Monday, September 22, 2014

Autism Simulation


Here's another one of those simulations to give you an idea of what it is like to be autistic. It's quite short but  I think it does a pretty good job of illustrating the disorder.

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

The Real Autism Experts


Salon.com posted a story about new research that is taking a different approach to the way researchers look at autistics. Rather than viewing autistics as deficient because they don't like to be in crowded places, for example, researchers are now looking at the aversion to crowds as a symptom, not a deficit of something else. Information overload, for example.

The piece was well written and the information brought up in the article sounds a lot like the Intense World Theory.

The comments is what got me. It's always the comments, isn't it?

One lady who didn't seem to like the paper felt that researchers should start talking to the Real Autism Experts™, the parents.

Not the autistics, the people who live it, but the parents who "deal with Autism 24/7/365."



The other message also rubs me the wrong way. On the one hand I understand the poster had good intentions when the whole "autistics are people too" angle. But don't you see, if you have to work that hard to prove that I'm a person, you have much bigger problems then sentence construction.


Salon article:
We might have autism backwards: What “broken mirror” and “broken mentalizing” theories could have wrong


Friday, June 20, 2014

Image of Neurotypical Brain Compared to an Autistic Brain

The Autcast shared this photo on Facebook. I loved it so I copied it here.

The image below shows a typical brain on the left and an autistic brain on the right. I find the autistic brain to be more organized and beautiful. It looks healthier to me. The typical brain looks scattered and disorganized.

One thing I am not sure about is  whether these are supposed to be viewed as mirror images, or is the autistic brain really wired backwards when compared to a typical brain.


Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/picture-galleries/10902852/In-pictures-Images-of-the-brain-taken-by-scientists-at-University-of-Edinburgh.html?frame=2943390


Sunday, April 20, 2014

The Aspie Whisperer

He gets us. He really gets us.


A time back I was talking about autism experts and how they don't seem to really understand us even though they spend so much time studying us. I compared it to Jane Goodall and wondered how this woman can go into the forest, spend time observing her subject and eventually come to understand them, but researchers can't do the same with us. Even though they have the added benefit of being able to communicate with us.

And then I came across this talk by Tony Attwood, an English psychologist that works with people with Asperger's Syndrome (now, autism). I've heard his name before and watched small bits of Youtube videos but never really heard a full speech by him.

Well I finally sat down and listened to one of his talks and I was blown away. Even though he is not autistic, it seems like Tony gets it. He really understands us as if he can get inside and see the world through our eyes.

Tony Attwood is the autistics' Jane Goodall.


Thursday, April 17, 2014

Autism Experts Do This

I saw this picture and it reminded me of some "autism experts" when they try to explain autistic behavior.

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Using Verbal Ability as a Measure of Intelligence

One problem I think many autistics share is people think that if we can't communicate we must be mentally incompetent.

How did people come to equate verbal speech with intelligence?

The sheer number of blithering idiots out there quickly lays that theory to rest.

Think about it.

Friday, February 7, 2014

You Are On the Right Planet


Focusing on Strengths Instead of Weaknesses

Something is bothering me about how people view autism. I see far too much emphasis on what we do wrong and ways to correct that (stimming, eye contact, verbal communication, etc.) rather than focusing on what we can do.

Image if we insisted to a blind person that they must look us in the eye when speaking? Imagine if we tried speaking louder to a deaf person to get them to listen? Imagine telling a lame person they need to make an effort to stand and walk on their own because they need to learn how to blend in. With nearly every other disability it's understood that you give the person the crutch they need to support their weakness and then focus on growing their strengths.

Why isn't it the same for autism? 

You Are On The Right Planet: A Message To All Aspies
by
Mark Hutten

Sunday, February 2, 2014

Person-first vs Identity-first Language

There is some discussion about which is shows more respect, person first, or identity first language.
Person first language would be, "I am a woman with autism." Identity first language would be, "I am autistic."

The person first language came about with the intention of drilling into people's minds that a person with a disability is a person first and not the disability.

I understand what they are saying. But I think they are wrong. I use both methods of speech, depending on the conversation. The only way I choose between one or the other is very naturally: one or the other flows more smoothly with the conversation.

