Lovely little essay on neurotypical privilege

Post Reply New Topic

Conversely, what a paradigm is not, is a different perspective. A paradigm is overarching in its scope; a perspective is a point of view, such as this 2007 piece from Tony Attwood "positive diagnostic criteria" which he uses to make the point that the perception of something as being pathological is defined by the way it is negatively diagnosed:

(Alternative, Positive) Discovery criteria for Aspergers by Attwood and Gray


A. A qualitative advantage in social interaction, as manifested by a majority of the following:

1. peer relationships characterized by absolute loyalty and impeccable dependability
2. free of sexist, "age-ist", or culturalist biases; ability to regard others at "face value"
3. speaking one’s mind irrespective of social context or adherence to personal beliefs
4. ability to pursue personal theory or perspective despite conflicting evidence
5. seeking an audience or friends capable of: enthusiasm for unique interests and topics;
6. consideration of details; spending time discussing a topic that may not be of primary interest
7. listening without continual judgement or assumption
8. interested primarily in significant contributions to conversation; preferring to avoid ‘ritualistic small talk’ or socially trivial statements and superficial conversation.
9. seeking sincere, positive, genuine friends with an unassuming sense of humour

There is more to that article, though I think the above is sufficient to illustrate the overall point..

When you posted this, Kicker, I took it as meant in good faith, and even though that seems to have been misplaced, I told you that I would continue to think about this, which I think is more prudent than a single instantaneous reply (which you seemed to demand) to such an important issue.

I am still going to pretend that you were asking in good faith, and continue to provide bits of what I think the answer ultimately might be, because the question itself is an important one. So in addition to the posts I have already made on this.. in a nutshell, the current system would have to cease its total and exclusive reliance on a deductive approach to "knowing about autism". The point in saying that,from my perspective anyway, is that
under a deductive approach (the status quo) autism is a list of symptoms or behaviours or observations that can be measured, labelled, "proved" etc...these are observations only; they don't reveal the intrinsic nature or truth of autism nor autistic existence, and a new paradigm would value a much wider truth than mere measurement. The autistic people in experiments would not be treated like objects to be measured, diagnosed pathologised, excluded and treated. They would be regarded as the possessors of unique inner knowledge about what it is to experience being autistic in the world, in our particular cultures, not in the laboratory. They would be partners in research, not objects that researchers would measure according to a pathology model.

We here are (mostly) people on the spectrum: we live layered, personal lives that are built around meaning - as all human lives are. But where - in the current paradigm - is there recognition of that, that we are humans first, autists second? Where, in the current paradigm, is the recognition that observation of a bunch of behaviours tells neither us nor the world anything meaningful about the lives we live, how we think, feel, interpret and experience a world that pathologises us? A new paradigm, that was built on neurodiversity, would recognise that human meaning is not only important, but central; that requires an inductive approach to research, to "treatment" - the new paradigm would cast autists as informed partners/contributors to research, not as passive objects to be studied as freaks. The same change is needed for therapeutic approaches - partnership, not treatment designed for a different population with different characteristics (NT therapies).

A new truly inclusive paradigm would have to include not only what it means to autists to be autists in today's world, but also the relationships between the autists, and the normocentric and scientific populations. The current paradigm is narrow and cramped; a new paradigm would be wide, with space for all the meanings that have been ignored, pushed aside, lost, labelled as unimportant, unscientific, irrelevant. They are not irrelevant to me; are they irrelevant to any of us? Not if we are part of the human race... the new paradigm would have to accept the fullness of autistic humanity and embrace it as a valid part of the whole human race. Do you think the current paradigm does that?? I don't.

Your objection to a paradigm change that would accommodate neurodiversity Kicker seems to be based on financial grounds - "training would cost too much". Humanising dehumanising systems does not come cheap, though I think it would be fiscally neutral overall in that it would save many lives, reduce mental illness due to dehumanising treatment, and with acceptance as full human beings with a right to full participation in employment et al, autists would generate economic benefits that would more than pay for the paradigm change required. I'd really like to hear your response, so long as its a reasoned and not another merely snide one.

Guys, I'll have to get back to you later on this. This stomach bug is kicking my arse again. (At least the vomiting is over, but the diarrhoea, churning guts and sickly nausea aren't... :-/)

This is not meant to be a "rant," or to be something which is posted for the sake of mere iconoclasm.

What I write is reflective of strong visceral feelings on my part.

Nope....I don't believe all this explicitly espouses Autistic Separatism.

But I have a strong feeling that this might be the result.

Yes, we must always evolve.

But how are we going to educate people on autism if the "common man" is left out? I know what a "paradigm shift" is--but most people won't. Frankly, people will be put off by an "intellectual" approach to things. There is the tendency to believe that people who speak in academic-ese are "withholding something."

All right...let's have the conferences, discussions, etc. amongst the Academics, intellectuals, think-tank members.

