Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

I think it's simple. People have to be respected. You don't force help on people. You give them opportunities. Most autistic people have little to no trouble functioning in their daily life. Yes, they have trouble socialising as "easily" as neurotypical people, but a lot of neurotypical people have trouble socialising too (I, for example, am very good at small talk and shallow interactions, but have a very hard time connecting to others on a deeper level and developing real friendships). When people treat autism as a problem, they often seem to forget that being neurotypical does not mean being perfect or even generally normal, it just means being neurologically "normal" (which in turn is just a matter of being over a certain point on an arbitrary scale). But there is no truly normal people, everybody has issues and impairments. Normal people only exist in statistics, a generalised sum of many people into one. Being autistic is not the only possible cause of being "socially impaired", just one of many. By singeling out autistic people out as a problem (especially using the most extreme cases) we are not helping them, only making a bigger deal out of it than it should be, as well as othering autistic people. Don't make the diagnosis what they are.

But yes, having trouble socialising can be a real problem, especially if the person in question wants to meet people and have needs for closeness and warmth that aren't being fulfilled. Most people, however, manages all right by themselves. Look at Vector, for example. She appears to be doing just fine, even if her problems causes her distress. Just being not neurotypical doesn't mean you must have need of help. For those for which it is a problem, however, help should be offered on their terms. The state should provide opportunities for these people to get out and do what they want to do. For example, offering places where not-very-social (be they autistic or neurotypical) can go, when and if they want to. My county is part of a project where they offer young people who otherwise don't get out much because of their problems a chance to get together and talk by offering courses (the subjects of those courses are decided by participants, be it language classes, guitar lessons, roman history, smithing, sailing or fishing - all examples from last year's list of courses), enabling people to socialise in small groups with a clear purpose. They also have a coffee break as part of every lesson so that people can talk more freely, as well as "open evenings" where participants can come and hang out, but it isn't mandatory to stay for or go to either of them. This is all for free, and participants are under no obligation to show up every time or keep going through the whole season if they don't want to. It has helped a lot of people get a more fulfilling social life while treating people as actual people rather than problems

As for kids, I also think some help should be offered. There are a lot of tools that can be taught to those who have a hard time to make their life easier, something which many autistic people are otherwise forced to learn on their own through experience, but which other people might have a hard time to learn on their own. There is still the problem of not letting their autism become their whole and branding them for life, however. Vector, again for example, have in the past expressed an unwillingness to see psychologists because they make every issue about her place on the autism scale, rather than being able to see that yeah, there are other, more direct causes of her issues as well. This simplifying of character cannot be allowed to happen to children, for it will definitely affect how they see themselves. And this isn't just a problem for/from psychologists, but for adults in general - especially teachers and other adults in school.

So, to sum up - help, in these cases, means support, not forcing autistic people to change "for their own good". There is nothing wrong with being autistic, but people should still be offered opportunities in case they suffer because of it, and aren't able to perform socially well enough to go any of the "normal" places. And, once again, this is not just for autistic people, but for people with social problems in general (for example also extreme shyness or social phobia).


Also, Vector, I am sorry for using you personally as an example as I know you don't like being seen as your diagnosis (and rightfully and understandably so, of course), but everbody here knows you and, well, my interaction with people on the autistic scale (or rather, people I know are on it) is limited, so I don't have many other concrete examples. I sincerely hope you didn't take it the wrong way or that I offended you, that was never my intent.

Well, now I know, don't I?


In an attempt to move the conversation somewhere a bit less volatile on the same subject, I'd like to offer the DSM V's proposed diagnosis criteria.  What do y'all think?  I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about it.

Seems like this would limit the diagnosis to the more extreme cases, wouldn't it?

[kaijyuu]

I skimmed the thread so apologies if I missed anything important. Some interesting views here.

Also, hope you feel better and get some stress relief, Vector Very very sorry if by bringing this up I caused any grief.

I can socialize fine with autistic people.

Neurotypical people can socialize fine with neurotypical people.

These two groups have trouble socializing with each other.

Interesting. Communicating on different wavelengths, so to speak. It would be surprising to me if everyone in the autism spectrum was on one single "wavelength" and neurotypicals on another, though.

In this case yes I could see this as not a problem and more akin to people just speaking a different language. There is still a problem to be fixed though, and that is easing communication between people. Giving people tools and skills to do so should probably be the goal then, as you mentioned, rather than trying to force autistics to speak a different language.

Okie dokie, sounds reasonable. I could get behind that.

