Lovely little essay on neurotypical privilege

Post Reply New Topic

m8, just a tip for winding me up in the future. It pisses me off so much more when I'm ignored, which is at first what I thought you had done... <_<.

I am curious so I have to ask,

Hypothetically if things changed overnight to what was proposed by the original author of this essay, what would be the outcome? How would it change the current system, and please don't answer to the likes of "Duh, they would be trained to deal with people with ASD." I am asking to give the details of how it would affect the current model and status of the system. Give it some critical thought. I look forward to the answers.

I just don't see any inevitable incompatibility between neurodiverse people and people who are neurotypical. Why can't we encourage cooperation between the two camps?

We are all human.

Co-operation alone rarely works where huge imbalances of power exist. The power relationship influences who controls the communication, definitions, the framework, the narrative, the dominant themes... Co-operation for example would never have ended nor ameliorated apartheid. The power relationship was so unbalanced that if the whites had said that blacks were a freak of evolution, then that's what they would have officially become.

We are all human but the dominant paradigms of any culture are dictated by the few to the many.

Apartheid was something that had to be broken radically. It had to be expunged from the moral fabric of the country. There was no other option than what occurred.

I believe we have other options when it comes to educating neurotypicals about autism.

I guess we have to light fires under people's butts at times--but we also have to have a conciliatory attitude at times. I don't believe most NT's have a similar hatred for autistic people as US Southern whites during the Jim Crow Era.

The best approach is probably "good cop/bad cop."

It is an interesting and thoughtful question and I will give it some critical thought. For now, when I read what you wrote, a story written by H.G.Wells called The Country of the Blind came to mind instantly. It about a fictional country were no one sees, which is assumed to be what normal is, and then a man arrives who does see...

The second immediate thought I had was of a newborn baby and someone asking: what will this child be like when an adult? We can make some informed guesses, if we know the parents' educational status, socio economic circumstance, genetic history, health, profession etc...

Ok I will think away... it is a bit hot today down here for thinking though!

It rarely gets hot in Auckland. What's the temperature?

I hear you, though we are dealing with the giant issue of paradigm change in this topic, and the history of how paradigms change is a much more complicated story. (Quite brilliantly written about in the first instance by philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

It's 26 degrees humidity 70% down here at the moment, has cooled down a bit.

We have to change paradigms at the grass-roots level, too. Otherwise, this will not succeed.

At least in the US, the "man/woman of the street" really has no idea about the autism of 2015. Their autism is pre-1980 autism. If they knew more about the autism of 2015, I would bet more people would get on the bandwagon.

And it shouldn't be like "trickle down economics." This is frequently the nature of much discussion of a relatively intellectual/philosophical nature--it only "trickles down" to the "masses" in little spurts. And these spurts are frequently not palatable to these "masses" because of a certain prejudice against ideas of an intellectual/philosophical nature--owing to their perceived impracticality and lack of relevance to their everyday existence.

I think we do this by education of a Socratic nature, rather than anger at neurotypicals for being neurotypicals. They can't help themselves; they were born that way.

But I understand your viewpoint, too. That has to be part of the approach, too.

By Thursday morning, the temperature in NYC might go down to Minus 15 Celsius.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 06 Jan 2015, 9:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.

When did patients start to be seen as being 'clients' both by those who treat them, and by society at large? It is just so ridiculously inappropriate and offensive to view someone who needs help from, for example, a therapist, as being just another paying customer who has decided to access just another service. Why does everything have to be about money and consuption these days, and is this the real reason why so many people these days, and all over the world, seem to be going completely insane (ex. ISIS, Tea Party fascists, the gun lobby, creationists, moral relativists, free-marketeers...)?

It's obviously very hot there from your reply. So let me help you out.

For example one detail that seems to be overlooked by the author is that by implementing such stringent standards you would need to have colleges agree to provide whole new degree programs to specialize in therapeutic services for people with ASD.

Which means new teachers and new curriculum.

The fall out would be increased college tuition for the degree in the specialized field, probably more course credits needed to earn a degree since they would still have to learn about mental health conditions and treatments in general, which would mean longer stays in college.

This would in turn lower the amount of people willing to specialize in ASD therapy, because A: it's too expensive, B: it takes too much time, C: the standards are too strict and they aren't willing to follow them when they can do regular therapy without any added pressures; just to name some examples.

Which in turn would cause those that do complete the degrees to charge more and cause a shortage in resources (therapists) to help those with ASD, because the first ones that will grab up the therapists that complete the standards set forth will be Autism Centers for children and specialty Agencies that inflate the price for services to begin with and only allow X number of patients per term. (Yes, there are waiting lists already at most Autism Centers or specialty Agencies)

Which in turn would result in more people with ASD not being able to either afford or get into these new improved services. As well as the current therapist working with ASD clientele to drop them in order to comply with the new standards. Resulting in more ASD individuals without support having major life difficulties, which would result in an increase in suicide rates.

