The Stubblefield case in ‘Tell Them You Love Me’ highlights the wide array of potential victims who can be harmed by promoting pseudoscientific methods of communication.
“They are not fixated on some imagined version of Derrick; they love the real person they know.”
A former colleague was a school psychologist. Speaking about the parents of children with severe communicative problems, she lamented that many spend their lives looking for the child’s hidden superpower, “as if they were X-Men.”
Thank you for this wonderfully done essay. As a psychologist, I am always fascinated by people's ability to create delusions that are so impervious to disconfirming evidence... Thank you again. Sincerely, Frederick
I find that so many of these pseudo-scientific movements--lobotomies, recovered memories, gender medicine--have their genesis in a desire to do good. And we should try to do good! However, that desire should be a north star that guides us, not a handy way to excuse the bad things we do along the journey.
I swear, though, the most harm is done not by those who know they are wrong, but by those who are SURE they are right.
When I first started reading the article I had been confused but hooked. If he had communicated, why was it not consent? Why should he be disallowed from consent? Then I understood partway through the article that it was not really communication. It all made sense then.
I found this to be well written and I learned from it. I did think it was worth pointing out that there *are* some untroversially effective communication methods used for paraplegic which are similar, but which involve leaving the board on a table, or suspended, or otherwise controlled by the communicating individual (no second person). People should not think those cases are also fake.
Carly Fleischmann was a non-speaking disabled woman who appeared on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. It looked a lot like her pre-recorded messages were the work of a ghost writer, a case of facilitated communication. When her parents divorced there were similar questions if Carly's accusations of abuse were authentic or dictated. The strange excuses for her inability to type anything right after abuse allegation suggests that there was some kind of fraud going on.
It's a shame that figures such as Carly Fleischmann, Elizabeth Bonkers, and Naoki Higashida in the news makes the public perceive severe autism as a speaking impediment rather than a mental disability.
Derricks’s family come across in the documentary as some of the most intelligent, caring, and selfless people you could ever meet. They care for Derrick with such tenderness and even joy. Stubblefield is a toxic narcissist, raised by her activist mother to see herself as a person who is entitled to do anything as long as she is convinced that she is helping an underdog.
What (presumably) pushed the family over the edge. Or did Stubblefield herself started boasting to too many about her miraculous powers? Would like to know how it ended up as a court case.
And I just did. Stubblefield leaves her husband and her own two children to prove to the world how noble and self-sacrificing she is at the same time. A win-win for her, because the victim couldn't refute her, and "he" felt the need to type out long sentences on how grateful he was to "Professor Stubblefield," when it would have been far easier to to type "Anna." She was so completely self-absorbed as to miss the obvious. People really can delude themselves into believing their own PR.
Glad that family finally acted, thanks for writing about it.
All that has to happen for some to swallow the snake oil is dress it up in the right education and clothing. Additional points given if the snake oil salesman has fabricated and sold a storyline of being all about "helping" others. Stubblefield and her ilk are predators, and they go where they have the best chance to manipulate other human beings. I had to laugh at the ludicrous vision of a "keyboard in the air." If she wore a t-shirt and jeans and drove an ice cream truck to attract children for her own use, methinks we would not be hearing “I never thought she was a predator. She truly believed what she was doing was in Derrick’s best interest. She was an unfortunate victim of a methodology that is very problematic.”
I do think it is likely she was having unconscious control of "what he was allegedly saying". So I don't think she was a predator. Just liking her own subconsciousness. However, when I found out she was married (with kids even!) my view of her acting on any "felt" romantic connection became very much more negative.
We will have to agree to disagree. Some behaviors, actions and justifications are just that outlandish. I believe she was very conscious that she was raping him.
I avoid making everything about race, but this situation was fraught with, at a minimum, great potential that for Stubblefield, Derrick was exotically “othered” and also in need of a white savior. Meanwhile his family is far from uninformed and helpless.
I too noticed that and am uncomfortable that that the article was published that way (especially in this brand). The article doesn't mention her number of toes, if she wears glasses etc. I don't consider the skin color to be of any greater note.
Skin color is highly relevant to this case. Watch the documentary. Stubblefield insisted that Derrick loved red wine and classical music and was a vegetarian, despite his black southern upbringing and non-exposure to these things. Race was a daily factor in what she was doing. She seemed to think she was correcting the shortcomings of his culture.