I think the disadvantes can outweigh the advantages in some cases, but autism is an inherent part of the way you think rather than a sort of injury. With the example of your grandfather, I think most cases of autism would be more comparable to his stubbornness than his hearing problems. Like the stubbornness, autism can cause trouble, but at the same time it is part of who you are as a person.

Yeah analogies to autism just plain don't work it seems.

My grandfather's belief is that there is nothing wrong with him, despite the fact there obviously is. That's the issue I'm concerned about. If we classify parts of autism as impairments or debilitating, and people claim that there is "nothing wrong" with autism, are they not doing the same thing? It's the state of mind rather than the problem itself. (if no part of autism is classified as impairing or debilitating, then obviously there's no issue here)

Another side to look at though, is there are obviously people out there who think those with disabilities/impairments/etc are inferior. As if you're somehow less human if you're deaf or whatever. That is of course ridiculous, but I'm not so certain that claiming there's nothing wrong with those with disabilities is the correct answer to those claims. There is something wrong; it just doesn't make you less human or inferior at anything but what you're impaired with.

Shifting away from autism, take a look at Deaf culture.

Members of the Deaf community tend to view deafness as a difference in human experience rather than a disability.

I have no right to say people should or shouldn't be whatever they want, but this sort of thing strikes me as a tad ridiculous. Choice is great, so if one chooses to retain a disability (be it deafness or anything else) that's fine. It's just that calling it something other than what it is (a disability) strikes me as contrary to any useful purpose. It strikes me as reactionary to the aforementioned idiots who see the disabled as overall inferior and sub-human.

Again if we do not classify autism as debilitating then it, at least, does not qualify for any of this.


Maybe someone should write a science fiction dystopia where all problems are not labeled as such and we evolve to ignore them rather than fix them. Then watch as the author gets labeled as pro eugenics.

[Vector]

I hear This Alien Shore is such a book.

[kaijyuu]

Damn. All my good ideas are already taken

[ChairmanPoo]

I've read it and it ain't. Not exactly, at least.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Plot device: FTL travel causes mutations

Plot device: wormhole travel is somewhat safe, but eldritch abominations eat your soul if you try. The only ones who can safely navigate it are certain people who suffer a peculiar form of schizophrenia endemic among one of the mutant offshoots of mankind. Or something like that.

Plot: a corporation has been torturing a girl in order to try to breed their own wormhole-navigators. Meanwhile the human offshoot who breed the original wormhole navigators have a terrorist movement in their midst that is seeking to discredit Earth in order to maroon them. They want to do this because Earthlings marooned all FTL mutants centuries before, for being ugly.

TBH I found the book bland overall. Nonresolutive.

[G-Flex]

Sorry.  It's partially that I'm too wound up over trying to deal with this class, which I can hardly tell anyone IRL about, and it's partially that I'm tired of butting heads with G-Flex over this one issue of "why I'm not calling the entire spectrum pathological because some members have particular problems/why I have problems with autistic organizations attempting to 'cure' autism when there are a number of cases that are really bad."

I would rather you not mischaracterize what I say or put words into my mouth.

Also, have you considered that maybe other people (in this case, me) might also have sources of significant stress affecting their ability to communicate or deal with touchy subjects well, not just you? Not everyone here is as comfortable enough sharing their personal problems with strangers as you are, and I would appreciate it if you would at least give me the benefit of the doubt that I'm not a raving, ignorant lunatic. It's not as if I don't want to understand the subject at hand.


At any rate, I think we're kind of getting into the problem of how one would even go about creating an objective (enough) definition of "disordered". At some point, you have to ask why some things are considered "disordered" and some things aren't, aside from whether or not it's "normal". Generally speaking, things are (ideally) not treated as pathologically unless it significantly affects the person's quality of life, but even that's a little hard to pin down and doesn't necessarily apply to, say, disorders that affect one's ability to socialize (I don't necessarily mean autism here; there are other things that work as better examples). You ask who gets to decide what we expect out of people and how their psychiatric fitness is measured, but in a way, doesn't that apply to the entire field of psychiatry, not just this one subject?

[Truean]

http://news.yahoo.com/census-shows-1-2-people-poor-low-income-054325860.html

Given the above, how is there an effort to make things even easier on the rich and cut spending on the social safety net?

"Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, questioned whether some people classified as poor or low-income actually suffer material hardship. He said that while safety-net programs have helped many Americans, they have gone too far, citing poor people who live in decent-size homes, drive cars and own wide-screen TVs."

