Page 1 of 1 [ 9 posts ] 

nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,667
Location: KC area (born in NYC)

07 Jan 2008, 1:44 am

I wanted to start this thread after I noticed that there seemed to be some misunderstanding of how the term "disability" is used by disability advocates. For instance, I have seen people argue against the idea of being cured and, in the same posting, say that they are not disabled.

The concept of not wanting to be cured comes from the social model of disability. The autism rights movement is itself strongly rooted in the social model of disability.

This is from Wikipedia. It places anti-curism firmly in the social model of disability:

Quote:
The social model of disability implies that attempts to change, 'fix' or 'cure' individuals, especially when against the wishes of the patient, can be discriminatory and prejudiced. It is often contended that this attitude, often seen as stemming from a medical model and a subjective value system, can harm the self-esteem and social inclusion of those constantly subjected to it (e.g. being told they are not as good or valuable, in some overall and core sense, as others).

Some communities have actively resisted 'treatments', often alongside defending a unique culture or set of abilities. Some examples include: deaf parents arguing against cochlear implants for deaf infants who cannot consent to them, and valuing sign language even if most do not 'speak' it; people diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder arguing against efforts to change them to be more like others, arguing instead for acceptance of neurodiversity and accommodation to different needs and goals; people diagnosed with a mental disorder arguing that they are just different, don't necessarily conform, or have a psychosocial disability ultimately caused by discrimination or exclusion by society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (full-time, tenured sociology professor)
33 domains/23 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Internet Radio: http://www.markalanfoster.com


lotus
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 183

07 Jan 2008, 1:51 am

Thanks. That makes things clearer for me.



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,667
Location: KC area (born in NYC)

07 Jan 2008, 1:59 am

lotus wrote:
Thanks. That makes things clearer for me.


You're welcome. I am glad it was helpful.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (full-time, tenured sociology professor)
33 domains/23 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Internet Radio: http://www.markalanfoster.com


woodsman25
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 18 May 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,064
Location: NY

07 Jan 2008, 7:51 am

Hmmm... interesting, I think I know what thread this is in response to. Anyways I wonder, I know this is a little off topic, but figured this is the best thread to ask it. You are a professor right nominalist? I have a weird question then if you dont mind going off topic just for this post. I see many collage kids using Wiki, many people using it for a source of information. I have a very serious problem with wiki and have never used it. My problem is that its just not a true credible source. You are a professor and so I just found it weird that you use wiki and apparently find it credible, of course I am assuming this. Do you really consider wiki a true credible source? Would you accept a thesis or other research paper with information from wiki and have wiki as a source in the bibliography or works cited?


_________________
DX'ed with HFA as a child. However this was in 1987 and I am certain had I been DX'ed a few years later I would have been DX'ed with AS instead.


Odin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

07 Jan 2008, 9:17 am

Like Most Transhumanists I support the concepts of cognitive and morphological liberty, which mean that physical and neurological differences (if the differences are in-born or the result of self-modification doesn't matter) should be respected and changes to those differences should be entirely voluntary. This is a big reason why I have a problem with the Curbies, people under the age of 15 or 16 really don't have enough independence from parental influences nor have the fully developed brains (the decision-making and planning part of the brain, the prefrontal cortex, does not fully mature until around the age of 20) to consent to cognitive changes.


_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life


anbuend
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jul 2004
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,039

07 Jan 2008, 10:14 am

Odin wrote:
(the decision-making and planning part of the brain, the prefrontal cortex, does not fully mature until around the age of 20)


Really? I thought it was older than that.


_________________
"In my world it's a place of patterns and feel. In my world it's a haven for what is real. It's my world, nobody can steal it, but people like me, we live in the shadows." -Donna Williams


The_Q
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 24 Dec 2007
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 193
Location: The Continuum

07 Jan 2008, 11:02 am

woodsman25 wrote:
Hmmm... interesting, I think I know what thread this is in response to. Anyways I wonder, I know this is a little off topic, but figured this is the best thread to ask it. You are a professor right nominalist? I have a weird question then if you dont mind going off topic just for this post. I see many collage kids using Wiki, many people using it for a source of information. I have a very serious problem with wiki and have never used it. My problem is that its just not a true credible source. You are a professor and so I just found it weird that you use wiki and apparently find it credible, of course I am assuming this. Do you really consider wiki a true credible source? Would you accept a thesis or other research paper with information from wiki and have wiki as a source in the bibliography or works cited?


Wiki can be dodgy. I would be hesitant to use an article as source material for a university assignment; however, the sources given in Wiki articles can be useful. Personally, I often use it to give me a jumping point into further research.

Wiki's greatest strength is that it can be updated and/or corrected by anyone who has further or conflicting information. The problem is that that it is also its greatest weakness. Any Tom, Dick, or Harry who doesn't have a clue about a topic can post BS. Another potential problem would be someone who is an opposed to a political party or movement deliberately changing wording to give a negative impression. The same is true with philosophy and scientific theories.

It's in important to remember that this is only a forum. What people say here need not hold up to peer review (I mean this in the scientific sense). Nominalist has simply posted some info that he thought might clear the issue for some readers who are confused about it.


_________________
Q: "Humans are such commonplace little creatures."
--"Deja Q"


nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,667
Location: KC area (born in NYC)

07 Jan 2008, 12:33 pm

woodsman25 wrote:
You are a professor right nominalist?


Yes, since 1980 (full-time since 1985).

Quote:
I have a weird question then if you dont mind going off topic just for this post. I see many collage kids using Wiki, many people using it for a source of information. I have a very serious problem with wiki and have never used it. My problem is that its just not a true credible source. You are a professor and so I just found it weird that you use wiki and apparently find it credible, of course I am assuming this. Do you really consider wiki a true credible source? Would you accept a thesis or other research paper with information from wiki and have wiki as a source in the bibliography or works cited?


Wikipedia is better than much of what is on the Internet, since it does have a kind of quasi-peer review process. However, no, I would never allow a student to include Wikipedia in an advanced undergraduate course (for instance). I am not as particular with lower-division courses (freshman and sophomore). However, generally speaking, encyclopedias should not be included in a references (works cited) list.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (full-time, tenured sociology professor)
33 domains/23 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Internet Radio: http://www.markalanfoster.com


nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,667
Location: KC area (born in NYC)

07 Jan 2008, 12:35 pm

The_Q wrote:
It's in important to remember that this is only a forum. What people say here need not hold up to peer review (I mean this in the scientific sense). Nominalist has simply posted some info that he thought might clear the issue for some readers who are confused about it.


Yes, plus, as a sociologist, I am familiar with the social model of disability. The Wikipedia article is accurate in this case. There are some better discussions of the topic, but they are only available to individuals, universities, and colleges who have subscribed to the databases.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (full-time, tenured sociology professor)
33 domains/23 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Internet Radio: http://www.markalanfoster.com