I interview Steve Silberman about his bestselling book, Neurotribes

Post Reply New Topic

You have written about this “positive identity” thing in other threads as well. Until now, I really haven’t understood what you have meant by it. Based upon some of the posts in this thread, I now perhaps have a better understanding of what you mean.

And, by the way, I 100% agree. I don’t get the positive identity view either.

That could be, or it could be that you're simply more neurologically capable, whereas the next person may not be. You know the saying and may have said it yourself: if you're met one autistic person, you've met one autistic person.

I personally don't really view the quality of being autistic as a positive or a negative...I view the reactions to often be negative, but that doesn't mean being autistic is negative in and of itself. It just means people don't like it. I have high hopes that the tide is turning on that, though. I have faith in people that we're going to get with the groove and realize neurodiverisity just "is" (IMO), that it's happened in the past and will continue to happen and it's just one state of being. Again, this is just my opinion; I'm not backing it with science or anything, I am definitely not a scientist.

Positive and negative distinctions are too subjective and are the slippery slope to delusion, as I see it. The only arbiter I use is reason. Just how reasonable is it for someone to relate to you on the superficials such as gait for example, or even style of speech. That says a lot about the person and how you should tailor your reaction to them (which should be a reasonable one and not an over the top, "why are you being so mean to me kind". People are overwhelmingly superficial, goes with the territory of being born on this planet.

What does neurological capability have to do with my views on autism as identity?
I couldn't make the connection between them.

I always felt like I am just me without much other identity label attached.
Saying I like cats in terms of I is natural, but saying I am a catlover in terms of an identity or group is not.
Even with science, I would say that I love science and doing research, but I wouldn't think of my self as a scientist much or say that much, as many scientists do like "as a scientist, (insert phrase here)".
Or it could be any identity before insert phrase here depending on what the person holds as an important identity of theirs.
It's not quite natural to think or say things in certain ways, and that makes it harder to get into neurodiversity movements.

When I mention positive identity I'm not referring to somebody that feels good about their autistic traits, but for somebody where the autism label is their core identity and an attractive thing rather than a medical diagnosis that is required for understanding, support and treatment. I believe that if somebody is not impaired they are not autistic, the same with all other mental disorders. They may be BAP, or have autistic traits. NTs (such as myself) have autistic traits.

Imagine somebody with or just thinking that they had ADHD claiming that they no longer or never had problems with inattentiveness and impulsiveness, but still brandished the label for granting them extra creativity or something. The purpose of the label is gone, but the person still strongly identifies with the condition and will generally react badly to negative perspectives or views that may detach them from their label, for example, 'ADHD isn't the reason for creativity' or 'somebody no longer has ADHD if they're not inattentive'. With physical problems, a person is 'cured' of the label once their problems are minimized or gone and usually are happy to be so (unless they want sympathy), however you can't claim the same for a mental problem without many people taking offense.

Ever browsed a website like Tumblr? People so strongly attach themselves to psychological labels including a ridiculous string of sexual identifications as to remain unique. It seems natural for 99% of people to attach to labels at least at some points in their lives, but I think it only becomes a major problem regarding things like mental disorders, where from my perspective emphasizing the labels as something only positive can do more harm than good.

A 'positive identity' can be explored in many contexts One example are those that claim to have a mental disorder when they really don't, whether they can see that or not. Usually that occurs when the seriousness of a disorder is misunderstood and I believe that in part can be caused by the positive identity spreading through the internet. OCD is a popular example, where people think it's cool or quirky to label themselves with the disorder, when in actuality very few people should be diagnosed and they suffer greatly. This is a naive act and only really ever a bad thing.

Another example that isn't bad is a coping mechanism, where somebody may have been ridiculed their whole life and now they just need something to hold on to, and that's fine, but it's unfortunately frustrating to deal with. My mum has a depressed friend and she is keen to tell people she is depressed; she is attached to the depression label probably because it generates sympathy and her actions are understandable because depression doesn't just arise from nothing, but still overwhelmingly forced, annoying 'special snowflake' and even offensive to some who are more depressed than she is. That doesn't make her view or attachment wrong, but I still wouldn't be able to help but feel grated by it. Different perspectives is all it really comes down to.

