Autism stereotypes alive and kicking: a true story

Post Reply New Topic

My school's psychology club just held a screening of Rain Man followed by a discussion, led by one of the most acclaimed lecturers at the school. She was doing her best to use the movie as an opportunity to examine myths about autism--she gave us the DSM-IV checklists for autism and Asperger's, and the theme of the discussion was how realistic (or not) the movie might have been. Sounds good, right?

Unfortunately, about halfway through the discussion, this girl, who clearly had no prior knowledge of autism, looked down at the DSM IV characteristic of lack of emotional reciprocity and asked, "What does that mean? Does that mean they have emotions but don't know how to express them? Do they have emotions?"

OK, whatever, she was pretty clearly ignorant. It was the reply the lecturer gave that made my jaw drop. "Well, with severely autistic people, we don't really know." (This quote is not exactly verbatim, but pretty close).

Jaw, meet floor.

I told her that there are severely autistic people who can't talk, but are able to type and can describe their experiences, and while their experiences are very different, they pretty clearly have emotions. I actually had a specific person on WP in mind when I said this, although I did not give further details. To which she replied, "oh, the facilitated communication thing? Because it's been shown that doesn't work..." So I explained to her that, actually no, I meant a person who can type themselves, and has expressive but not receptive language, and that such a gap is possible and exists in cases of brain damage, not just in autism. To which she replied, "Oh, well, I wouldn't diagnose them that way."

It took a minute to figure out what she meant. When I asked her, if she met this person, what diagnosis she would make, she said such a person couldn't be severely autistic because they still had the use of language. Uh... There was no way I could civilly continue the discussion and I had already hijacked it for a while to have this exchange, so I didn't pursue it.

What bothers you most about what she said? For me, it was the fixation on academic definitions (e.g. what "severe" autism is, exactly) while ignoring the human beings behind the definition, treating autistic people as some sort of alien species to be examined under a microscope. This is a professor who probably views herself as an extremely tolerant, non-prejudiced person (she studies gender stereotyping, among other things), and clearly believed herself to be knowledgeable enough to conduct a discussion on autism. (I mean, when I said the Rain Man probably didn't have high enough IQ to have Asperger's--her personal assessment of him--, she very condescendingly said "it's a common misconception that people with Asperger's have genius IQ; most of them are average." [To which I coolly replied, "yes, I'm aware, and the Rain Man is probably mentally ret*d. If you gave him an IQ test, he'd probably have a few superior peaks and overall test in the mentally ret*d range." So as not to be shown up, she then repeated what I had said with slightly different wording] ).

If you were going to educate someone like this, who believes herself knowledgeable about autism, how would you do it?

I wouldn't take that. I'd make it clear to everyone that this woman did not know the whole story. I would talk to your teacher and ask if you can correct some of those things said in another class. The woman just claimed to know about autism, but you live with it.

Maybe talk to her privately about these issues. She might be more receptive to being questioned when its not in front of her subordinates.

Hmm...I hear you, Apera. The difficult thing about this situation is, first, it wasn't a class but an extracurricular event, for which the teacher volunteered her time. Also, I'd never met her before, I've never had a class with her, and given that I'm not interested in the areas she researches, I may never take a class with her. I could start a discussion with her via e-mail, but it seems a little b*tchy to introduce myself and start a conversation just to argue with her. I'm angry enough about her attitude that I can't trust myself to speak to her in a constructive manner, and I can't organize my thoughts enough to figure out how to convince her. That's why I posted here, actually, so that cooler heads than I could help me figure that out.

I woulda just made it clear that the guy they based the movie off of wasnt actually autistic...

I'd be too busy telling her what an idiot she was to educate her very much. Who exactly declared her an expert on a subject she knows nothing about?

Edit: A little off topic but a TV airing of Rainman was the fist time I ever saw my low functioning autistic nephew pay any attention at all to a television. He spent the entire movie engrossed. Unfortunately we have no idea why because we've tried every known method of facilitating communication but even the method that had some limited success (ASL) he eventually stoped using.

Don't want to sound too discouraging but this could lead you into some trouble. In high school I could get very passionate about a stance and made people think I was stupid/ weird in a bad way. If you are lucky in convincing her she might even find out about your HFA/AS, and use you as an example in front of the rest. When you have AS there is often no choice but to hide it from most people who simply will not understand.

We don't know? So, uh... meltdowns, they're just purely rational, right?

Animals have emotions. Are you truly calling severely autistic people less human than animals?

It boggles my mind.

I had a similar conversation with my curebie mother the night before I joined WP. (So... two or three days ago. Man I feel like a n00b.) Some time after she referred to LFA as "not even sentient" because they couldn't communicate (even in a case where someone can't communicate, does that mean they have nothing going on in there?), we were arguing over cures, of course. And she said there's no harm that can be done with a cure, you should just do it without consent if you have an LFA kid. (She compared it to a hare lip. I am duly offended.) I asked what happens if they liked their skewed perceptions. She asks me in this challenging tone "do you know of any examples?" (not verbatim), but I didn't drop it. I just said "Amanda Baggs" and pretty well won the conversation.

