguish the drive to stim.

You can’t extinguish “the drive to stim” completely but you absolutely can teach competitive behaviors and reinforce those more heavily than self-stimulatory behavior so the opportunity for it to occur across the day is minimized. So if a kid loves hand flapping then teach them to love riding a bike or jumping rope. The two can’t be done simultaneously. Or teach them to play T-ball, or swing, or rock climbing, or play dough, or crafts, or yoga, or swimming, or a myriad of other things incompatible with hand flapping. You teach new skills and new behaviors that over time decrease the opportunity for the occurrence of hand flapping. You literally keep them busy all day and minimize down time. This way you avoid it getting to the point where all they do is walk around flapping. If you just ignore it and don’t do anything to prevent or minimize it, don’t teach new skills, then you get to the point it’s much harder to intervene. 4 is a perfect age to address this because life is full of new skills. You just have to think strategically about which skills you select next.

DP. I thought it was more like replacing hand flapping with fidgeting with a fidget/pen/something small. Or replacing pogoing with toe tapping or something else smaller and less obtrusive. Or, if necessary, for older children, teaching delaying stimming until later/outside/more appropriate. Not distraction every waking moment.

The “distraction at every waking moment” thing is really disturbing. PP must be some kind of poorly trained BCBA working for one of those private equity ABA centers that prey on parents and tell them their kids need 40 hrs of ABA.

Behavioral modification has its place but it’s frankly shocking to describe that level of it for … hand flapping.

I said nothing about distraction at every waking moment. I’m talking about a day full of various skill-building activities, some of which compete with naturally occurring self-stimulatory behaviors. The opposite would be ignoring them and letting them “stim” in a corner, which it sounds like you prefer.

Nobody said that. And the reason to give a child a full education and build skills is to *educate the child.* It’s not to extinguish stims.

Why are you stuck on “extinguishing stims”? That’s not what I said at all. You absolutely can provide an education / build skills and address self-stimulatory behavior at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it still be cute or ok in 5 years? If not you should fix it.

Myself and another poster explained that the stim could very well fade. It's not something to 'fix'. He isn't broken.

Yeah it is something to fix. Fix doesn’t mean never allowing it. It does mean establishing places it’s appropriate and not appropriate. Like it’s ok in your bedroom or in the bathroom or at recess but not at school during class. You can also shape the behavior to one that’s less disruptive/distracting/more socially acceptable. It’s just a fact that there’s no better way to make your kid the social outcast than flapping around other NT kids. A person saying quiet hands understands that’s just life. If they said it 24/7 that would be an issue, if they’re saying it in a social context where it’s preventing the child from interacting and building social skills then you should be thankful they’re willing to address things that are difficult.

This is a FOUR year old. The amount of effort needed to extinguish all stims in a kid that age would be totally disproportionate, wasted, and cruel. Nobody is saying and older kid shouldn’t be taught or that dangerous or loud stims be addressed.

Nobody said anything about extinguishing all “stims”, that’s just not a thing. Also anything dangerous should always take priority. Assuming disruptive/“annoying” but non-harmful behavior, it’s still MUCH easier to address at age 4 vs an older kid.

Think about it this way- the kid flaps an hour a day in multiple settings and you allow it until they start middle school. Now it’s no longer socially appropriate and little Johnny is getting teased about it and you want to fix it.

Well that’s about 8 more years of reinforcement history you’re now up against at age 12 vs age 4. I’d just tell you good luck I can’t help you, you should’ve addressed it when they were younger. Or if you’re lucky enough I do help you I’m going to tell you pick one setting because total elimination is almost impossible at that age with that learning history.

You are doing the child a huge disservice if you knowingly do absolutely nothing at age 4 and just wait until they are older. Calling it cruel, disproportionate, and absurd is literally absurd. And yes, it requires a LOT of effort, but still easier and less effortful at 4 than 14.

You are a) describing something far from what OP describes and b) wrong.

OP never said her kid is hand flapping for hours alone. And if that was the case then the intervention would be to put the kid in a more enriching environment, not to target the flapping. It would be to ask why the child feels the need to stim intensively and change the environment.

You are also wrong because as many parents have told you (and I sense you are not a parent but I could be wrong) stims come and go and change with time an age. Spending excessive effort at 4 to extinguish one type of stim makes zero sense unless it is dangerous or really disruptive. Conversely, extinguishing the propensity to stim altogether is as impossible at 4 as it would be at 14.

Teach the kid to sit and attend the teacher for an age appropriate time period? Yes. To walk safely through and intersection instead of skipping? Of course. To stop hand flapping when excited? Total waste of effort.

Sounds like you’re on a completely different page than I am. I never said anything about completely extinguishing one type of self-stimulatory behavior.

I’m not wrong, and I can tell you with certainty that ignoring it is worse than addressing it.

That’s all.

you ARE wrong. A 4 year old fidgeting or hand flapping during circle time isn’t a problem behavior to be extinguished. I’m scratching my head about what minimally competent ABA program would expend the effort on it unless it was a distraction. The goal would be for the child to attend to the teacher and, you know, learn to read. Not to “not look autistic.” Again - OP has NOT said her child is sitting in a corner stimming all day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it still be cute or ok in 5 years? If not you should fix it.

Myself and another poster explained that the stim could very well fade. It's not something to 'fix'. He isn't broken.

Or it could become a bad habit like biting nails... you choose how to frame it...

that’s not actually how stims work. Stims come and go - sometimes it’s flapping, sometimes pacing - and you’re never going to cure a kid with autism out of repetitive behaviors because the underlying impulse is literally necessary for the dx. When a kid gets older, if they are normal IQ/language, then you can teach them at a higher level about stimming and how others perceive them. But 4? no. you focus on the stims that are disruptive or dangerous, but you can’t extinguish the drive to stim.