I remember once you posted that you were averse to the idea of being diagnosed with a personality disorder, because then you'd feel like you'd have something wrong with your that was your fault or something along those lines. I'm fairly certain everybody is like this, I know I am. I'd rather be diagnosed with ADHD than a whacked personality for the negative connotations that such a diagnosis holds. Something like this only becomes a problem when the relative attractiveness of a diagnosis may cause bias, too badly 'wanting' to be diagnosed, or an impromptu self-diagnosis, and therefore incorrect. Of course a person may still be right but it's one of the reasons I don't generally trust self-diagnosis, and why I think medical labels should only be sought out and continuously applied if necessary rather than for personal good feeling. Another reason is that when somebody parades their diagnosis, they're essentially saying 'look at me, I am impaired and I am proud of it, I can't do this that and the next thing but I can do these small things that you can't that make up for it'. This is less prominent with autism because the disorder often brings more advantages than all the others but I hope my point is understandable.

@ Norny

Call it what you like. Why "pasta" will do. The consistent pattern however is that we get grief for hobbling off centre or slopping over our soup or not knowing the secret hand shakes and that is the issue. There is this group of persons all across humanity experiencing these outcomes each and every day.

Some of us learn, through the hard knocks of life that we may in fact have advantageous uses for this despised state and despised it is I tell ya...but if you look all over this site, the feedback is the same....lowered life quality due to a function of birth.

Interesting review!
This seemed germane to the conversation here:


But it seems that some people just can't tolerate the topic of this thread and are compelled to divert it.

The arguments against the book seem to use the word "neurodiversity" the way right wing talk show people use the word "liberal:" people are just making up nonsense objections based in fantasy and projection.

I haven't finished the book yet, but I don't think there is any argument in it that no one is impaired or disabled by autism or experiences any of their autistic traits as disability.

Most of the opponents actually seem to share most of the ideas of neurodiversity, they just don't like the label. Or they don't like the idea of an "autism-based identity," another way of totally missing the point and focusing on some imaginary problem. You don't have to build an identity around your autism to not want to be primarily defined as defective or have any of your strengths recognized because of your weaknesses.

I can't believe that's so hard to understand. Perhaps my view of "neurodiversity" is too simple. It seems to me that autism is somewhat like handedness in that it's just a fact that doesn't in itself define you. On the other hand the salient aspects of the phenotype are behavioral and specifically social, so they do end up being part of how autistic people are defined by others. I don't understand how asking for some recognition of this can seem like a threat to people with any particular functional level or seem like a substitute for an individual identity.

For personal reasons, I am in kind of a raw and reactive state and this thread is making me sad, so I am not going to come back to it. It is disturbing to find so much of this pretty thoughtless negativity being tossed into a discussion of such a good book.

Hopefully someone in a better state of mind can counter some of the (as it seems to me) weird and misguided anti-neurodiversity sentiment I am seeing here. I am not up to it today.

I don't subscribe to neurodiversity, because I don't understand what they are talking about.
Mostly, it seems they are focused on language usage and vague issues instead of practical things.
I have been accused on bizarre unfounded evils by neurodiversity advocates just because I do research on autistic brain in hopes of understanding more about autistic brain and cognition.
Pretty much nothing they say makes any sense to me, and many of their behaviors seem iffy for working towards goals that would help autistic people.
From my perspective, it seems like in-group who has certain set of views and enforces those, and people who disagree or even question core ideas are rejected or their ideas dismissed.
I don't think the idea of "autism-based identity" is focusing on imaginary problems.
I think it is highly legitimate problem.
I often advise parents of newly diagnosed children to avoid building their child's childhood around autism or pushing an autism-based identity onto their child from a young age, constantly talking about your autism this, your autism that, or trying to max the therapies including unnecessary ones that an HFA child may grow out of quickly.
I also have basic problems with scientifically refuted harmful practices like facilitated communication that many neurodiversity advocates support and promote.
This is no different from promoting vaccines as cause of autism.

Adamantium I understand your sadness over what has happened here. As you say, there is a lot going on for you in your life at present and it is not worth expending your precious current stores of energy to get further involved in the discussion of the derailing of this thread and reasons for that.

I came WP a few years ago now because I thought - naively I see now - that it had a basic and inclusive commitment to neurodiversity principles, based on the core recognition and acceptance that diversity in human affairs is a positive that expands human possibility and potential - just as biodiversity, cultural diversity, intellectual diversity enables understanding of and progress in those spheres to expand for the ultimate benefit of all.