I haven't even touched on the continued training that a therapist must complete yearly right now let alone after specializing in ASD as proposed by your lovely essay and the costs associated with that. (Avg therapist needs to train @100 hrs per year to remain licensed in the US which is not provided for free).

I just wanted to see how much critical thought went into it before being touted, and I got my answer....none. So thanks for answering me.

That's not the way for us to get together--by criticizing each other in that manner.

What makes you think the scenario you mentioned would "come to fruition?" Perhaps we need to refine the model, rather than criticize it out of hand.

Maybe you could offer an alternative?

If we "stood pat" all the time, and gave up because we thought the obstacles were insurmountable, we would still be swishing off parasites from our cave bear pelts.

Although I am not proposing that this book has all the answers, Kicker, I think you may find it very interesting:

https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=cuP ... y&hl=en&sa

One important point the author makes is about training: generally people who work as psychologist/psychiatrists have little or no training in the disciplines which teach how to regard human beings in terms of a diversity model: anthropology, sociology, ecology. In fact their training is just the opposite, it is a training in the hegemonic conformity of the psychiatric paradigm. I personally have never met a psychiatrist and only a few psychologists who could even explain what a diversity model means; though no doubt there must be some out there, a few outliers...

Paradigms change in two basic ways - at street level first (feminism essentially changed the paradigm of how women were supposed to be from a bottom up approach, but it began with radical ideas from the start) or because the professional paradigm comes under increasing pressure to explain anomalies which its "facts" simply cannot explain (this is what Kuhn observed). A typical example of the latter is how the hegemony of psychoanalysis was overthrown as "the" model of mental treatment.

The construction of a new paradigm relies on outliers in both cases, and their task is huge: first they must be fully cognizant of how the reigning paradigm came to power and on what foundations it rests. In terms of a new paradigm in the mental health sector, the man/woman in the street is typically unable, unlikely or unwilling to do this, (so a bottom up approach won't work here, IMO, Kraftie). You can't challenge the hegemony of the status quo if you don't fully understand it.

Under the reigning regime, to put it simply, symptomatology is equated with pathology. The current paradigm is trapped in its own circular reasoning. Not just for autistics, for everyone. The rest of the personality, the person's experience, values and neurodiversity is considered irrelevant. In a nutshell, that's the core of the paradigm change to come.

I don't think this fully answers your question, Kicker, it is however a start... you were a little hasty with your dismissal perhaps?

I'm not sure if that's Sinclair's intention? There are postgraduate degrees (Masters) in disability usually tailored for teachers, psychologists, social workers or counselors. These are currently not necessarily specialized for ASD specifically.

The problem the author was alluding to is far more systemic. For example I managed to engage the services of one of the top specialists in childhood ASD in Australia. Her qualifications and experience were impressive. However, a few sessions with my daughter and I quickly realized she operated with a "one size fits all" approach (i.e. that ABA will fix everything). She could not quite comprehend that children with autism have different ways of thinking/problem solving that parents detect but (in this case) the therapist seemed uninterested to pursue or follow up?. It's interesting the 5-6 autism specialists I met none have children, friends or relatives with autism. I'm not saying they don't have anything to offer, I think their life experience/training does not prepare them for the nuerodiverse range of clients (not just those with ASD) and how to tailor/customise therapy/treatment or explore new options. The aforementioned expert was not only uninterested in our concerns but she seemed to lack creativity or imagination to think outside the box. Perhaps I am expecting too much

One of Einstein's observations about science, which is rarely quoted compared to his others, is that all science is theory driven. He meant that theorizing is a fairly subjective part of the scientific process; if you start with the wrong theory you can get the wrong result while believing it the right result. The way autism is "treated" now is, to my mind, a perfect example of that.

All research is inherently theory driven, although this is not usually acknowledged, because it is seen as undermining the illusion of total scientific objectivity.

Within "disability" research, there are some interesting studies which demonstrate the (non-objective) theories which underlie apparently ‘neutral’ questionnaires. (see Oliver 1990 and Abberley 1992). As another writer puts it: "The choice of theory which informs the research question is thereby a political decision". (How many people here have considered that proposition in terms of the mental health treatment they have received?)

It may sound strange, but change doesn't automatically start with re-educating the professionals, as many suppose; it comes with raising consciousness about the true nature of what we already have.

Einstein's actual quote is:
Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed.

Thank goodness you were there for your child, Cyberdad. I wouldn't let a behaviourist near any child, because of their blind faith in the core basis of behaviourism:

that behaviour is totally driven by external influences (external to the person) and therefore no regard whatsoever needs to be paid to the subject's inner representation, understanding of and inner response to the world. That is what behaviourism as a so-called scientific discipline within psychology is...

You can never convince a behaviourist (ABA being one example) that a psychology which ignores human cognition is blind. They are dangerous people, because their adherence to wrong theory/the dogma of behaviourism is more like a religious belief than anything else in the current panoply of psychological theory.