Parents demonstrated a positive bias (autistic distortion) when acting as informants about their retarded children who were relatively normal in motor functioning. This trend was not found in parents whose retarded children were handicapped in motor functioning. The findings appear to be consistent with the Freudian notion of unconscious wish fulfillment.

In a paper which might otherwise be read as a pleasant and useful if somewhat prosaic exercise, Epstein and Bishop (1) depart at the end of the article from the traditional, accepted role of the reviewer striving for balance and dispassionate observation. By applying such labels as "sometimes cynical and disingenuously artful," "manipulative," "less honest" and "deceitful" (all on page 180) to my work and to the work of several others who have achieved some recognition and standing in the field of family therapy, Epstein and Bishop under the guise of ob jective reportage actually engage in polemic, rhetoric and personal invective. It is one thing to disagree with a point of view; it is another, and of a questionable ethical foundation, to disagree by attacking the per sonal integrity of the other side while mak ing it appear that one is speaking for a consensus rather than simply stating a per sonal opinion.Like parents warning unsuspecting chil dren, Epstein and Bishop ask students to beware of the 'tricksters' (another of their pejorative terms on page 180) because ap plying their knowledge without the necessary experience or sensitivity could be destruc tive. The authors note that: "These ap proaches when in the hands of the pioneer teachers who use and describe them are credible -their skills are such that they are very sensitive in their application" (p.