But I was wrong. It is clear from this thread that bipartisanship on a very superficial level is elevated above any careful consideration of common ground and overall progress for people on the spectrum. It seems as if a lot of people here have either never heard of or never considered the ancient maxim: united we stand, divided we fall. When minorities direct most of their energy to infighting, their enemies have won. It's hard to believe how little cognisance of that there often seems to be here, and it makes me very sad too, Adamantium. What a waste..

In NZ autism is not politicised as it is in the USA. There is no "them and us", there are no battlelines of competing ideology, there are basic planks of agreement - that fundamentally all people on the spectrum need a better deal (it's not a competition between so-called high and low functioning, which is misused to divide and rule)- and so energy is not pointlessly siphoned off into no-win competing interpretations of who is the better autistic, who is autistic, who has the most right to be autistic, who has validity to express opinions etc - all this is ego stuff that achieves nothing for the group as a whole and just leads to exhaustion and burnout/bitterness, and no progress at all. Same old circles of disagreement going nowhere and achieving nothing. It's sad, it's a waste, but that seems to be how it is here now.

Steve Silberman, to you I am inclined to point in this thread to a verse from the testament of St John: "If you go into a house where they do not honour you, then leave and shake the dust off your feet". All you can do is give something your best shot and put it out there. People respond as they are, not to what you write (and they critique without reading). If some people are unreceptive, John is saying, then stop squandering your energy and good will on them, because they will take and waste your resources.

To be honest I'm not entirely sure how to handle these emotional responses. I am against in-group competition 'more autistic, better autistic' and exclusion etc. but TBH I don't really see that all that often here. Usually I think that people who perceive these things are creating much of it in in their minds. My perceptions don't align with these strong emotions, and I'm not sure whether that's because I'm coming from a different place or if people are reading into what isn't there.

I feel that WP has a broad range of views and acceptance seems to be a large one. I don't understand how people can feel so unwelcome here because of what a few people say in a few posts. No social/political environment will ever be that way. I could go to an OCD forum and most people would be complaining of how much it sucks, it would be far 'worse' than here. To me the idea that a forum purposed to a medical diagnosis should be completely positive makes little sense.

I think autistic people can be very valuable, I like autistic people. I agree that people on the spectrum need a better deal and am for accepting strengths and exploring potential. My view on autism isn't black and white, I definitely do have a positive view as well as a negative.

I would really accept suggestions or explanations in a PM if anyone is willing, but I'm still not sure if I would change my views so that they are more agreeable. I'm not sure what point I'm missing.

I don't view this discussion as derailing this thread about the book, which is related to neurodiversity and autism, and that is a topic of focus in this thread.

It turns out I need a diversion from my troubles and engaging in this thread may as well be it. And I got some rest last night.

TLDR summary:
Neurodiversity is basically about neurotypical society learning to open up to the strengths of people with different neurologies and non-neurotypical people learning to be as comfortable as they can be in themselves. The thing is not what you are saying it is and your objections are off the mark, as far as I can see. This thread is attached to Alex's interview. At least acknowledge the message that is actually there before going off about your pet peeves that are at best only very tangentially related to the book or interview.

Norny's discussion of hypothetical objections to the book was a derailment of the thread, as he admitted in his reply to Steve Silberman:


He wants to talk about what isn't in the book, and it's OK to talk about it here, because those ideas are out there anyway. I don't understand that thinking. It seems particularly strange to me given that this is a thread started by Alex to discuss his interview with Steve Silberman, an interview that contains this:


Is this really a message to come out against? Or to use as an excuse to go of about hypothetical problems that could occur in some other book that this book could have been like if it was written differently? I don't understand that.


OK, so it's not the book in itself that you don't agree with, but the idea of neurodiversity. But what is that? You probably know much, muh more about this than me, because I have only been reading up on this and thinking about it for a few years and, apart from a few GRASP meetings in New York, haven't had much experience with autistic communities other than WP and I don't know how this stuff gets brought up offline. That noted, the things you ascribe to "Neurodiversity" don't match very well with the things I have seen attached to that name.


That's terrible and unfair. I have seen one instance of that kind of thing and it's irritating. It doesn't seem in any way representative of what is in "Neurotribes" or in the places where I have read about neurodiversity.


Nothing they say makes sense? Not one bit of it? That's hard for me to understand.

How about this:

(source: http://risescholarshipfoundation.org/20 ... al-genius/)
Does this make no sense at all?



