"Living With Autism II: Perpectives" for Forbes

Post Reply New Topic

Just keep it up. I admire your ability to get things done.

I have been one since I was 5. LoL.

TheSunAlsoRises

My mom just calls me a ham.

Hemingway fan? That's one of my favorite books!

You have to consider those who are High Functioning Autistics and know IT BUT decide to keep their status confidential. In this regard, there are numerous Autistics in positions of power and leadership. Often-times, people who are able to blend in with the dominant culture do so UNTIL an opportune time presents itself to 'come out'. Also, Women, minorities, and other disabled proponents fought for decades and centuries just to have a representative, who clearly identified themselves as one of them, on a major advisory board as a top level official. It takes TIME.


On that note, I leave the political aspects of Autism, alone.

I understand, clearly.

There is always a clue in the Autism community when to leave certain issues, alone. There is always a deafening silence and one hears crickets. LoL.

I support those who support the children and those among US who need the most help.

TheSunAlsoRises

I love Hemingway. LoL. I enjoy your writing dude. You have mad talent.

TheSunAlsoRises

I think you know. You know what aptitude is. Their intelligence, IQs, the "systemizing" that Simon Baron Cohen was talking of, the mental capabilities to succeed academically and in careers, all of which are had in much higher amount by the very high functioning, and are boasted of in positive articles about autism. They should be obligated to make sure the low-functioning get access to those skills. Since this all has a neural basis, it would involve something therapeutic for the brain.


Their dominant influence should be ended.


After like 5 years of him running an organization, I don't see how such an "establishment" of influence is all that needs to be expected.


What do you know about neurology and what are your credentials regarding such? How much do you know about the science involved? The scientists and those associated with them, think a cure could be possible, and I don't think you know better than them. But it's still an interesting question. Considering there are developmental problems, a cure would have to alter some neurological aspects that are involved in those problems. This likely may involve forms of gene therapy, which are getting very sophisticated. A lot of the problems with functioning are due to lack of connectivity in the brain, in one form or another. It's not necessarily like some structure has to be removed and replaced. Something would need to be done to install whichever molecular and cellular structures that are needed for the missing connectivity.
What's with this pitting of research against services? There isn't enough money for services anyway, which has a much higher scale of costs, because of the kinds of resources needed. Basically, the government would have the kind of funds in the billions needed to fund services, and it's still not easy. Research would save money in the long run, by cure obviating the need for services.


I know what some of the individuals portrayed in that article are able to do, as they have let it be known by just casually talking of themselves, unless they're lying for some reason. There is no conspiracy to make them seem highly able. Don't act like my side doesn't know what it's talking of.


That's exaggerated and doesn't occur in many instances of autistics becoming known. It occurs when a bunch of high-achieving poindexters claim that cure is evil and ignore functioning disparities within the spectrum. And they shouldn't be called not autistic for saying those things. The spectrum isn't a homogenous united group. You know that there are many autistics with communication impairments, and shouldn't be saying "complete inability" to portray that claim, in an effort to make that fact seem like an irrational extreme that can't be true. Those you disagree with haven't said it was "complete".

Actually, it does tend to. Ability determines what one can do. We know that there are some mild cases who are living independently and doing many things, and aren't depending on others.

Yeah, that's about how I feel.

It's a nice dream.

But it's never going to happen.

The best way for those of us who are very high-functioning to survive is to shut up, fit in, and accept being kicked, belittled, and derided for our "failures."

And interact with others as little as possible.

Because, as people in my therapy group have told me, if you are full of caring, it is perfectly possible to be careful all the time.

Oh, please. In case nobody has informed you about how the world works, if the "dominant influence" of highly-functioning aspies were ended, there would be no direct autistic influence at all upon mainstream society. The only voices heard would be a bunch of desperate, neurotic parents who'll do anything to make their kid quit embarrassing them in public. Would you really prefer to have parent-oriented groups like Autism Speaks speaking more loudly and authoritatively to policymakers and corporate America than any of the highly-functioning Aspies you've criticized?

