Stop Bashing Autism Speaks!

Post Reply New Topic

It is not clear that autistic people do abstract reasoning as well as anyone else. Per the scientific evidence I provided difficulties in abstract reasoning is seen as one of the core issues that make up the foundation that causes the symptoms of autism among autistic people.

Difficulties in abstract reasoning causes black and white thinking. If you can provide evidence to dispute the assertion that impairments of abstract reasoning are not a core issue with autism, I invite you to do so, otherwise the only actual evidence provided here supports the assertion that deficits in abstract reasoning are seen as a core issue in autism within the scientific community.

My specific statement for the third time was that: There have been people that continue to state the organization does absolutely no good for autistic people, regardless of any objective evidence presented to refute that statement. I'm not suggesting anything else than what I am specifically stating and that is that there have been people that continue to state the organization does absolutley no good for autistic people regardless of any objective evidence presented to refute that statement. I provided the example of irrefutable evidence of the organization doing good for some autistic people with the 1.5 million dollars of direct support.

It's a tiny minority among the voices here on this internet site, that have expressed the view that the organization can do no good action, however that is definitely suggestive of black and white thinking.

I'm not saying there aren't people that see the organization as negative or that there is nothing that the organization is doing wrong. That was not my point. My only point is the one in the paragraph above. When irrefutable evidence is provided to support a specific point, and it is not accepted, it is evidence in this case of black and white thinking.

Now to your assertion: "I have unverifiable proof that the majority of us, if you didn't have a blinkered view, think that autism speak's wrongdoing outweighs any good that they do."

Unverifiable proof is proof that cannot be verified. I think what you mean to say here is you have verifiable proof.

If what you mean by us, is all the autistic people in the world, I have verifiable proof that you are incorrect. Most of the world does not know that autism speaks even exists, and the entire world is composed of some individuals that have autism.

If by us you mean you and your friend, that could be verifiable evidence to you, but this is an anonymous internet site so no one can verify that either you or your friend even have autism, all we can do is take your word for it. I personally don't doubt your word for it.

At any given time there are about 20 people on this site actually posting. Intermittently a few present views on autism speaks, within those handfuls of people the majority usually has a negative view of autism speaks, based on what they have heard from others, if they use the internet on sites that support neurodiversity. There are about 5 or 6 people on AFF that use that site to actually post at any given time; they discuss autism speaks as a greater percentage of what is discussed there than here.

If that is the us you are talking about I agree that most of these indviduals will point to the same points that have been passed down to them to describe the negative aspects of autism speaks, some of which are reasonable.

So who is this most of us you are talking about? And what is the evidence that you have?

I present what seems to me like reasonable evidence here that the majority of autistic people as a whole do not see autism speaks as an organization that does more bad than good.

The only evidence of opposition to Autism Speaks I know of is a relatively few number of individual reporting themselves as autistic on the internet, leaving their posts about it behind as a record.

It is very reasonable to suggest that the way autism speaks has portrayed autism both by language and visual representation has disturbed individuals with autism, and it is reasonable to suggest I think, that it has disturbed some that have no idea that an organization had anything to do with the words or the pictures.

The concrete and black and white thinking that is caused by deficits in abstract reasoning that the scientists say are a core issue of autism, makes a difference in the way the way most Autistic people see the world as opposed to those without autism that come up with the ideas for the words and pictures.

Some Autistic individuals have provided an understanding to them as why some would have taken offense to the pictures and words they didn't understand would be offensive, so now they can correct their mistakes.

Autistic people have no more right to blame them for the way their mind works than they have a right to blame autistic people for the way their mind works. Constructive dialogue produces the information that is necessary for better understanding and corrective action, on the part of both ways of thinking, if the effort is taken.

And yes, black and white thinking is evident in our culture as a whole. It is certainly not limited to Autism. There are degrees. Some evidence it in politics, and some evidence it in the store they must buy their underwear in.

None of this is my idea, it is evidenced by a medical society, and was provided for you as evidence. All my facts were generated by that evidence, none of it is my personal opinion.

If you can't provide any actual evidence to support your assertion you have provided an opinion, no evidence that refutes the evidence that I provided.