.... None of the old TVs work anymore because Congress switched to this new digital crap. Therefore, no one sells or can even use the old TVs and thus the only ones available.... Have you seen the cars the average poor person drives? Decent homes, because we don't want that? If poverty is so great, then why is everyone always trying to get out of it? This guy should have to live like they do before he can comment.

America has become in part an insane country. His message is "the poor have it too good." People actually listen to this. There's a major trend, "prisons are resorts." "The poor have it too good," "[insert disadvantaged group here] is really doing too well." Again, why is everyone trying to get out of those situations if being in them is so damn great? The prejudice would be hilarious if it weren't so real.

From the people who deny evolution, climate change, other religions' right to exist, etc. Now, because they can't downplay how widespread poverty is, or that its not really people's fault right now, they'll say it isn't so bad...?

[G-Flex]

http://news.yahoo.com/census-shows-1-2-people-poor-low-income-054325860.html

Given the above, how is there an effort to make things even easier on the rich and cut spending on the social safety net?

Politicians are pretty good at getting people to blame the wrong people for their problems, and to act politically self-destructive. Besides, aren't we all just temporarily embarrassed millionaires ready to hit it big any time?

.... None of the old TVs work anymore because Congress switched to this new digital crap. Therefore, no one sells or can even use the old TVs and thus the only ones available.... Have you seen the cars the average poor person drives?

To be fair, weren't there rebates for converter boxes? Also, you can't necessarily expect the same technological standards to be used forever. That being said, it still is/was a shitty situation for those stuck with old receivers who either didn't know or couldn't get a converter box.

America has become in part an insane country. His message is "the poor have it too good." People actually listen to this. There's a major trend, "prisons are great." "The poor have it too good," "[insert disadvantaged group here] is really doing too well." Again, why is everyone trying to get out of those situations if being in them is so damn great? The prejudice would be hilarious if it weren't so real.

Right. Don't forget that the nation is also anti-white and anti-male, if you listen to some.

[Truean]

Yeah, basically there are a ton of poor, near poor, or otherwise-getting-seriously-screwed working class people, who can't or won't admit what's being done to them. Factually, real wages have shrunk, the cost of living has gone up, pensions have vanished or decreased, and everything has basically gone to shit in the last 30 or 40 years for them. Those of them who support the rich who are screwing them basically suffer from Stockholm syndrome.

The TV thing wasn't about the method of the digital switch. It was about the guy's comment how "poor people have wide screen TVs." The point is, if you want to watch TV anymore, something that used to be practically free, you pretty much have to have a new set. To get any kind of decent picture where I am, you also have to have cable. However, the digital switch had little to do with a technological upgrade and more to do with cell phone companies wanting UHF and VHF frequencies.

A lot of white males in this country are pissed off they only have most of the power instead of all of it like they used to. That's the basis for anyone saying the country is anti white male.

[G-Flex]

Yeah, basically there are a ton of poor, near poor, or otherwise-getting-seriously-screwed working class people, who can't or won't admit what's being done to them.

Thing is, it's not even necessarily them. It's possible to be doing okay for yourself in the US and still be overworked and one minor disaster away from serious financial problems. Well, that's how I see it after three hours of sleep, at least.

The TV thing wasn't about the method of the digital switch. It was about the guy's comment how "poor people have wide screen TVs." The point is, if you want to watch TV anymore, something that used to be practically free, you pretty much have to have a new set. To get any kind of decent picture where I am, you also have to have cable.

Eh, I think poor people having new sets was basically his point, or else why say "widescreen"? Still a ridiculous comment, though.

[Truean]

O absolutely. If you're not in the upper income brackets in this country you're getting screwed compared to how your parents had it. Real simple math, used to be one parent worked and could provide for the whole family. Now both do and they still can't make ends meet. If you've got twice as many people in the house working, then shouldn't you you be twice as well off? [guides everyone's mind away from feminism and towards the finance of that]. 2 is greater than 1 yet we end up with less. If someone got sick, it didn't used to be the end of them financially....

Of course his point was that they had new TV sets. It isn't class warfare when they do it though.... My point is it was bullshit in light of the fact that the old sets don't work.

[Luke_Prowler]

It also implies that they bought those things for full price, when most likely had to buy second hand or got it from a friend

[Vector]

Also, have you considered that maybe other people (in this case, me) might also have sources of significant stress affecting their ability to communicate or deal with touchy subjects well, not just you? Not everyone here is as comfortable enough sharing their personal problems with strangers as you are, and I would appreciate it if you would at least give me the benefit of the doubt that I'm not a raving, ignorant lunatic. It's not as if I don't want to understand the subject at hand.