But let's, also, allow more than a "trickle" to come down to the "masses." Otherwise, not much will be accomplished.

Please remember: most bosses who will potentially employ autistic people are "regular" people," who don't always to go to academic symposia, or sit in think tanks.

There must be education in CONJUNCTION with the overall approach--not ONLY employing the overall approach.

Otherwise, all this will stay in the Ivory Tower. Like many good-intentioned ideas.

@B19

My objection isn't with change based on financial grounds. My objection is with the lack of details of the change. The broad characterizations being made based on an idea that in my opinion is short sighted of privilege (cause you can claim that of just about anything and it's become a 'pop' term), the lack of any detailed or objective thought given to how those changes might systematically affect individuals already in treatment and flourishing, the already long waiting periods for people to get into services, the lack of services currently available that have created the long waits, etc.

Anyone can point at something and say how much better they think they can do it, I am asking you to prove it by detailing it out and ensuring that your proposed change is one that will have merited benefits.

Right now you are saying forcing people who work with anyone who has ASD to have more training on what it means to be ASD would be of a fix. OK, so how do you go from "if you met one person with ASD....." to a program that is designed to cover what it's like for everyone with ASD?

How do you get enough trained 'neurodiverse' individuals to handle the teaching of the flood of people who currently work with people who have ASD and enough for the ones still training for their field?

How do you use the resources already available to promote such change?

Given the current resources could you make smaller less ambitious shifts that have an accumulative affect?

What are the criteria for passing such standards? What the hell are the standards needed to pass? How do you circumvent the right to confidential sessions if you have to moderate interactions and ensure those standards are being used? Would this be a completely new branch of the current mental health services model, if not then how many extra hours of training would be needed to meet the new standard, if yes then how much of the current model do you replace with the new? What about co-morbids?

Given you have repeatedly stated that you are a retired psychologist, you should have the best opportunity to understand and articulate in detail how to implement such a plan. Given your knowledge and understanding of the existing system.

You haven't defined anything, but how great it would be and how horrible it is now, not to mention dismissing and being critical to anyone who thinks that it needs more depth than that. That's not critical thinking, it's not advocacy, it's sitting on the sidelines and feeling self righteous.

You want an intelligent conversation about it, then don't use hyperbole to promote your ideas and give concrete answers without side stepping them or putting it on someone else to prove it won't work.

Last edited by kicker on 08 Jan 2015, 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Maybe autistic adults who can't find work in autistic-unfriendly job market could try becoming self-employed in areas that help autistic people, such as tutoring for autistic students, life coaching for autistic people (I feel like I need one sometimes), using technical skills to make apps or software for autistic needs, etc. People often say that they want to help professionals or become professionals to work with autistic people, but one can also skip the professionals and just start small with helping other autistic people outside the confines of traditional neurotypical workplaces.

Yes, I think that's a very constructive idea.. I've seen it happen and grow in other areas to bring about unforeseen change..

Kicker, what would you like to see change, and how?

I think charging me with responsibility for redesigning the outcome and ethos of whole system is a bit premature! At this stage there is still need to work out exactly what we do have, and what needs to change, then once that awareness grows to a critical mass, people become inspired and generate new conceptions, frameworks and possibilities. At least that's how past change seems to have happened..

I'm very aware of my tendency to think and write in academic terms - the beast is what it is - which is why I chose the OP article, because it simplifies in a way I have frequently trouble doing.

Education is always important, I agree, though it depends on what conceptual framework the education takes place - (getting academic again - though for those who believe that, like me, see "Frame Theory" if you are interested).

I hope you get well soon, the experience of bugs like that is absolutely wretched ;( - and I miss my "Boswellian" compatriot

As technology improves, the future of workplaces will be more remote based (possibly even home based). This will favor the autistic community more.

Er, thanks. Ignore my snappiness in the other thread, or at least put it down to the stomach bug!

Who's your "Boswellian" compatriot?

Samuel Johnson was a curmudgeonly type--and he also enjoyed having a nice cup of tea every once in a while.

Thanks for sharing this essay with such profound meaning that yet eludes many/most neuropsych professionals. I've survived therapeutic abuse.

The misguided clinician I encountered believed a priori that I was her inferior, even speaking to me in 'baby talk' (pronouncing words as if to a baby), and that was only the start of her staggering ignorance. My familial heritage includes some who were 'on the spectrum' (e.g., my father & paternal grandfather, both of whom I have the utmost respect). I spent an inordinate amount of time 'teaching' her, to no avail. She had a great sense of accomplishment in defaming me, watching me suffer in humiliation and degradation.

Clinician then held a secret meeting about me, without inviting me. She announced to all that (quote) "Aspies are no good." Further, she decided that I was never to contact any Wrong Planet members, and somehow she would enforce her inane rule. I am still livid as to how grievously I was mistreated. Just pain....I would contribute more here, but must hold back my tears.

Oh no, hope you're feeling better soon!