Best treatment for AS I ever heard of

Post Reply New Topic

There was a culture for tribes before there was language; giving it a name allows for it to be distilled and refined, but does not change that these individual had a different cultural influence and contribution than others in their era. It may have been a series of cultures-of-one, but there remains functional differences outside of the opportunity to discuss how one differs from the rest of society.


M.

Just to clarify: the guy used the words "culture" and "second language" figuratively only, to make his intent clearer. He could've said ""group" and "another way of communication" instead, for example.

That was the definition of culture I was going by. I was hoping someone would define it, so I wouldn't have to

Hehe, from the first page discussion it sounds like the "difficulty processing figurative language" trait strikes again. Or maybe just a misinterpretation of a particularly vague word.

I think Fiddler was saying - as he appears to have entered a brain loop - that specific Asperger culture, such as it is, with its terminology (inventing words like 'neurotypical', 'Aspie', neurodiversity, etc), activism, pride gatherings-- didn't exist before Asperger syndrome was identified. After all, communities like WP were built around the very concept of the autistic spectrum, and the greater 'community' continues to have an influx of members who found out they were autistic after years (sometimes decades) of not knowing.

So while autistics may well have met one another and chosen one another's company before the diagnoses of the syndromes were first realised, they were oblivious to the very nature of autism, and probably considered themselves or were considered -depending on the nature of the syndrome - either a bit insular, eccentric, quirky, anti-social, weird, or downright impaired or 'slow', or mute.

Autistic 'culture' post-diagnosis, as we see it around us now, is of a different nature.

But like Fiddler, I've some trouble with the word 'culture' in this context myself. I keep getting images of an all-autistic subculture, with autistic music, autistic architecture, an autistic political party, etc. etc. But I know that's not what was meant... I think that would be rather silly, though.

I also see it happen often that threads on this forum take a side-road into dissecting the semantics or sometimes etymology of a phrase or word. I usually like it when that happens, because I do it myself often enough, on- or offline.

Now that I take a second look at this, "our pride, self-esteem and self-confidence in our own Aspie culture" sounds very much like it literally means "culture of one" rather than something more associated with the culture of the neurodiversity movement. My apologies.

From what I gather, it sounds like the figurative speech is referring to culture in broad terms (such as "Israeli culture" or "Japanese culture") and is used to illustrate an approach. If you are going to approach a Social Skills course in this manner, you are presenting information in a way that resonates more soundly with a group of folks who share something in common, a group who can discuss their experiences with each other, compare notes about similarities and differences. That fits the more microcosmic definition of culture.

I do worry, though, that such an approach might make the "us vs. them" mentality more prevalent. What about the folks who are in the middle? It would have to be a very well-crafted approach to not give that impression, but I certainly think it's possible.

Terminology, structure, et al - yes. But existence? Individuals group and subgroup without language, and create their own 'cultures' - I think I am using it in the informal construct sense, whereas others are using it in a strict and rigid application. The terms, the diagnosis, these create a new and different culture because there is more ability to discern and make distinct.


M.

I forgot to answer someone's question above: I'm in Israel. But I suspect this guy's approach is not local, so as someone else mentioned, it probably comes from Europe or Australia or the USA...

I'm not completely sure of that. Once you filter by diagnosis, you eliminate out the people who function well enough to not warrant diagnosis, but who still fit the culture. I'm going a bit back and forth on whether a "geek" is more accurately described as "an aspie with no major dysfunction" or "an aspie who has gotten a job in the field of his special interest." although the two may be nearly synonymous, because surrounded by similar people, you won't really notice dysfunction. Either way, there's a rather large group of people who fit the aspie culture, but don't qualify for diagnosis of a mental disorder. I cite Kris as my star example.

I liked Tony Attwood's idea for treatment of AS - leave the Aspie alone in a room. No need to interact with others - boom, no symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome!

on the culture note. Culture has a lot of definitions I won't get into that. But lets look at the past, this is speculative, but odds seem to be that Albert Einstein was on the spectrum. Now how many other scientists through out history would also be on the spectrum, I'd wager quite a few. Now look at the various scientific conventions and even publishing throughout history. Just what little I know about them makes me immediately think autism or aspie friendly.

Basically the idea I'm presenting is that people on the spectrum might have been drawn to certain types of activities and that gatherings around these activities might have been more encouraging or friendly to those on the spectrum which would attract more people on the spectrum. Now it wouldn't be total culture like whats here on wrongplanet but there would be enough differences that it could be interpreted as separate from the rest of normal society.

My ADHD coach was forcing me to go to an NT's social skills program (forcing me by coming up in every appointment with a new course she had listened).

I refused to the point I stopped ADHD therapy.

HELLNO! I'm not joining a NT's social group! cause:

1. this is people that barely leaves home while I do leave home, have friends, go to parties, I just don't fit with it.

2. 15 people with no rigid structure only makes it stressful for me.

3. This people have the biological part of social interaction, all they need is work on their "psicological and trainning" part. WHILE I have had the trainings, and the reinforced the psicological part, but the biological part still doesn't work that well (I need a more specialized ASS help)

4. They are fitting aspies with the traumatised NT's, yeah... like we are in the same clasification... ight?!

Exactly. It's not only useless, it's counter-productive. One of the reasons is that, because NTs with relationship problems are harder to get along with than NTs that are easy-going, confident and overall healthier in their affect, rejection and failure to connect and being scapegoated are even more likely for us in those groups than any other NT group. The best chance we have in connecting with NTs, I believe, is the more self-confident of the NTs (not the ones who mask their lack of confidence with pseudo-confident behavior, but the genuinely healthier, more self-confident types). The more secure an NT is in themselves and their own worth, the bigger their ability to interact with and enjoy someone "different", because they don't feel easily threatened. They can be flexible while being secure that they'll manage to keep their boundaries healthily in place.

I think this should work both ways as a kind of cultural exchange.

The NT way shouldn't be seen as the default "correct" or "superior" way, but simply as a way.

I think that everyone should be taught to recognise that different people have different styles of relating and mental operating systems. People have different characters, different personalities and ways of coping, so there's no straight forward, "right" way to socialise. Different people, with different personalities are suited to different environments and social situations.

NTs should also be taught that some people, simply aren't as social sometimes and that's okay too.

I think this is would be a much better approach than subtly pitying or demonising people's behaviours that seem "different". Or pathologising mild manneredness or introversion.

I think that people should be more open to different behaviours in general.

It would be kind of interesting to see how mental operating systems drive cultures.

I think it sounds like a common sense approach but no such program is actually in place from how I read it. I wonder if it could be like an orientation that someone who was going to spend a substantial amount of time in another culture would have, like if they were joining the Peace Corp. I try to explain what I have learned about NT motivations and reactions to my son without asking him to be anybody other than who he is. There are some things I can tell him he can do or not do that will reduce the chances of him being hassled.