The evidence I provided didn't mention Bill Sakter, the point was that in the first screenplay Kim Peek was not used to study autism he was used to study savantism, when it was decided that autism was to be portrayed in the movie, they pursued information about 2 individuals that were autistic savants, along with other sources as indicated in the evidence.

Here is more evidence from Pychology Today:


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/aspergers-diary/200912/going-home-christmas-goodbye-kim-peek

So now you are trying to move the borders of the argument from saying that he didn't say all autistics think in black and white to now making a vague connection between black and white thinking and abstract reasoning.So much for wanting to help autistics, all you do is when your first like part and parcel self-advocates think in black and white thing fails you then move on to another major fallacy.


Okay then there's some irrelevant correction of my use of unverifiable instead of verifiable

Great, now we're in to pedantry. I said us in a general way. Us doesn't refer to all autistics, but I can say that of the autistics that know autism speaks on this site many of them have much reason to say that what good they do is window dressing. There's a lot of numbers thrown around but little evidence.

So much for black and white thinking when you instantly jump down my throat and think that when I say us that I somehow mean all autistics everywhere.


And it's a great majority that show a complete disrespect for an organisation of which they have much to dislike and of which the only proof otherwise has been window dressing or numbers being thrown around with little reference to progress. Looking at autism speaks for what it is, is like trying to get to the centre of a clam that's locked up tight.



I am sorry but deficits in abstract reasoning for human beings basically amounts to lower IQ and autistics, especially us at our mainly unaffected level, are either of normal intelligence or slightly higher than normal IQ.

Abstraction (abstract reasoning): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_reasoning

To argue that autism has anything to do with abstract reasoning is complete bull as well no matter what you try and bring up. There is no 'alternative' abstract reasoning you can bring up aghogday. Face it, you're just trying to cover up the fact that you were wrong about defending the part and parcel comment.

Autism is a disorder of neural development characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behavior. That does not have abstract reasoning in there and don't try to fudge it in. I know why someone is trying to because they're trying to make some tenuous basis for the fallacy of thinking that all autistics think in black and white terms.

You really need to shorten your comments. Most of it was just plain self-indulging.

And so were mine. Do you admit that autism is not strongly correlated with savantism? If that is so then you're living up to a point that I made. Don't try and back out either. You already said it was rare. Who's the guy who uses it? It's vermontsavant. And I believe he said it was a term of convenience or self-identity rather than a medical condition.



So why did you give me evidence from a site with no citations or links? I could discount it as dubious. Also this is a slap in the face. I already have provided evidence.


Which only further puts it in to doubt because wikipedia notes that fact quite clearly and doesn't say anything about anyone else on there at all. So it only further highlights the dubiousness because isn't it just convenient that the autistic people who were actually used as a basis for the character according to you apparently go unnamed.


Yes, I should take a look back at that source to see if it's actually worthy.


What, you mean this psychology today?
http://feministing.com/2011/05/16/racis ... her-women/
http://www.change.org/petitions/psychol ... t-articles
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011 ... _today.php
http://www.adweek.com/news/press/psycho ... tty-131686

I love that last one. It claims that a guy put an article on psychology today that claimed he wanted Ann Coulter to be president because she would nuke the middle east. It was later taken down.

Yes, psychology today, the racist, sexist magazine that has dubious morals. What a worthy source.
How ironic, psychology today also has a very bad history with giving public apologies for their mistakes. That doesn't remind me of any other group...

I was the first one that stated that part and parcel means integral, so why are you suggesting that I stated that it doesn't mean integral?

It was obvious to me that his intention was that black and white thinking influenced the problems in finding gray areas in recent topics among some self advocates and not all, because he was part of the conversation where some could find a gray area. That's evidenced in the record, and up to personal interpretation of how compelling the evidence is.

He clarified what he meant, yet you insist you can provide evidence of what he meant. You are telling us we all know it is wrong. No we don't all know it is wrong, because he has clarified what he meant by the statement and it matches what some of us thought he meant by the statement. We are not required to see the statement in black and white terms that he made, because some of us understand the context of the statement differently than others.