No, I thought you were one of those wiseasses who for some reason is good about being an ally about everything but mental and physical health, and then turns around and says "You can't understand what's going on with you because that's the definition of mental disorder" or "your group should really always be described and based on the neediest members, and you should just eat it."  There's big problems nowadays with health-seen-as-morality.

Sorry about that.  It's not that I think you're a raving, ignorant lunatic.  It's that I've been thinking you're demanding a degree of altruism from me that doesn't really mesh well with the situation, because you don't understand the experiences at the top (since the disability is often invisible--so "high-functioning" comes to mean "high-invisibility") and you think I don't understand the experiences of people and parents at the bottom, and just... forget about them for some reason, because I don't care.

I actually don't understand why you're always thinking I'm forgetting lower functioning people who need different kinds of help, but I have been reading stuff that they (note: obviously not people on the lowest end) write.  I still don't think Autism Speaks has it straight.  They really, really scare me.

You ask who gets to decide what we expect out of people and how their psychiatric fitness is measured, but in a way, doesn't that apply to the entire field of psychiatry, not just this one subject?

Yeah, it does, absolutely.  I think that there's some things that are painful because that's the nature of the thing, and that should be pathologized (cf: depression), and there are some things that are painful largely because the environment conspires to make it so.  Previous example: homosexuality.  There doesn't seem to be anything inherently bad about autism.  There are people on the really low end of the spectrum who can't stop hurting themselves, and I don't know what to do about that, or fully understand all of the interactions between them and society.  But I do think that looking for environmental triggers in the child's environment is in general a better idea than what's been happening, and I really do wonder if a lot of this is a sort of "cultural misunderstanding."

[GlyphGryph]

On another note, I don't object to the concept of trying to see things from the perspective of someone who thinks differently, and of someone who might, someday, come to these people for help or be part of a demographic they study for various reasons. At it's core, I don't think the assignment is all that terrible. However, the wording... of the whole thing... errrrr. It doesn't lead to much confidence of it being implemented well.

Of course, I also don't believe in "neurotypicals", or in the common definitions of "psychiatric diseases" and "pathologies". I simply see patterns, more or less beneficial in various situations, more or less likely to be exhibited, and more or less likely to be reinforced or shaped by internal or external forces. I believe most of us could benefit from properly applied psychiatric techniques.

By the definitions of illness I've seen from psychiatrists all of us, every single one of us, is gravely ill - except, of course, those defining the term made sure to include "special" exceptions to make it not so, by definition.

Good look subverting the class, Vector - hopefully, you can turn it into a successful educational experience for all involved. Remember that at least some of those students are probably going to be going into this with an open mind, and helping them understand the truth better can conceivably do a lot of good further down the road.

[G-Flex]

No, I thought you were one of those wiseasses who for some reason is good about being an ally about everything but mental and physical health, and then turns around and says "You can't understand what's going on with you because that's the definition of mental disorder" or "your group should really always be described and based on the neediest members, and you should just eat it."  There's big problems nowadays with health-seen-as-morality.

I can understand why you might have a problem with things I say, but I don't believe those are things I've said!

I actually don't understand why you're always thinking I'm forgetting lower functioning people who need different kinds of help, but I have been reading stuff that they (note: obviously not people on the lowest end) write.  I still don't think Autism Speaks has it straight.  They really, really scare me.

It was probably misunderstanding. When you talked about autism being "pathological" or not, it sounded to me like you were saying it in a manner that applied to all autistic people, i.e. that autism is never a "problem".

Yeah, it does, absolutely.  I think that there's some things that are painful because that's the nature of the thing, and that should be pathologized (cf: depression), and there are some things that are painful largely because the environment conspires to make it so.  Previous example: homosexuality.  There doesn't seem to be anything inherently bad about autism.

Problem: Define "inherently bad". Sociopathy (not to say it's comparable to depression or autism!) is treated as pathological even if it doesn't impair with the subjective quality of life of the person involved. Of course, that's also a more direct case of protecting society from a person, but in theory it's still an issue of something only being bad when you consider how that person interacts with a particular environment. Humans being social animals, it's kind of hard to say when something becomes pathological simply because it affects how they interact with others, especially when all standards of behavior are, on some level, totally arbitrary to begin with.