John Elder Robison-We don’t know sh** about Autistic Adults

Post Reply New Topic

[quote=The problem is anything that we identify as issues will always be open to the criticism that the issues we find are unproven theories, not fact.
[/quote]

That isn't as hopeless as it might seem. The DSM5 finally recognized and accepted sensory issues as an intrinsic part of autism. After years of ignoring testimony from any number of autistics, of course.

As more and more of us oldies make our presence known, we might find that we have some real influence on how aging is perceived. At least we can hope that the definition of "older autistics" isn't limited to people in their twenties and thirties.

When I was taking the various online tests, I found that some of the questions could be most accurately answered if I responded as I would have when I was much younger.

***Good material to use as a learning tool, so thanks, but I suggest that inquiring minds look at what John Elder Robison has written with a critical eye, as by my perception, at least, what he wrote is very naive, over-generalized and in short, flawed. He does touch on some interesting points, but it is the way he puts this material together and the implied conclusions that can easily and erroneously result from imo sloppy way of data processing and the potential harm this way of slopping thinking can do to austistic people and all people in general that gives me cause for concern.

Could you be more specific? I really don't see what you're objecting to.

Sorry, I should have qualified that I would be back to give some examples, but I thought it would be more generative in terms of inquiry to give readers a chance to first themselves look over the material more comprehensively. Of course some may have already done this, and also my perception may be in many ways wrong (off base, ideas and data miscorrelated) I am speaking from my own subjective context and perspective, though my aim is help as many people as possible. This said, I just read the entire piece again and it is much worse then I previously thought. Yes, some, if not even many of the points he makes are true, but the way he puts it all together to reach certain conclusions is by my perception out and out false.

To give one quick example off the top of my head, he seems to be saying that a large population of autistic people would have been better off if they were diagnosed as children. Imo that is sheer speculation. Also, in this regard he seems to be talking more about perhaps what might now be called in the DMV people at the second level of functioning, not that I necessarily agree with the way the DMV is handling the whole topic. Am not sure.

To anyone reading, one question to ask yourselves is what do you think is the main point he is trying to make with his message, assuming, which I do, he really wants yo help autistic people. Is he kind of just free-styling (the latter of which is okay depending upon the position you are in. ie such as if you are an autism advocate in the position to maybe influence people, which he apparently is. If I were in such a position I would not approach in that way, Imo for me it would be nothing to be proud of.

I suppose you could say that he's kind of free-styling. Also saying that there are too many unknowns which can be resolved only by identifying more of the "invisible" autistics. But how can we do that? The important point is that there is no way unless we demand that everyone be tested for autism.

He does also come to a couple of conclusions unsupported by the material. "...if adults are ignorant of autism, it’s possible that awareness and support would significantly improve their quality of life." Possible, yes, but maybe just as likely that they don't require support.

"Since most adults never seek treatment for autism, we might surmise that those who do have more health problems." Not necessarily. Once they're in the system, identified as autistic, closer tabs are going to be kept on their health, mainly by others, rather than themselves. From my own experience with the healthcare system, and what I've read about others' experiences, it's quite common for doctors and others to look for, and find, problems they believe should be treated, even if the patients aren't really having any problems. Once a patient, always a patient.

And I'm with you on early evaluation. At least as far as I understand you. I believe that very early diagnosis and interventions may sometimes actually interfere with neurological development. Slower and different from the norm isn't necessarily a disability.

So it's a flawed article, but I have to agree with it, on the whole.

What a brilliant response, Magna. As a woman who wasn't diagnosed until far too late, I couldn't agree more.

The only reason Roses for Autism gets government help in training those on the spectrum to get jobs is money. If they can get people off the dole or SSDI that is less money that needs to be brought in via taxes.

I still think it's curious that someone went door to door giving autism assessments to random people. The idea is clever but really, how many of us would even open the door to a stranger and tell them our life's problems?

I do find merit in the article, though. I think it's important to identify as many autistic people as possible. It's their choice if they want to pursue (non-existent) services or not, but they have a right to be identified.

Most people wouldn’t have responded.

^

(Agreement from the woman who hid under a pile of laundry towels and had a full-blown panic attack when her doorbell rang in 2010).

^
I feel like I can't make the teeniest sound or movement in case they realise that I'm home. I get so hyper-focused on listening for signs that they're leaving that I don't notice that I've stopped breathing until I start getting a bit dizzy.

Most of the money is going to go towards children, because they're tender, young Sweet Peas and children are the future.

This. ^
Someone went all the way around my house once and knocked on my back kitchen windows while I was hiding.

Maybe they expect adults to go about life as normal no matte what kinda issues they have but many people look down at autistic adults like they are children even though they don't wanna help.

I didn't have time to study what he wrote further, but for one thing, he does not make enough distinction between different levels of autistic functioning. That in itself, imo, skews his entire presentation, without even going into specific details about it, which I would like to go into when I have time.