6 ms·

Nobody is saying people should be thrown into the proverbial fire, but the answer is absolutely not to encourage disengagement. This is true across many disorde

Nobody is saying people should be thrown into the proverbial fire, but the answer is absolutely not to encourage disengagement. This is true across many disorders. To treat an anxiety issue you slowly introduce increasing amounts of the trigger to the person. You don't tell them it's okay to spend their life avoiding it. Some amount of discomfort is necessary. I agree it is a hard balance to strike, as I mentioned in my other comment, but I think much of the current rhetoric surrounding neurodivergence is taking accommodation to the extreme. There are many degrees to "harming health", what I am referring to harms health in a similar way as encouraging an obese person to eat whatever they want. It's a slow burn. Failure to keep on top of cleanliness, appointments, groceries, etc. is one type of example. Failure to compromise with friends which over time degrades relationships is another. Not fixing something that is wrong because you are otherwise happy is exactly the fallacy I am talking about. It's not just some theoretical world where the person was never deaf, because for a number of children that grow up deaf they did not actually have to! Sure you can't disentangle things like "I never would have met my wife if I weren't deaf" - but there are so many random choices like what college you go to where one could say the same thing. It's just a secular version of "God has a plan" type thinking. There is nothing inherent to being deaf that caused any of the person's happiness. The connection is literally just a matter of plugging in different words - a deaf person being happier than a hearing person does not mean deafness isn't an impairment for them, in the same way that someone with a learning disability performing better in school than a typical child doesn't mean the LD doesn't impair them. But that was a misconception among the people that should have been helping those students, for a long time. The point was pretty obviously not that helping those students would help them, but rather that they were not helped because of a sentiment similar to what you are pushing. It's an attitude to be discouraged, yet for some reason there is now this trend in parts of the neurodivergent community to encourage it - I'm a good person/successful/happy/whatever so clearly there isn't anything at all wrong with me. If you literally decline a treatment that would improve your life (or even worse do so for your child!) because you've somehow deluded yourself into thinking your disability is good for you, that's very obviously a bad thing, and that is exactly what this overly prideful attitude breeds, as can be seen on full display already with deaf culture. In a world where there is absolutely nothing we could do about deafness, sure let deaf people think they have some sort of secret advantage over all us hearing normies. But in reality there are things we can do, so we should be encouraging people to get help.

zepto 5y ago
> This is true across many disorders. To treat an anxiety issue you slowly introduce increasing amounts of the trigger to the person. There is no evidence that autism is like anxiety or can be ‘treated’ with exposure therapy. We don’t encourage people with light skin to increasingly expose themselves to sunlight. > You don't tell them it's okay to spend their life avoiding it. Why not? There is a very wide range of possible lifestyles and occupations. Why shouldn’t someone choose to spend their life in a way that is consonant with the way their mind and body works? We encourage light skinned people to carefully manage their sun exposure because their skin is sensitive to it. What is different about encouraging autistic people to limit their social exposure? > There are many degrees to "harming health", what I am referring to harms health in a similar way as encouraging an obese person to eat whatever they want. It's a slow burn. There is no similarity with obesity at all. It’s not an analogy or model for autism. > Failure to keep on top of cleanliness, appointments, groceries, etc. is one type of example. This is a misattribution of cause. Not doing these things is an observed effect, not a cause. What has ‘failed’? If you can identify that then we can reason about what might be helpful. > Failure to compromise with friends which over time degrades relationships is another. See above - you are misattributing cause. Perhaps the issue is not having the right friends. Compromising in order to keep unhealthy relationships going is generally bad for everyone. > Not fixing something that is wrong because you are otherwise happy is exactly the fallacy I am talking about. How do you reason that something wrong with a persons if they are happy other than by comparison with other people? Wrongness in this instance is just an attribute in the mind of someone making such a comparison. > It's not just some theoretical world where the person was never deaf, because for a number of children that grow up deaf they did not actually have to! What proportion of children grow up deaf who did not have to? Are you implying that people are autistic who don’t have to be? > a deaf person being happier than a hearing person does not mean deafness isn't an impairment for them Impairment relative to whom? > in the same way that someone with a learning disability performing better in school than a typical child doesn't mean the LD doesn't impair them. Impairment relative to whom? “Billie Eilish suffers a physiological impairment which prevents her from playing basketball in the MBA. Fortunately she has been able to accommodate this impairment by singing instead. Someone suggested that gradual and increasing exposure to basketball might help, but she is glad she chose to just avoid basketball courts in general.” > but rather that they were not helped because of a sentiment similar to what you are pushing Let’s refrain from making accusations. It’s against HN guidelines. > If you literally decline a treatment that would improve your life (or even worse do so for your child!) because you've somehow deluded yourself into thinking your disability is good for you, that's very obviously a bad thing, You can’t tell in advance whether a treatment will improve someone’s life. You also can’t know if a disability is good for someone. To call this a delusion is to claim you understand someone’s life better than they do. If we had strong signal about autism treatments doing so in general, it would be obvious. We don’t have a consensus scientific model of what autism even is, let alone treatments that predictably improve an arbitrary person’s life. > and that is exactly what this overly prideful attitude breeds, as can be seen on full display already with deaf culture. Or it could be that we just don’t have good treatments for autism and that autistic people can also live better lives by not attempting to fix themselves. > In a world where there is absolutely nothing we could do about deafness, sure let deaf people think they have some sort of secret advantage over all us hearing normies. I refer you to the earlier question - what proportion of deaf people are deaf because they refused treatment? > But in reality there are things we can do, How do you know they are worth it? > so we should be encouraging people to get help. I am curious to know whether you have any statistics on the kinds of help available and the outcomes. Clearly without such information this is an incorrect statement.

