I interview Steve Silberman about his bestselling book, Neurotribes

Post Reply New Topic

Consciousness is a rather simple mechanism. There is nothing esoteric or exotic about it. We use it everyday as we negotiate the material realm. We call it cause and effect. Legally, it is termed the reasonableness threshold and it is how we act co-operatively for forwardised and articulated objectives.

The closer consciousness draws to the reasonableness threshold, the greater regard we grant it as a society. Yet, society continues to fly in the face of these desired and recognisd thresholds with negative consequences in a wide range of personal and collective matters....hence my position.

The resentment any whiff of neurodiversity perspectives sometimes attracts fascinates me in its singular, uniformed goal of destructiveness. We've seen a clear example of that in this thread.

Maybe you were just having a bad day Norny, and did not realise that your comments would be seen as being meant to be intentionally destructive of the thread and topic.

Fundamentally, informed and comprehensive neurodiversity writing is about broadening the education and understanding of professionals, or the public, of the media, of families, of people on the spectrum, of educators, of academics and breaking down myths, misunderstandings, false stereotypes, prejudice and oppression arising from ignorance, prejudice, and challenging the bigotry and self-interest of money-grubbing 'charitable' organisations which deliberately disseminate vile myths.

The people who choose to take offence - to the idea of it even existing, not what it says because a lot of them won't even read it - have an over-riding motivation: for a whole variety of reasons, they don't want the existing preconceptions and stereotypes of autism challenged.

In science/academia, we can (for the most part) hold very different perspectives of something and still exercise mutual respect. This seems to be almost impossible in the lay, blog and media discussions of autistic topics because a wedge has been created and disseminated by Autism Speaks and others who have created businesses and income streams from whatever they are selling as cures or therapies, who style themselves as the 'gold standard' advocates and curers for ASD people. It is a travesty, intrinsically driven by the almighty dollar (in the guise of helping/curing/supporting/saving) and it sucks a lot of parents in, because it deliberately targets their feelings of helplessness and desperation in a clever manipulative way (which the media generally feeds and reinforces because they have accepted stigma as fact without any critical thinking at all).

Michelle Dawson is a remarkable autistic adult whose collaborations with Professor Mottron in Canada and Professor Gernsbacher in the USA have offered an interesting counternarrative as well as Steve Silberman -http://autismcrisis.blogspot.com. which promotes neurodiversity and autism acceptance because they can provide the basis for a positive intervention and outcomes in the lives of of autistic people.

That aim is the key objective of the neurodiversity movement. And the oppositional forces (such as Autism Speaks) really are driven by the fear of this happening - of people on the spectrum living in a context of equality, respect and acceptance. It threatens all that they stand for and the myths they have so expensively, and narcissistically, disseminated, and financed.

So lately and now these factions are in a panic, because there has been a serious threat/challenge to their version of the "autism testament" as created by Saint Suzanne and Saint Bob on their holy mission endorsed by Pope Francis from the 'heretical' Silberman who is not singing from their hymn book.. He must be silenced - by personal attacks, by uninformed dismissal, by every kind of undermining they can conceive of.

That's one hallmark of how cults behave. Autism Speaks is certainly cultish - it actively recruits, it insists adherents strictly follow and spread the leaders version of reality, it is a personality cult for Suzanne Wright, it is hostile to anything that stands in its way of garnering more power, more money, more influence, more recruitment, it completely ignores all facts that undermine or disprove what chooses to believe and thus is inimical to its interests, it is hostile to all criticism, however informed and scholatistic, it launches attacks on critics simply because they are critics. That is pretty much a cult IMO.. this conformity of belief they want to impose on everybody and disseminate through all forms of media is actually spine-chilling.

Resentful NTs may have a place in this thread though if they can contribute nothing other than attempts are to undermine others then I would ask them to take a few minutes to confer with their deeper conscience and look there at what is which is compelling that behaviour.

I don't think that's what Alex had in mind as the OP when he created this thread - a venue for NT hostility. It's sad when these incursions occur, particularly on Wrong Planet.

Last edited by B19 on 01 Oct 2015, 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

These seem like your personal definitions of consciousness, your opinions of what it is not supported by what is known about the brain or mind.

I am fully conversant with the reptilian brain notion and would suggest that is more a function of a particular set of test subjects and not of the objective nature of consciousness.

This discussion reminds me of the entrenched idiocy I encounter in the trading fraternity where despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the irrational NT tendency keeps coming to the fore.

Yet these same specimens set forth each morning to their jobs or businesses carrying the hope that the reasonableness threshold (culture) will continue to prevail DESPITE the reptile brain (biology), that their fellow reptiles will continue to diligently and lawfully work, spend and save each and every day (and not set forth on a cannibal hunt) so as the mortgage can be paid and the kids fed, raised and schooled.

TBH I just felt like expressing an opinion that I felt strongly about at the moment due to a talk I recently had with my friend. Whether or not the book actually highlighted autism as just being a difference wasn't my major concern as I've seen it elsewhere. I would've posted it in a separate thread but I'm lazy on WP so I just responded to somebody asking why the distinction between HFA/LFA would be important in such a book.



