Autism and "stupid pet tricks"

Post Reply New Topic

Another blogger on Huffington "rants" about reporting successes of autistics and seems to make a comparision with stupid pet tricks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-stagl ... 40012.html

A pretty good argument if you ask me.

She is apparentloy the parent of two autistic children, as am I.

She is simploy looking for autism to be taken seriously and not trivialized by the media.

Oh, looking at her other columns, I realize that some will accuse her of being a "curebie."

As a self-diasgnosed aspie with two sons who are very similar to her three girls, I fully understand her argument.

I wish that others would understand that there are people, like some of us, who are able to adapt to life. There are others, like her children and mine, who need help from an entirely different perspectve.

She does not seem to be looking for some drugs that would strip her children of their humanity. I don't want that either. She is, however, looking for the help that her children need to be freed from constraints that unfairly inhibit their abilities.

There is, in my opinion, nothing wrong with that.

Seems to me like she is equating success of people on the spectrum as stupid autism tricks. I really could not figure out before why there were those on Autism Speaks who were so outraged about the kid who made the scores during the basketball game. That would have been impressive even for a professional, but because it is a person on the spectrum he can not have any kudos because it detracts from HER. In what way does Daniel Tamment trivialize autism? Or why the View should be obliged to present the curebie viewpoint and not focus on kids on the spectrum and their families. I certainly think people on the spectrum should be celebrated for their accomplishments and not treated as one dimensional stereotypes of people who can have no acheivements unless they are cured.
.

I see your point. I think that she feels that showing these exceptional people (to the exclusion of anything else) gives the impression that they are typical of people with autism. Since so many people, like her children and mine, are severely disabled by their autism, she feels that the image being presented takes the focus off of those in real need and causes the public to believe that people with autism are high functioning, for the most part, and, despite some personality quirks, can largely be left without support.

That's true, though you could also say that Autism Speaks, with its videos showing the worst of all autistic children, is leading the public to believe that every child with autism is a curse to his or her family and will never live a worthwhile life. That's the problem with how broad the spectrum is defined--there are people with VERY different levels of ability (and disability) who need VERY different things.

In any case, I don't think it does anybody any good to compare all accomplishments of people on the spectrum to stupid pet tricks. That label can apply if they are specifically taught to do something essentially useless for the sole purpose of entertaining a crowd--for example asking them to come on stage and rattle off a gigantic list of random memorized words. However, if these people do naturally have exceptional abilities (If I remember correctly Daniel Tammet has an extraordinary ability to identify prime numbers), there is nothing "stupid" about this.