We (highly-functioning aspies) might not live up to your standards of selfless purity and perfection, but we're basically the only real advocates lower-functioning ASD individuals have, because at least our self interests 95% overlap with theirs. And our advocacy skills are finite, because we have the same social difficulties, debilitatingly-obsessive special interests, and (if ADD) time-management & project planning executive dysfunction that they do. We just happen to be able to blog and write books about them, instead of being silent prisoners of a stressful, chaotic, noisy world.

amanda baggs is low functioning and she is a big advocate. she should be interviewed more often i agree. but its not like the higher functioning are taking away her voice.

What a sad set of options. So the parents say annoying things sometimes. But the ends justify the means. The goals can't necessarily be carried out with pleasantness. I'd like for some autistics who are on the side of cure to get some influence to make sure those entities you mention stay on the path they're supposed to. Someone has to make sure that research continues to be funded and carried out towards its goal. The influence of the ASAN types hasn't accomplished much of anything for the rest of the spectrum. They misrepresent those who are unfortunate on the spectrum. They're not really better than the parent groups. By the way, a lot of messed up parents of those on the spectrum, have talked favorably of anti-cure ideas. What of their influence as contrary to those on the spectrum who like cure?



I don't expect you to live up to that. It's only natural that under the advantageous conditions you're under, that you're self-favoring. It's also to be expected that the ones who didn't get the advantages will go against the ones who did. There's no definite morality here. Your self-interests are not the same. I think the self-interests concern aptitude, and thereby differ between the highly-able and the less able. And you elite aspies don't have the same social difficulties, which is why you have disproportionate opportunity to advocate.

She's been exposed already, a while ago. Quit mentioning her.

You would think wrong. I had no idea what you were saying. You see, I am autistic and it is often difficult for me to infer a person's intended meanings from a single sentence with no clear references to the concepts mentioned in said sentence.

I am constantly described as "high functioning" and yet I failed academically and I do not have a career. Yes, successful autistic people (and successful disabled people with all kinds of disabilities) are celebrated, often at the expense of those of us who aren't successful. I don't think I'm all that much of an exception in that regard.

I don't see how any particular person would necessarily be able to help others in the way you say. It sounds like you're saying that simply being describable as high functioning means being obligated to put oneself at the disposal of those who are describable as low functioning. Such efforts should be voluntary, not mandatory or demanded, and not everyone has talents that would make them useful in this regard.



They don't have dominant influence. Parents and professionals do. Any autistic adults who speak up get told they're too high functioning to be in a position to speak up as an autistic.



The organization has done more than simply establish influence. ASAN's done quite a few things. That's, incidentally, one of the ways that you can establish influence - by setting and achieving goals and being effective. ASAN is limited by the fact that people are more likely to fund and donate to organizations centered on parents and professionals, such as Autism Speaks.



Er, what are your qualifications and credentials?

Also, I didn't pit cure against services - you did, in your earlier post, when you complained that the people quoted in that article shouldn't have a voice in the media, and called them "greedy" and "self-serving" and claimed somehow - with no actual argument to back these aspersions up - that they're "showing the true colors of the anti-cure movement."

Also, it's pretty dishonest to say "anti-cure movement," as the autistic activists I have known have much broader perspectives than simply being "anti-cure."





This is strange, because I read Rachel's blog and have actually conversed with her, and I don't get the same impression you do. I don't think she's "highly able."



It's not an exaggeration. It's happened to Michelle Dawson, Amanda Baggs, you're doing it right now to everyone interviewed in that article.

I never claimed the spectrum is a homogenous united groups. I also know there are many autistics with communication impairments, as I happen to be one of them. And actually, several times on this forum alone, I have seen people shift goalposts on "low functioning" so that it basically means "someone who can't ever possibly speak for themselves." I was not exaggerating, but repeating what has been said here many times.



This makes no sense. I've written a book, but it in no way reflects my ability to function on my own. I have a high measured IQ, and still, I cannot live independently. I can speak most (but not all) of the time, and that doesn't guarantee me a career or an education.

What you don't seem to acknowledge in this thread is that ability with a particular thing determines you can do that thing, but that does not mean you can do a lot of other things as well. Being able to perform one task does not mean you can perform another task. One of the distinctive patterns in autistic people is something called "skill scatter," which means that different skills and abilities can be at different levels - some things can be easy, even easier than they are for NTs. Other things can be much harder. And this is true for people labeled as LFA and HFA both. Being described as one or the other doesn't mean an even distribution of skills that allows you to look at one part of a person's overall profile and extrapolate to the rest of the profile.