zepto 5y ago

> This is true across many disorders. To treat an anxiety issue you slowly introduce increasing amounts of the trigger to the person. There is no evidence that autism is like anxiety or can be ‘treated’ with exposure therapy. We don’t encourage people with light skin to increasingly expose themselves to sunlight. > You don't tell them it's okay to spend their life avoiding it. Why not? There is a very wide range of possible lifestyles and occupations. Why shouldn’t someone choose to spend their life in a way that is consonant with the way their mind and body works? We encourage light skinned people to carefully manage their sun exposure because their skin is sensitive to it. What is different about encouraging autistic people to limit their social exposure? > There are many degrees to "harming health", what I am referring to harms health in a similar way as encouraging an obese person to eat whatever they want. It's a slow burn. There is no similarity with obesity at all. It’s not an analogy or model for autism. > Failure to keep on top of cleanliness, appointments, groceries, etc. is one type of example. This is a misattribution of cause. Not doing these things is an observed effect, not a cause. What has ‘failed’? If you can identify that then we can reason about what might be helpful. > Failure to compromise with friends which over time degrades relationships is another. See above - you are misattributing cause. Perhaps the issue is not having the right friends. Compromising in order to keep unhealthy relationships going is generally bad for everyone. > Not fixing something that is wrong because you are otherwise happy is exactly the fallacy I am talking about. How do you reason that something wrong with a persons if they are happy other than by comparison with other people? Wrongness in this instance is just an attribute in the mind of someone making such a comparison. > It's not just some theoretical world where the person was never deaf, because for a number of children that grow up deaf they did not actually have to! What proportion of children grow up deaf who did not have to? Are you implying that people are autistic who don’t have to be? > a deaf person being happier than a hearing person does not mean deafness isn't an impairment for them Impairment relative to whom? > in the same way that someone with a learning disability performing better in school than a typical child doesn't mean the LD doesn't impair them. Impairment relative to whom? “Billie Eilish suffers a physiological impairment which prevents her from playing basketball in the MBA. Fortunately she has been able to accommodate this impairment by singing instead. Someone suggested that gradual and increasing exposure to basketball might help, but she is glad she chose to just avoid basketball courts in general.” > but rather that they were not helped because of a sentiment similar to what you are pushing Let’s refrain from making accusations. It’s against HN guidelines. > If you literally decline a treatment that would improve your life (or even worse do so for your child!) because you've somehow deluded yourself into thinking your disability is good for you, that's very obviously a bad thing, You can’t tell in advance whether a treatment will improve someone’s life. You also can’t know if a disability is good for someone. To call this a delusion is to claim you understand someone’s life better than they do. If we had strong signal about autism treatments doing so in general, it would be obvious. We don’t have a consensus scientific model of what autism even is, let alone treatments that predictably improve an arbitrary person’s life. > and that is exactly what this overly prideful attitude breeds, as can be seen on full display already with deaf culture. Or it could be that we just don’t have good treatments for autism and that autistic people can also live better lives by not attempting to fix themselves. > In a world where there is absolutely nothing we could do about deafness, sure let deaf people think they have some sort of secret advantage over all us hearing normies. I refer you to the earlier question - what proportion of deaf people are deaf because they refused treatment? > But in reality there are things we can do, How do you know they are worth it? > so we should be encouraging people to get help. I am curious to know whether you have any statistics on the kinds of help available and the outcomes. Clearly without such information this is an incorrect statement.