I don't think you're biased, but I think you would have been if you didn't write about what you say you have here. None of what I wrote applies to your book, so I suppose I just derailed the thread a bit. When I talk about books my opinions really only rest on what others mention about the book, and only if that is true I want them to be applied. If it's not true, the ideas exist independent of the book anyway.

I may read it one day, I'm not really a big book reader. Feels too much effort to find them and the price isn't so friendly a lot of the time either.



I support neurodiversity to an extent and have expressed that here in the past, but I strongly disagree with the idea that autism is only a difference. I also disagree with the social model of disability - that there is nothing wrong with being disabled. I do think there is something wrong with being disabled, not morally, obviously, but having no legs or being depressed, for example, how can you say those are not wrong. It is a majority that matters. Individual cases do not matter, as everybody could be 'disabled' relative to another. For example, we'd all be intellectually disabled relative to Stephan Hawking. Autism can bring positive things, but so does being NT, and so do individual genetics - some people are far more attractive than others. All that matters are the clear demarcations of disability, hence the creation of such labels in the first place.

If I had an autistic child, I would care for them and take special precautions using my knowledge of autism to improve their lives. However, ideally, I wouldn't want to bring somebody disadvantaged into the world, whether they be autistic, anxious or gay. Society does contribute to a large part of that, though to vilify society isn't the right approach as if something inherently annoys people it will continue to do so; odd children will always be bullied, people that aren't fun to be around won't easily be employed, misinterpretations will always be made. There are two parties, and both have human emotion and interests. I'm not so sure what acceptance even means at this point.



I feel passionate about the negative view because my friend and his parents have been severely, negatively affected by his autism and such experiences are largely neglected here. I believe that this website, and others like it, contain a vocal minority of autistic individuals where HFA/BAP is disproportionately represented and seen as attractive. Nobody here knows what it's like to be an NT (especially a parent) around an autistic person and vice versa. In that regard, NTs are so often undermined here.

I do realize that my posts can sometimes be seen as insensitive, but it feels liberating to express myself honestly and I think that it can be worth it if there is clarification. Even if there are still disagreements/pain at the end of the day, I think the stereotypical fake, sugar-coating NT that pretends to agree/feel fine all the time is far worse. People can feel more motivated/powerful when passionate or angry and I believe that helps to create a more realistic discussion/understanding so long as nobody is just trying to be an a**hole for the sake of being an a**hole. I would rather have people not like me for what I think, than for a bunch of people to like me for how well I can deceive them into believing nothing ever bothers me.

I have nothing against autistic people and am all for supporting them. There are posts about people hating on their autism, and I think that's the worst, when somebody feels that way they should be supported (emotionally OR logically) as is the nature of this website. No, I wouldn't post a view like this in those threads, definitely not. Yes, I'll share my real ideas in discussion threads however, if people don't like them (or me as an extension) then they can skip my post or reply to it passionately (which they would then clearly like to do).

As for this:



My friend missed out on his entire childhood and much of his teen years because he was non-verbal, had severe sensory issues, meltdowns, abstract learning disabilities, was bullied and so on. To tell me (or especially him) that if he were to discover a group to fit in with when he was older suddenly makes his autism a positive thing or only in need of some acceptance is a joke. In most cases here, people were far more mild than he is, and can't relate to his pain. I have tried to convince him not to be so harsh on himself because of his autism, but he is unrelenting, and logically so, not emotionally.

As for older adults specifically, yes, the isolated event of finding a group is positive, however I have read accounts here that it 'sucked' growing up not knowing what was wrong and why fitting in was impossible etc. That there was a lack of treatment. Acceptance would make that easier but it definitely wouldn't remove the problems that made the diagnosis necessary in the first place. If somebody is getting diagnosed with autism without any real impairments (past or present) then that is another issue altogether.

@ Norny

You come swaggering in in here like a latter day Cecil Rhodes with such absurd comments as "dont you want to be an NT" with nary a clue as to what spectrum difference really entails in life quality.

Like the NT spectrum, the autistic spectrum ranges from the vulnerable to the very able. I am a highly able individual with nothing remarkable about my appearence. I am clumsy, I am extremely rational, I am probably one of the leading price discoverers in the markets and was professionally a tax lawyer and I resent you treating my cognitive state as a condition.

Like your cognitive state there are the vulnerable in my cognitive range. But that does not mean that all of us are in a vulnerability category. That is absurd nonsense. The vulnerable are vulnerable, whether NT or autistic.

edit: And if there is anything that I would want as an Xmas present, it is an end to th endless monkey chattering and tribalism of the NT world so as those of us who are not vulnerable can be left alone to do our jobs. As it is I had to quit my profession and now work for myslf.

I'm not suggesting that every autistic person should want to be NT, but I do think that autism is both a difference and a disability. I were autistic, I think I'd want to be NT. If an individual is autistic then they are by definition impaired. Once the disability aspect disappears I believe the brain has changed so much that the person is no longer autistic but BAP, a label, but not a medical diagnosis. They have autistic traits, and at this point may resemble an NT with autistic traits.