Forcing people to refer to me as a person with autism doesn't force any understanding in their brains. It doesn't change their level of empathy or compassion. It doesn't teach them anything. Now getting to know me, seeing me as a person, that will change their thinking.

The same thing happened with the word 'retard'. When I was little people who had mental retardation were called 'slow' or 'retarded'. The words were used by doctors to describe the condition. The word itself wasn't bad and wasn't used to hurt. And then people started using it as a slur. They would call others 'slow' or 'retard' as a way to insult them.

Well that was a problem because now if doctors or news reporters used the word retarded they sounded like a school yard bully. Then it was determined that we need to change it to, "Johnny has retardation." Somehow they thought that would neutralize the word. Johnny is no longer retarded, he just has retardation.

When that didn't work to change people's thinking they changed the phrasing to 'intellectually disabled.' It's just as easy to insult someone by saying they are intellectually disabled as it is to say they are retarded. Granted it takes a few more syllables to get there, but let's be honest.  It's not any harder.

It is very annoying because unless you are active in that community you are hard pressed to know what the latest version you're supposed to be using. For example, I am surprised to read that deaf people find the phrase 'hearing impaired' to be offensive. I just don't understand why that is. I can't see how that would be offensive.

Likewise, I don't think it's fair to expect anyone outside the Autistic community to know whether they must use person first or language first phrasing. I think it's far more important to consider what they are saying rather than how they are saying it. A person can use perfectly PC language and still be outrageously offensive.

And really, I don't think a community that is known for it's communication deficits ought to be policing other people's method of communication. 

Constantly forcing a new PC version of the language doesn't teach the general public anything. If you want to show the world autistic people are human you do that be telling their story. You stop focusing on what they can't do and start telling the story of what they can do.







Monday, January 27, 2014

A Question for Autistics Only, Please



In Internetland, dems fightin' words.

I follow this parenting group on Facebook. Most of the time they ask general questions that parents or autistics can answer from their perspective.s At times, someone will ask a question and specifically request only first-hand experience advice from autistics.

And then it begins.

Right on cue, some parent of an autistic will respond on behalf of autistics. Because, you know, they know what it's like. They live this stuff.  They're in the trenches.

The moderator will gently remind everyone that only autistics should be answering.

Feathers get ruffled and the mods have to post a big announcement reminding everyone that speaking for autistics rather than allowing them to speak for themselves is rude and hurtful. Especially so in what is supposed to be a safe place.

And then it really gets heated.

There's always a few who ask, "If the name of the group is "Parenting Autistic Children with Love & Acceptance" then why can't parents answer?" I am lost on that one. How does that title translate into "This is a place for parents, and only parents, to speak and be heard"? Isn't 'parenting' a verb? An action?

And how on earth does anyone have enough gall to honestly believe they know what is going on inside someone else's head? The number one question in any autistic forum is some variant of "Help, I don't understand what my kid is thinking."

Isn't a part of parenting listening to your child so you can learn from them and understand them?  How scary is it if these parents truly believe that parenting means always talking, never listening?

Doesn't it make sense that when you want to know what something is like, you ask someone who has already had the experience? If you're trying to figure out someone who can't fully communicate wouldn't you turn to someone who has the same issue but is able to communicate?

If you wanted to know what childbirth is like do you want to hear from someone who read the "What to expect..." book or from someone who has already given birth?

Imagine if I asked the group of NTs for their perspective on something and then suddenly realized,  "Oh never mind, I can answer that myself. I know exactly what it's like to live a neurotyical life. I have a lot of experience with NTs. My family are NTs. Most of my coworkers are NTs.  Why I even dated a few! Some of my best friends are NT! I've been around them my whole life! It's exactly as if I was one of them!"

Imagine if I asked a group of men for their male perspective and then some woman talked over them and said she can answer for them. After all, she was raised with 3 brothers, she bore a male child, and not only was her father was a man, but she also married one! Why she's a veritable expert on men! She knows everything there is to know.

Jane Goodall did amazing research into chimpanzees. She completely changed our understnading of their world, social order and activities. And yet no one would be ridiculous enough to suggest that due to her incredible understanding of these creatures, Goodall is now classified as an chimp.

It's not possible to give a first hand account of something you can only experience second hand.