He stated part and parcel of an autism diagnosis. That means it is part and parcel of an autism diagnosis, which in the scientific community, deficits in abstract reasoning are seen as part of the foundation of the symptoms of autism, but it is not likely that you will see many in the scientific community make the actual Universal statement that black and white thinking, concrete thinking, or deficits in abstract thinking, is part and parcel of all autism diagnoses or it is integral to all autism diagnoses, because this psychology business is understood by most as an imperfect science, and diagnoses is in part subjectively determined by a qualified professional, subject to the imperfection of human judgement.

Without proper context many statements can be misinterpreted, if he had specific knowledge that 3, 4 or 10 advocates within the self-advocacy movement wrote statements that were indicative of black and white thinking, in his opinon, he could of stated that, but it's not something he could likely know for sure, so it depends on how one understands the context through their own unique view, as to how many advocates, if any, displayed difficulties in seeing gray areas,

It was his opinion, and you told him to speak for himself. Apparently that means you don't see it the same way that he does. That's fine there is no requirement for you to, but by the same token there is no requirement for anyone else to understand that he meant all advocates, because some of us understand the context of the statement differently and have formed our own opinions, based on our own experience of it.

I can understand that you interpret his statement in a different way than I did. I am trying to provide an understanding as to why others might see it in a different way. Can you accept that a person may understand a statement differently, depending on that individual's awareness or understanding of the context of the statement? It's human language it's not always black and white, context matters, and can be intepreted differently depending on whom one talks to. It's not uncommon for people to understand statements in different ways.

We see it this way. It's this way for us. We all understand it. Unless one takes an actual poll and everyone says yes to something, this is almost impossible to determine.

Some people see it this way. It's this way for some of us. Some of us understand it this way. are reasonable statements because it recognizes that in many cases we don't understand what is in the mind of another. Just because a person is judged by a psychiatrist to have a deficit in abstract reasoning that can cause black and white thinking, doesn't necessarily mean it's going to paralyze them in life.

An autism diagnosis is not a person, it is part of a contrived group of criteria and traits, observed and measured by psychological testing, that the psychological community came up with. If they say deficits in abstract reasoning are integral to autism, while it may be a scientific view of what the diagnosis of autism is, it's not the only view possible, when humans are part of the equation.

All that said, again, I wouldn't have used the idiom part and parcel, because I understand, from my experiences with autism that some people seem to display evidence of abstract reasoning more than concrete reasoning. It's against the common scientific view, but I have observed it. It could be either because the individuals are misdiagnosed, or just more evidence of how complex autism is. I suggest it is because of the complexity of the human condition, not just the complexity of the autism condition.

That's an outright lie

Page nine of this very thread. I was saying integral way before you were and that you were saying that part and parcel doesn't mean integral. And now this. You obviously do not have a handle on anything anymore and why lie to me? Are you obsessed?




Wroooooooooong! Communication deficits and repetitive behaviour are seen as the main problems of autism. Abstract reasoning is the major factor of human intelligence and for high functioning autistics abstract reasoning is equal to or sometimes above normal. Now you're just messing up and it's hilarious!



Rubbish. He was trying to make it out as a fact. You were. That's why you were trying to defend it. And it's obvious that you were wrong to do so because now yo're trying to say you never said integral and part and parcel didn't mean the same thing.

The rest of what you say is just plaintively irrelevant, arguably back-handing or just speculation and furthermore not backed up by fact or just padding.

Take this for example:

Why are you talking about this at all? Why are you going off the point so obviously?

Last edited by Gedrene on 26 Oct 2011, 4:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Guys, please, we've spent pages debating my intentions in using a phrase. I have already clarified my intentions.,


Is this just argumenmt for sport?

Why don't you ask yourself that? I am establishing the truth. Look on the last page and you can obviously see that in action.

Apparently you are misreading what I stated or don't understand it. "The idiom part and parcel that means integral to, is not one I would of used"

Part and parcel is an idiom. I'm saying here that it is not an idiom I would have used. Maybe you don't understand what idiom means. Idiom is a term that refers to metaphorical phrases, like part and parcel, where the metaphorical intepretation is different than the literal intpretation of the phrase.

I provided the definition: integral to, to clarify I understood what part and parcel means.

Before you suggest I am lying to you I would appreciate it if you would ask for a clarification first, in case there is a misunderstanding of communication, as apparently there is in this case.