You can’t extinguish “the drive to stim” completely but you absolutely can teach competitive behaviors and reinforce those more heavily than self-stimulatory behavior so the opportunity for it to occur across the day is minimized. So if a kid loves hand flapping then teach them to love riding a bike or jumping rope. The two can’t be done simultaneously. Or teach them to play T-ball, or swing, or rock climbing, or play dough, or crafts, or yoga, or swimming, or a myriad of other things incompatible with hand flapping. You teach new skills and new behaviors that over time decrease the opportunity for the occurrence of hand flapping. You literally keep them busy all day and minimize down time. This way you avoid it getting to the point where all they do is walk around flapping. If you just ignore it and don’t do anything to prevent or minimize it, don’t teach new skills, then you get to the point it’s much harder to intervene. 4 is a perfect age to address this because life is full of new skills. You just have to think strategically about which skills you select next.

DP. I thought it was more like replacing hand flapping with fidgeting with a fidget/pen/something small. Or replacing pogoing with toe tapping or something else smaller and less obtrusive. Or, if necessary, for older children, teaching delaying stimming until later/outside/more appropriate. Not distraction every waking moment.

The “distraction at every waking moment” thing is really disturbing. PP must be some kind of poorly trained BCBA working for one of those private equity ABA centers that prey on parents and tell them their kids need 40 hrs of ABA.

Behavioral modification has its place but it’s frankly shocking to describe that level of it for … hand flapping.

I said nothing about distraction at every waking moment. I’m talking about a day full of various skill-building activities, some of which compete with naturally occurring self-stimulatory behaviors. The opposite would be ignoring them and letting them “stim” in a corner, which it sounds like you prefer.

Nobody said that. And the reason to give a child a full education and build skills is to *educate the child.* It’s not to extinguish stims.

Why are you stuck on “extinguishing stims”? That’s not what I said at all. You absolutely can provide an education / build skills and address self-stimulatory behavior at the same time.

no competent ABA program or IEP has a goal of “address self-stimulatory behavior” in and of itself these day. It just doesn’t. You’re going to need to explain with specifics exactly what kind of stim would be worth a whole goal on, and WHY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it still be cute or ok in 5 years? If not you should fix it.

Myself and another poster explained that the stim could very well fade. It's not something to 'fix'. He isn't broken.

Yeah it is something to fix. Fix doesn’t mean never allowing it. It does mean establishing places it’s appropriate and not appropriate. Like it’s ok in your bedroom or in the bathroom or at recess but not at school during class. You can also shape the behavior to one that’s less disruptive/distracting/more socially acceptable. It’s just a fact that there’s no better way to make your kid the social outcast than flapping around other NT kids. A person saying quiet hands understands that’s just life. If they said it 24/7 that would be an issue, if they’re saying it in a social context where it’s preventing the child from interacting and building social skills then you should be thankful they’re willing to address things that are difficult.

This is a FOUR year old. The amount of effort needed to extinguish all stims in a kid that age would be totally disproportionate, wasted, and cruel. Nobody is saying and older kid shouldn’t be taught or that dangerous or loud stims be addressed.

Nobody said anything about extinguishing all “stims”, that’s just not a thing. Also anything dangerous should always take priority. Assuming disruptive/“annoying” but non-harmful behavior, it’s still MUCH easier to address at age 4 vs an older kid.

Think about it this way- the kid flaps an hour a day in multiple settings and you allow it until they start middle school. Now it’s no longer socially appropriate and little Johnny is getting teased about it and you want to fix it.

Well that’s about 8 more years of reinforcement history you’re now up against at age 12 vs age 4. I’d just tell you good luck I can’t help you, you should’ve addressed it when they were younger. Or if you’re lucky enough I do help you I’m going to tell you pick one setting because total elimination is almost impossible at that age with that learning history.

You are doing the child a huge disservice if you knowingly do absolutely nothing at age 4 and just wait until they are older. Calling it cruel, disproportionate, and absurd is literally absurd. And yes, it requires a LOT of effort, but still easier and less effortful at 4 than 14.

You are a) describing something far from what OP describes and b) wrong.

OP never said her kid is hand flapping for hours alone. And if that was the case then the intervention would be to put the kid in a more enriching environment, not to target the flapping. It would be to ask why the child feels the need to stim intensively and change the environment.

You are also wrong because as many parents have told you (and I sense you are not a parent but I could be wrong) stims come and go and change with time an age. Spending excessive effort at 4 to extinguish one type of stim makes zero sense unless it is dangerous or really disruptive. Conversely, extinguishing the propensity to stim altogether is as impossible at 4 as it would be at 14.

Teach the kid to sit and attend the teacher for an age appropriate time period? Yes. To walk safely through and intersection instead of skipping? Of course. To stop hand flapping when excited? Total waste of effort.

Sounds like you’re on a completely different page than I am. I never said anything about completely extinguishing one type of self-stimulatory behavior.

I’m not wrong, and I can tell you with certainty that ignoring it is worse than addressing it.

That’s all.

11:17 here. I don't really understand the page that you are on. Modify, replace, extinguish, something else? I don't see how a skill of jumping rope has anything to do with hand flapping, which can sometimes be an expression of happiness or excitement, can sometimes be an outburst of anxiety or stress, or could be self-soothing, voluntary or involuntary.

Disclosure: DS has some stims that when he was younger, he mostly did at home, and has outgrown most of them now, has gotten some new ones, and mostly outgrown those too.

DH and I have a couple habits that I think are probably stims but they are not disruptive and are occasional. So I'm coming from the perspective of never really needing to change a stim, instead following along on this thread to learn about stims more generally.