Note that impaired doesn't mean the person has to see themselves that way. If your social cognition is fail but you don't socialize, the brain is still physically impaired in that regard. If you have severe sensory issues but remain in a dark, safe room and are fine with that, you're still impaired, and for obvious reasons. Just not from your own comfort perspective. Impaired doesn't mean that you feel you're living an 'impaired' life. Intellectual disability or various kinds of stroke are the best examples of that, where individuals often remain unaware of the nature of their impairments.

I understand WHY you would resent me, but that won't change the way I view things. Somebody would have to prove to me why my point of view is invalid, but being that it is a personal opinion in an area that we can't really yet measure better with science, I don't think it'll change without an extensive argument.

To tickle your balls, I do think there are things wrong with humans in general and things that are specific to non-autistic people, but I don't view them as disabling and while I suppose that's partially because of the fact that NTs are a majority, it definitely isn't entirely because of that. Do I think NTs have a dangerous amount of conformism as compared to autistics? Most definitely in almost all circumstances. Are autistics (in general) stronger free-thinkers than NTs? Probably.

@Norny

Yes, but you have no idea what it is like to be in my mind. My mind is pure reason, unsullied by blind belief or primitive bonds. The only residue of base functions are the incidentals necessary to keep this body alive and nourished. I dont feel disadvantaged for finding rugby infernally dull for example.

Whereas I find many of your propensities quite unsettling and something I would not like to be around for too long, especially the unpredictability.

I am all for supporting the vulnrable, NT and autistic. But what is needed here are autistics in govrnment and enough of us to be of influence in the development of societal values. I would venture that many of the advances in Reason come from autistics.

If there is anything constructive in what is underway, its the openness developing around this subject. But able autistics are a resource, we are not vulnerable in need of help but different in need of space.

For what it's worth, this particular book is currently listed as $16.47 (hardcover) and $25.20 (audiobook) on Amazon, with free shipping for qualifying orders.

If that's too much for you, might I suggest you visit your local library? My local library has 7 copies of NeuroTribes.

I don't think you are thinking this through. You should have posted about your friend in a different thread, really.
There is nothing about your understanding of your friend's experience of autism that invalidates the views expressed in "Neurotribes" or b19 above.

To tell people here that your second-hand understanding of your friend's experience as a person with LFA somehow invalidates or negates their first-hand experiences and perceptions as autistic people is worse than a joke and you should not do it. Please stop.

If you want to take up your friend's cause and advocate for what you have learned from him, there are other ways to do it.

My question much earlier in this thread was not about HFA vs. LFA, it was about non-Asperger-type HFA people.
The reason I asked is because most of the people who know me well and know about my diagnosis say that I am not an Asperger type person by some integration that they have performed in their minds, but another type of HFA.
I am interested in autism subtypes, that was why I asked.

Have you come across autism subtypes in your research?

I wonder how much our environment impacts what we eventually become. The older I get, the more I appreciate what my parents did (in terms of pushing me). While I deeply resented it -- pretty much up until the day I was diagnosed at age 50 -- I now realize that left to my own devices, I would be much less prepared to cope in this world.

True. I was married to an occupational therapist who did not pick up on the cues which if she had would have made a world of a difference in explaining my circumstances rather than the sense of helplessness that overwhelmed me with the avoidable consequences that followed. Instead I had to endure her own childhood abuse issues and all its spinoffs as well as the inordinate aggression my personality seemed (and still seems to attract) whilst I was toiling away at making a name for myself as a tax lawyer.

I went through a technically successful but team spirit wise, disastrous legal working phase but it all grew to be too much, attempting to inject reason into my ex's trauma laden birth family dynamics. I simply could not tolerate the pointlessness of the conflict between her and her father as well as the inanity in the politics at the office.

Life is all about resolving conflicts with minimal suffering (that is what the conscious brain is there for) and this resolution has helped me no but not for a lack of avoidable suffering.

I think there are subtypes within HFA, but it is not clear what distinguishes them yet.
Each person is individual, but I think subtypes is still a useful concept and will be better understood in future.

The environment probably affects autistic traits a lot, but there is possibly some genetic basis for subtypes within HFA.

The impact of social economy on all humans is significant which accounts for why, in the space of a few hundred years in for example the US, refugees from all corners of the globe and from a variety of distinct cultures developed a distinct national culture based on industrialisation where there was a nomadic one which had persisted for thousands of years.

How that impacts on NTs and autistics is perhaps the better question and at what point is the cognitive divide distinctly non cultural if such is the case. In addition is any such divide a function of evolution as I believe with HF differences or some other more localised issue such as chemicals or faulty biology, which seems to be the general consensus.

This subtype concept interests me. Because even though I am diagnosed, I STILL sense that I am quite different -- even to most people here. Now, I have no idea if that “sense of difference” is due to age, relationship status, employment status (if I work and what I do), intelligence, socio-economic factors, life’s experience factors (where I grew up, what I do for work, etc), interests, etc. etc. Or, whether it’s something going on in each of our brains.

Do you think these subtypes make us more or less susceptible to the variety of co-morbids that are known to afflict people on the spectrum?