Recently, WebMD (through CBS) made some interesting statements in an article regarding psychoanalysis and autism. Right off the bat, it's an eyebrow raiser; here's AutismVox on the subject.
I've been pretty conditioned not to laugh at autism quackery, because if I wasn't I'd have collapsed my lungs, but I had to here. Noted as a sensitive "translator", the psychoanalyst would theoretically know the motivations of the person through behavior s/he'd only seen somewhat regularly, using a totally different toolset addressing the differences of an autistic, and would be able to even understand somewhat specific details about the person's mind. Somehow, I remember that psychoanalysts had problems understanding much of anyone, less than an autistic one.
It reminds me heavily of an IQ test that was administered to me, supposedly "non-verbal". I don't really remember it (I've seen so many specialists like that in my childhood life that I can't distinguish one thing from another, without the basis of language to make the claim on), but even the details I've heard give me a good idea it was useless; apparently, the first thing they did to me was talk when I got in the room. I'm even told that there were questions I got wrong on the basis of vocabulary (I knew "road", but not "street").
Mind you, they put my intelligence at the mentally retarded, and, despite some attempt to establish the contrary (usually in the lovely statement "But all autistics are mentally retarded!"), that turned out to be wrong. Then again, I was tested later when I could talk to 100, and that gave way as well to an even higher score later. Intelligent communication, rather than intelligence, is necessary to score high on an IQ test.
And, again, that's essentially what would have to happen for this to work. The typical remove for not having mental access becomes triple fold when the person doesn't communicate regularly, and for a non-verbal person it's far more than that, and it really takes some very particular knowledge of that person's life to even get a good understanding (and that's not guaranteed). A psychoanalyst will not, barring psychic powers, be anywhere near good enough.
But it's funny enough idea. I wonder how many interesting labels they'd come up for an autistic person. It'd be fun to look through. But in terms of actual help and education for an autistic person, it'd not exactly be my place to turn.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Literature about Autism, Limited As It Is
In relation to a personal project, I was looking for new literature regarding autism. At school, I don't have much, and I don't exactly remember what I have at home, so I went shopping for some new stuff. I was looking possibly for autobiography, but mostly literary and psychological analysis.
And, wow, was I disappointed in some ways.
I found some interesting things, but on the whole I was surprised how easily the very numerous amounts of books could be group into rather simple categories. There was the help guides, autobiography (more limited than I knew it was, but still quite a bit out there), environmental-blame books, the help guides, the inspirational stories, a little bit of non-fiction, an even smaller amount of work in the humanities, the larger body of psychological analysis, and the help guides.
Oh, did I mention the help guides?
I was really surprised by the sheer volume. It was hard to get a full grasp of what was said in all of them, though some were more interesting than others at glance by means of the concepts in the review. Indeed, it makes sense, considering that people really don't have experience in raising autistics or living as one in a non-autistic society (and there are very significant differences). But you begin to wonder, looking through all of the titles, how many of them could actually stick out from the others, and often if they were saying anything useful.
Then there were the inspirational stories, the ones that I tend to dislike. Think in terms of Jenn McCarthy's Louder than Words. I dislike them in large part because they always claim to have eradicated the autism (and never have), sometimes promote a "miracle" (where there is none), and tend to promote the view that autism somehow "takes" the child away (if that happened, I'm really not coming back, am I?).
The general literature coming from the scientific and psychological perspective is present, as one would hope. I don't agree with all of it, but it's in large far more on the ball than anything else. And even when I don't agree with it, I can see rationally why the author came to the conclusion and under what assumptions it was made, which is far less exasperating than the dramatic leap of salvation.
Overall, though, it was frustrating to very little otherwise unique literature. It did exist, and I definently grabbed most of what I thought interesting (with one notable exception; while the children's stories in relation to autism were heartwarming and facinating to see, they were not suitable for my purposes), it was still the far minority of the work. Perhaps there will be more diversity in the literature soon, but right now there's just not nearly enough.
As an end, I want to thank those from the humanities who, indeed, did write on the subject, because I think that perspective really puts a necessary frame on autism. It beats out a self-help guide any day.