And as dro1dguy says, if the adult autistic voices who are speaking out step back, who is going to speak up? I am not restricting that to "high functioning" adults because the statements you're making are not, as I have said, restricted to "high functioning" adults, but to anyone who has the ability to speak up and disagree with the "autism community" of parents and professionals. Admittedly, I disagree that "low functioning" adults all require "high functioning" adults to speak up for them, as many can speak for themselves, and many have parents who are excellent advocates for their autistic children (adults or otherwise). But demanding that some of us sit down and shut up because you (dalurker) don't deem us to be impaired enough is BS.



Exactly. And she's accused of everything from faking autism to simply being too high-functioning to be able to talk about being autistic, and has written about this many times. What dalurker's doing right now to the people who were interviewed for that article.

Anyway, I'm not anti-parents or anti-professionals or even anti-any autistic person speaking about being autistic. I don't think of things as being "your side" or "my side" and while my personal belief is that a cure is impossible, this does not mean I view those who want a cure as my enemies, nor would it be fruitful to even try to hold such a perspective.



Exposed by who? Gossips, liars, and bullies? I've read their work, and at best it's conspiracy theory level tripe and aggressive concern trolling.

Wow! Cynical but ballsy, and sadly, miserably, terribly TRUE.

Even TVTropes mentions what I was talking about:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/U ... tes.Autism

Here are some other links that talk about it:

http://stopthinkautism.blogspot.com/200 ... ut-up.html - actually, it's kind of interesting how much dalurker's posts rely on the very same arguments listed in this post.

Oh, and another one:

http://www.stuartduncan.name/autism/whe ... ut-autism/



Not something I made up, and dalurker's playing by the very same script described. Even TVTropes knows about it.

When I discuss my diagnosis, I generally say that I am autistic. I use the word autistic because I abhor labels, and "autism" is a widely misunderstood word, largely because it is essentially meaningless. I see no reason to believe that autism can be universally defined, or that all forms of autism have the same root cause, yet present in varying degrees of severity. Some autistics are completely non-functional and suffer enormously. I am not deluded enough to assume our problems are comparable just because the same vague diagnostic label is applied to them.

If I am forced to label my condition, I will say that I have Asperger Syndrome. I'm a classic case. I may struggle, but I am lucky enough to consider myself blessed. Not all autistics are so lucky. Let's not forget those who are more limited. They too need to be valued, supported, and represented.

This video series REALLY caused me to rethink all my opinions about autism and set aside black and white viewpoints. .

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPWL5yimhyg[/youtube]


I can't pretend the boy in this video is just more misunderstood than I am. That would be insulting.

Perhaps Alice should have interviewed him? I'll bet he'd had lots of fascinating things to say about self-advocacy. I'm being sarcastic, of course.

This why scientific research is important. Not more important than services, but important nonetheless.

Last edited by Tambourine-Man on 10 Dec 2011, 3:12 pm, edited 3 times in total.

All I want is for them to not interfere and not get in the way.



I'd like to know what goals they've achieved.


I'm far from an expert. But I've studied science in my past. I'm familiar with some of the things being talked of regarding the research you and other aspies claim is pointless. What is it you know that proves the research goals are impossible, considering many technological achievements would have been considered impossible in the past?


That doesn't make any sense. You're trying to dodge what I'm saying of your arguments.


It's not an exaggeration for Michelle Dawson, as she's one of those expressing extreme anti-cure ideas. It doesn't matter that she's autistic. It doesn't mean she sticks up for all on the spectrum. Why is Amanda Baggs still being mentioned?


I've aware of that concept. But don't portray it to mean many autistics have the skill profile of savants. Savants are a very small percent of the spectrum. The skill scatter is not straightforward. There are disparities in all aspects of functioning between the lower and higher functioning individuals on the spectrum. Not just IQs, but skills for basic tasks. And I'm not extrapolating. Like I said, I've witnessed them mentioning nonchalantly the various kinds of tasks they do, by reading what they've written.


I'm not telling anyone to shut up. I just want you to stop going against progress, to stop advocating against the interests of others on the spectrum.


If you're not aggressive like that, why do you complain of me like you do, after I criticize other advocates who have been very aggressive and antagonizing with their views?


I know what I saw. She doesn't even deny the basics of her past. I condemn the notion that caring for truth is called "concern trolling".