But teachers suck. In fifth grade mine explained my Asperger's, and this led to a fun little incident in which a classmate explained to someone who came to our class, "she has brain problems."

It's annoying. Let's fix it.

It is a bit true... fortunately there are some advantages as well.

But people are do not really know what to expect. Especially the movie Rainman wrecked a lot. They cannot comprehend the idea that someone with autism can use language and emotions. The use is only different.

Last weekend I was on a camp again as volunteer and I saw one kid in one of the other groups of kids, he seemed Aspie for sure. His leaders did not have the slightest idea, but his behaviour and position in the group were too obvious. They thought ADHD, but when I saw his behaviour and heard stories about him, that was not likely the case. Autism in him was not really possible according to them, since he was too intelligent. (thank you) Most people think I am highly intelligent and that's it.

Giving a good story is too difficult, especially when you want to avoid using yourself as an example.

I don't think you can educate someone like this. She managed to get through graduate school without learning that emotions are how vertebrates (and possibly some invertebrates, like octopus) process information. Or maybe she did learn that but thinks that non-communicative autistic people are mentally little different from plants or clams. In either case, ineducable.

But you can educate the people in the audience who are clearly open to learning new things. The girl who knew nothing about autism and misunderstood the DSM's "lack of emotional reciprocity" point actually was educable (it was an honest request for information she knew she didn't have). As long as she heard the exchange between you and the lecturer (meaning, as long as it wasn't after the lecture was over and out of her earshot), she learned something of value.

When you debate something with another person, you rarely change that person's mind. The minds you affect are the people listening to the debate who have not made up their minds about a subject and are weighing incoming information.

So this exchange wasn't futile even though it didn't teach anything to the lecturer. The people you actually educated are the people who don't think they already know everything about autism: the lecture audience.

That is a nice thought. Hopefully the situation in the future will be better explained.

@Illite: "the guy they based the movie off of wasnt actually autistic..." If you're thinking of Kim Peek, that's completely true. I recognized traits of many different savants though (they basically took every savant ability they could think of and gave it to Rain Man), some of whom were autistic. For instance, the counting the toothpicks that fell to the ground came from autistic savant twins, IIRC.

@Redwulf: Oh wow, I wonder if he recognized himself in the Rain Man? It's a a shame that there's no way you can find out. It must be very frustrating for him as well as for you not to be able to communicate when he wants to.

@DandelionFireworks: "o, uh... meltdowns, they're just purely rational, right?" Exactly.
"Animals have emotions. Are you truly calling severely autistic people less human than animals?"
Yeah, that was pretty much my issue with what she said. Most people, including this lecturer probably, take it on faith that their pets have emotions. Why would you give another human less benefit of the doubt than you give your pet?

"She asks me in this challenging tone "do you know of any examples?" (not verbatim), but I didn't drop it. I just said "Amanda Baggs" and pretty well won the conversation."
I wonder how Amanda feels about being our go-to example for things like this.

@Jannissy: "When you debate something with another person, you rarely change that person's mind."
I know this to be true for things like politics and religion. I had hoped that for someone with no personal connection to autism, and not much at stake emotionally, autism would not be in that category. You're probably right, though, unfortunately.

"The people you actually educated are the people who don't think they already know everything about autism: the lecture audience."
The girl who asked the question was listening to this exchange, and hopefully learned something from it. Thanks for the encouraging message!

She's a bigot, and she shows circular reasoning. She says that nobody knows if severely autistic people have feelings, that severely autistic people can't speak... then when told about a non verbal autistic individual who communicates via the written word, demonstrating intelligence and feelings, she says he can't be autistic, because he's communicative and has feelings.

In other words, autism is what she says it is.

This might explain why she picked a movie about a non autistic man (he had a completely different medical condition) and held it up as an example of autism. She's one of those insufferable people puffed up with their own ego and pride who should really just shut up and let the rest of get on with our lives without having to listen to their so called "expert" advice. (Fuming here. Oh... hang on, that's an emotional response... Yeah right.)

I've always had trouble with the idea that someone "can't communicate" even my very low functioning autistic nephew can communicate on some level. Even a couple kids I worked with in the school system who had little muscular control (so no ASL or anything to replace the speech they lacked) clearly communicated "we like it when you read Doctor Seuss to us!" by bouncing grinning and laughing. One kid that "could not communicate" led me over to a board that had picture of the children in the class room placed under the heading of either "I am here" or "I am at home". Then she lifted my arm, had me touch each picture, then she looked quizzically at a kid who wasn't pictured. But she can't communicate at all, no sir, not at all.

You'd think it would be frustrating but when he wants something he'll gesture in it's vague direction shout "Ahhhhhhhgh!" and then laugh at us trying to figure out what it is he actually wants and if it's something we should tell him "Get up and do it yourself lazy."

I'm feeling frustrated just reading that.