And, wow, was I disappointed in some ways.
I found some interesting things, but on the whole I was surprised how easily the very numerous amounts of books could be group into rather simple categories. There was the help guides, autobiography (more limited than I knew it was, but still quite a bit out there), environmental-blame books, the help guides, the inspirational stories, a little bit of non-fiction, an even smaller amount of work in the humanities, the larger body of psychological analysis, and the help guides.
Oh, did I mention the help guides?
I was really surprised by the sheer volume. It was hard to get a full grasp of what was said in all of them, though some were more interesting than others at glance by means of the concepts in the review. Indeed, it makes sense, considering that people really don't have experience in raising autistics or living as one in a non-autistic society (and there are very significant differences). But you begin to wonder, looking through all of the titles, how many of them could actually stick out from the others, and often if they were saying anything useful.
Then there were the inspirational stories, the ones that I tend to dislike. Think in terms of Jenn McCarthy's Louder than Words. I dislike them in large part because they always claim to have eradicated the autism (and never have), sometimes promote a "miracle" (where there is none), and tend to promote the view that autism somehow "takes" the child away (if that happened, I'm really not coming back, am I?).
The general literature coming from the scientific and psychological perspective is present, as one would hope. I don't agree with all of it, but it's in large far more on the ball than anything else. And even when I don't agree with it, I can see rationally why the author came to the conclusion and under what assumptions it was made, which is far less exasperating than the dramatic leap of salvation.
Overall, though, it was frustrating to very little otherwise unique literature. It did exist, and I definently grabbed most of what I thought interesting (with one notable exception; while the children's stories in relation to autism were heartwarming and facinating to see, they were not suitable for my purposes), it was still the far minority of the work. Perhaps there will be more diversity in the literature soon, but right now there's just not nearly enough.
As an end, I want to thank those from the humanities who, indeed, did write on the subject, because I think that perspective really puts a necessary frame on autism. It beats out a self-help guide any day.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Laugh and Redirect
As if Sunday wasn't enough!
After my first day of air traffic mess, in which I never got off the ground, as described here, I thought that the next day would be easy. Not so, as it turned out. I almost missed the person who was going to drive me back to the school from the airport (no short drive, and nothing you want to use a taxi for), after my flight to school was delayed in Atlanta. And I was so concerned that it became such that I wasn't able to sleep.
So I stumbled around to my first classes, and learned that I'm going to have to run very fast (I scheduled a class close to the first in another building, but at least I know the rooms now), and tomorrow I'll have to get the syllabus. And, worse yet, I wasn't able to get a new card that would let me into my building (which was missing) because the people who could are ill or on jury duty, apparently.
I remember when these kind of circumstances would really bother me, and more than being a little perturbed. Of course, the response was different depending on the circumstances, but I would probably put a good bet that all of this would make me pretty angry, and quite potentially ruin a day. It probably would for a lot of people, actually, but probably more so for an autistic, where there is generally more intense focus.
Now, I'm even surprised by my total lack of reaction. Even within some rather stark confines, it just goes right past me. Where I usually would be at least annoyed, and probably visibly so, it's very different now.
I think this highlights one of the more important skills an autistic needs to learn in order to work in a normal context; the ability to redirect focus.
This might seem particularly normal, but it ignores that, at least comparatively, a non-autistic doesn't hold focus. From my autistic perspective, most others can't seem to keep on a subject for a significant lack of me. For their part, they'd call me a stubborn bastard, a title I'll gladly hold over the alternative, truth be told.
But, as useful as that can actually be, it's also an issue because such compounding circumstances will easily overwhelm someone who focuses on circumstances, wants to fix them (as most probably would), and doesn't come up with any good ideas. That scenario has been played so often in my life, it's become a bad joke in some degree. Mind you, it can be an extremely serious thing, as it can lead to excessive stress, but it's amusing, looking at it from the perspective of when it's not happening when it should be, at least traditionally.
Mind you, this is far different from moving on. It remains in the mind, as that's not to be helped, but the focus on the actions and circumstances of that changes, and it allows you to effectively keep the thought without suppressing it while not being controlled by it. So it'd be inaccurate to say that it was to dismiss the thought. Honestly, I'm not really sure if I ever truly moved on in regards to anything, and I'm not going to think that it will happen, either.