“They are not fixated on some imagined version of Derrick; they love the real person they know.”
A former colleague was a school psychologist. Speaking about the parents of children with severe communicative problems, she lamented that many spend their lives looking for the child’s hidden superpower, “as if they were X-Men.”
Thank you for this wonderfully done essay. As a psychologist, I am always fascinated by people's ability to create delusions that are so impervious to disconfirming evidence... Thank you again. Sincerely, Frederick
This is great, thanks.
I find that so many of these pseudo-scientific movements--lobotomies, recovered memories, gender medicine--have their genesis in a desire to do good. And we should try to do good! However, that desire should be a north star that guides us, not a handy way to excuse the bad things we do along the journey.
I swear, though, the most harm is done not by those who know they are wrong, but by those who are SURE they are right.
When I first started reading the article I had been confused but hooked. If he had communicated, why was it not consent? Why should he be disallowed from consent? Then I understood partway through the article that it was not really communication. It all made sense then.
I found this to be well written and I learned from it. I did think it was worth pointing out that there *are* some untroversially effective communication methods used for paraplegic which are similar, but which involve leaving the board on a table, or suspended, or otherwise controlled by the communicating individual (no second person). People should not think those cases are also fake.
Carly Fleischmann was a non-speaking disabled woman who appeared on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. It looked a lot like her pre-recorded messages were the work of a ghost writer, a case of facilitated communication. When her parents divorced there were similar questions if Carly's accusations of abuse were authentic or dictated. The strange excuses for her inability to type anything right after abuse allegation suggests that there was some kind of fraud going on.
It's a shame that figures such as Carly Fleischmann, Elizabeth Bonkers, and Naoki Higashida in the news makes the public perceive severe autism as a speaking impediment rather than a mental disability.
Derricks’s family come across in the documentary as some of the most intelligent, caring, and selfless people you could ever meet. They care for Derrick with such tenderness and even joy. Stubblefield is a toxic narcissist, raised by her activist mother to see herself as a person who is entitled to do anything as long as she is convinced that she is helping an underdog.
What (presumably) pushed the family over the edge. Or did Stubblefield herself started boasting to too many about her miraculous powers? Would like to know how it ended up as a court case.
You should definitely check out the documentary.
And I just did. Stubblefield leaves her husband and her own two children to prove to the world how noble and self-sacrificing she is at the same time. A win-win for her, because the victim couldn't refute her, and "he" felt the need to type out long sentences on how grateful he was to "Professor Stubblefield," when it would have been far easier to to type "Anna." She was so completely self-absorbed as to miss the obvious. People really can delude themselves into believing their own PR.
Glad that family finally acted, thanks for writing about it.
All that has to happen for some to swallow the snake oil is dress it up in the right education and clothing. Additional points given if the snake oil salesman has fabricated and sold a storyline of being all about "helping" others. Stubblefield and her ilk are predators, and they go where they have the best chance to manipulate other human beings. I had to laugh at the ludicrous vision of a "keyboard in the air." If she wore a t-shirt and jeans and drove an ice cream truck to attract children for her own use, methinks we would not be hearing “I never thought she was a predator. She truly believed what she was doing was in Derrick’s best interest. She was an unfortunate victim of a methodology that is very problematic.”
I do think it is likely she was having unconscious control of "what he was allegedly saying". So I don't think she was a predator. Just liking her own subconsciousness. However, when I found out she was married (with kids even!) my view of her acting on any "felt" romantic connection became very much more negative.
We will have to agree to disagree. Some behaviors, actions and justifications are just that outlandish. I believe she was very conscious that she was raping him.
Why is Stubblefield’s race relevant? (“White university professor”.)
I avoid making everything about race, but this situation was fraught with, at a minimum, great potential that for Stubblefield, Derrick was exotically “othered” and also in need of a white savior. Meanwhile his family is far from uninformed and helpless.
I too noticed that and am uncomfortable that that the article was published that way (especially in this brand). The article doesn't mention her number of toes, if she wears glasses etc. I don't consider the skin color to be of any greater note.
Skin color is highly relevant to this case. Watch the documentary. Stubblefield insisted that Derrick loved red wine and classical music and was a vegetarian, despite his black southern upbringing and non-exposure to these things. Race was a daily factor in what she was doing. She seemed to think she was correcting the shortcomings of his culture.