I didn't say anything about who said integral first, I said I was the first person to state that part and parcel means integral, as I do in the quoted statement you provided, because you suggested in the previous post that I stated that part and parcel doesn't mean integral. There is no evidence that I stated that. If you can provide it please do.

I provided scientific research that stated that deficits in abstract reasoning were part of the foundation of symptoms of ASD's, specifically addressing AS and HFA. If you can provide evidence to refute this please do. Otherwise there is no evidence presented here other than what I have provided to support or refute what was stated in the research.

My last paragraph is related to black and white thinking, which has been the topic of conversation and discussion here, for the last few pages. You didn't include the statements indicative of black and white, concrete, rigid thinking in the paragraph that the first lines of what you quoted were in reference to that were: all people see it this way, it's this way for all of us, all of us understand it this way.

I really didn't know what you meant by us, so I asked. I'm not sure how that is jumping down your throat; it's a request for clarification. I provided evidence to support my position with several different potential examples of what "us" might mean used in the context of those examples.

Abstract reasoning difficulties appear to be shared in both AS and HFA per peer reviewed research as presented below.

It's not my idea it is the conclusions provided by the professionals that did the research.

You are welcome to provide research that refutes this research if you can provide it.

http://www.wpic.pitt.edu/research/CeFAR/PDF/UpdateOnNeurocognitiv.pdf



And as I remember in another one of your posts you asked me if I would admit that Autistic Savants are rare, I already stated that only 10 percent of autism cases (autism disorder not all ASD's) are considered to possess savant skills, and prodigious savant skills such as what was displayed in Rainman are rare. The research I provided backs up the fact that is rare also.

Last edited by aghogday on 27 Oct 2011, 12:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Endless arguments leading nowhere come part and parcel with threads about Autism Speaks.

While issues with abstract reasoning may not be all of what is behind issues with Autism, the evidence is everywhere one looks that it is a pretty common phenomenon.

Black and White thinking can be caused by many things, pretty much part of the human condition for most people at some point in their life.

It is suggested that abstract reasoning difficulties are an inherent aspect of autism, not fully impacted by environment. That explains much more than black and white thinking. More specifically identified is the difficulties with concept formation vs identification formation as illustrated in the research I provided.

Within the scope of Abstract reasoning, concept formation is the difficulty seen in autism. It is what allows one the ability to learn to tie their shoes. The same individual that has problems tying their shoes may be very good at concept identification.

Einstein was a good example of it, although Autism is only one of many potential associations of issues related to difficulty with abstract reasoning, and we really don't know if Einstein had autism for sure. The degree of how it affects one individual to the next varies; this is an extreme example.

While Concept formation can make what people call the easy things in life like tying ones shoes difficult, strengths in concept identification can allow one to excel in reading abilities or computer programming.

Concept identification leads to the ability to provide detail and concept formation leads to the ability to see the big picture.

Regardless of what causes it, it is something that is fairly easy to measure, on an objective basis, through testing.

Attention to the detail rather than the big picture can take an argument into forever land. I don't mind taking my part and parcel of the responsibility for that.

if I read "part and parcel" again I am going to scream

OMG I said it myself. EEEEEEEEEEEEkk

Like pointing. It took ages for my son to grasp that and he still hasn't really got it. TOM is abstract reasoning I guess.

Part and parcel of it you might say (edited for jojobean)

It has been very interesting for me to step back and apply the symptoms of autism to various threads. It seems that, to varying degrees, most of us involved in these threads demonstrate tangentiality, perseveration, hyperfocus on unimportant details, black and white thinking, etc...

It is very interesting to see people arguing so passionately over tiny little details, instead of focusing on the bigger picture. This inability to "see the forest for the trees" is one of the defining characteristics of autism.

All of us who continued to argue over my motivation for using the phrase "part and parcel," long after I clarified my intentions, were displaying the classic symptoms of perseveration and hyperfocus on minor details.

This was a thread about Autism Speaks. It turned into a four page argument over a three word phrase.

If that isn't autism, I don't know what is.

It is related to concept formation according to research. One can test for it and see that some are more affected by it than others. It's indicative of the varying degrees of difficulty that some have with concept formation a part of abstract reasoning.