Who is this in-group? I don't know about that kind of thing because my social life is pretty constrained to my immediate family. The only people I know in any kind of autistic community are here, really. Is there a neurodiversity in-group? Who is in it?
The places I have read about neurodiversity are in books and online and they seem to be from diverse sources and not some small group, so I don't understand what you mean or how such a thing would work.



When I said that the objections to "autism-based identity" were focusing on an imaginary problem, I was speaking about this book. I don't think there is a place in this book where Steve Silberman is advocating for people to have "autism-based identity" -- I don't see that as a widespread problem, but perhaps you see things that I don't. Among the advocates for neurodiversity that I have seen, respect for the complex identies of others is pretty widespread and the demand for immersion in a collective identity imposed by a small group does not exist.

For example, Ari Ne'eman wrote this: http://autisticadvocacy.org/2015/06/aut ... community/

I don't see in this the issues that you find problematic. But this does seem to be about neurodiversity and, to some extent, autistic identity.


Again, I don't see the In-group thinking, or advocacy of harmful therapies with no supporting evidence, or a demand that people aopt an "autistic identity" that is in any way greater than their unique identies as individuals.



As far as I can tell, still not having finished the book, This is entirely consistent with the ideas in the book and the ideas in most presentations of neurodiversity.

The diagnostic label means people need some support, or maybe a lot of support. It doesn't mean their lives are best characterized as negative. Some of the problems autistic people experience are caused by their autistic traits and some of them are caused by the reactions of others to their autistic traits. Neurodiversity seems primarily an argument in favor of neurotypicals being more open to the diversity of traits in individuals with a variety of minority neurologies so that everyone can make the most of themselves without needless obstacles imposed on them by expectations, processes and structures designed exclusively for neurotypicals. I find it really hard to see what is objectionable in that.

I said that nothing neurodiversity advocates say makes much sense to me, meaning that they don't make sense, not that I am opposed to them. These are two different things. Opposed means they make sense, but I am against the ideas. Not making sense means not making sense, which is more basic than taking a stance. I think in terms of actions, not ideals, so talking mostly about ideals doesn't make sense to me, I can't tune into them as I can actions and concrete, tangible things. I think people don't know what I am talking about because neurodiversity makes sense to them, so they can't get their minds into the territory of it not making sense due to differences in thinking.

OK, I understand that, and I don't feel much sympathy with the more political kind of rhetoric either, but that doesn't mean that's all there is to it.

For example, does the idea that Thomas Armstrong presented in the thing I quoted not make sense to you? He has some pretty concrete ideas like his strengths inventory--it's not all airy concepts and he presents under the label "neurodiversity."

Link to the whole thing here:
http://risescholarshipfoundation.org/20 ... al-genius/
He seems to have some concrete proposals like his strengths inventory:
http://www.slideshare.net/drthomasarmst ... -childhood

Some of his ideas may be right, some wrong, but it doesn't seem they are entirely insubstantial or incoherent.

As I said, I am somewhat new to this world, so I don't know it at all well. Maybe I am getting the wrong impression form the things I have read.

Maybe a thread about concrete proposals related to the neurodiversity idea would be helpful in clarifying things.

I think the strengths checklist is not nearly applied enough and still quite airy. A 156-item checklist is just a checklist, a description not an application. 156 items is too many in my opinion, too many items leads to lack of bigger picture understanding of each individual. Instead of rhetoric about autistic people have strengths, what are all the strengths with the many-item checklist, etc, I suggest going directly to application, building a simple workable system for use a strength in an area, singular case on both as proof of concept. The Q & A lists eggsamples of groups developing applications to help autistic people, but I think this practical track should also be inside neurodiversity movements. It is easier to show that autistic people are capable and what accommodations are helpful in applications than just arguing a case. In order to be more practical, I think some neurodiversity advocates may need to change their basic approach away from arguing a case and appealing to emotions (this approach seems more suited to NT), but loosen the ideologies so others who may have skills to do practical things can engage and help. There may be autistic people who don't get neurodiversity as it is now and don't participate in it, or parents or just interested people who don't enjoy being accused of ableism and moral inferiority frequently, but could otherwise contribute if the movement were inclusive of people who don't buy into the ableism constructs and language rules, etc.

In the past, each time I tried to get involved in neurodiversity, I received some language or ideology correction or accusation that I and my lab was an evil hate group trying to harm autistic people. I have many skills that I could have contributed to an organization or movement, but I was mostly dismissed because I didn't use the right words, show the right ideas, do the right things, etc, right according to the neurodiversity advocates I interacted with.