A better question, I suppose, is what to teach to avoid it, and I'm not really sure I can answer that well. I learned by myself, and the line of thinking was somewhat existentialist in nature, which is probably not a practical thing to teach. But it's important to note to one in that position, I think, that the energy could really be better spent, and it might not be a bad idea to give a specific example, and perhaps pointing out the worst-case scenario as it really is, as sometimes the worst-case scenario is pretty minor.
In any event, I am now, rather than annoyed, somewhat amused, oddly enough, by the lack of being able to get in and out of my own building without help (a few layers there to laugh at). Maybe I could care more if I had something more significant at stake (I can wait outside in the cold for a while, no problem), but I know that, where I would have once been annoyed, I laugh and redirect, not to be confused with laugh and move on.
After my first day of air traffic mess, in which I never got off the ground, as described here, I thought that the next day would be easy. Not so, as it turned out. I almost missed the person who was going to drive me back to the school from the airport (no short drive, and nothing you want to use a taxi for), after my flight to school was delayed in Atlanta. And I was so concerned that it became such that I wasn't able to sleep.
So I stumbled around to my first classes, and learned that I'm going to have to run very fast (I scheduled a class close to the first in another building, but at least I know the rooms now), and tomorrow I'll have to get the syllabus. And, worse yet, I wasn't able to get a new card that would let me into my building (which was missing) because the people who could are ill or on jury duty, apparently.
I remember when these kind of circumstances would really bother me, and more than being a little perturbed. Of course, the response was different depending on the circumstances, but I would probably put a good bet that all of this would make me pretty angry, and quite potentially ruin a day. It probably would for a lot of people, actually, but probably more so for an autistic, where there is generally more intense focus.
Now, I'm even surprised by my total lack of reaction. Even within some rather stark confines, it just goes right past me. Where I usually would be at least annoyed, and probably visibly so, it's very different now.
I think this highlights one of the more important skills an autistic needs to learn in order to work in a normal context; the ability to redirect focus.
This might seem particularly normal, but it ignores that, at least comparatively, a non-autistic doesn't hold focus. From my autistic perspective, most others can't seem to keep on a subject for a significant lack of me. For their part, they'd call me a stubborn bastard, a title I'll gladly hold over the alternative, truth be told.
But, as useful as that can actually be, it's also an issue because such compounding circumstances will easily overwhelm someone who focuses on circumstances, wants to fix them (as most probably would), and doesn't come up with any good ideas. That scenario has been played so often in my life, it's become a bad joke in some degree. Mind you, it can be an extremely serious thing, as it can lead to excessive stress, but it's amusing, looking at it from the perspective of when it's not happening when it should be, at least traditionally.
Mind you, this is far different from moving on. It remains in the mind, as that's not to be helped, but the focus on the actions and circumstances of that changes, and it allows you to effectively keep the thought without suppressing it while not being controlled by it. So it'd be inaccurate to say that it was to dismiss the thought. Honestly, I'm not really sure if I ever truly moved on in regards to anything, and I'm not going to think that it will happen, either.
A better question, I suppose, is what to teach to avoid it, and I'm not really sure I can answer that well. I learned by myself, and the line of thinking was somewhat existentialist in nature, which is probably not a practical thing to teach. But it's important to note to one in that position, I think, that the energy could really be better spent, and it might not be a bad idea to give a specific example, and perhaps pointing out the worst-case scenario as it really is, as sometimes the worst-case scenario is pretty minor.
In any event, I am now, rather than annoyed, somewhat amused, oddly enough, by the lack of being able to get in and out of my own building without help (a few layers there to laugh at). Maybe I could care more if I had something more significant at stake (I can wait outside in the cold for a while, no problem), but I know that, where I would have once been annoyed, I laugh and redirect, not to be confused with laugh and move on.
Hello!
This is my new blog location. I've been maintaining a blog at crimsonthoughts.spaces.live.com. But, for various reasons, I have chosen, indeed, to move to this location. Thanks for reading here, some good material to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
