5 ms·

> Their goal is not to accept autistic people as who they are or try to push for the general public (or perhaps "their agenda being") to accept them as who they

> Their goal is not to accept autistic people as who they are or try to push for the general public (or perhaps "their agenda being") to accept them as who they are, but to outright eliminate the existence of what we know as Autism as a whole, which can politely be called "curing" Yes. It's a mental disorder. You can try sweettalking what it is, but mild versions of autism are already insanely disruptive, both to the parents, but also to all other children and people that are forced to interact with them, for example in a classroom setting, where any autistic kid will take more than their fair share of the teacher's attention. But god forbid if you have a child with low-functioning or severe autism. You might as well give up all plans you had for the foreseeable future.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
> for example in a classroom setting, where any autistic kid will take more than their fair share of the teacher's attention. Ah yes, the classroom environment, where children are not treated like people. Woe betide somebody objects to that! “Mental disorder” – how is that defined? Saying “mental disorders are bad, autism is a mental disorder, therefore autism is bad” is the non-central fallacy, so obviously you must have a better argument (and I just can't see it). But remember: homosexuality used to be considered a “mental disorder”, as did women wanting the vote (I'm not joking!). I posit: “mental disorder” is just a word for people who diverge from what society considers typical (or, cynically, acceptable) variation in what people are like. Some of that variation is bad, I won't argue with that. Most of that variation is absolutely fine. The way society is means that any atypical variation is bad, because society punishes it. If not for that punishment, much variation would be a non-issue.
- AllegedAlec 5y ago
  > Ah yes, the classroom environment, where children are not treated like people. Woe betide somebody objects to that! They don't object. They throw tantrums because they didn't get a 2 week advance warning of something happening. > “Mental disorder” – how is that defined? DSM-V: a syndrome characterized by *clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior* that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning. Mental disorders are bad by definition. Psychologists don't put behaviours in their diagnostic manuals for nothing. Autism is in there for a reason. At its mild end it's a hurdle. At its severe end it's absolutely debilitating for the sufferer and their entire network. > I posit: “mental disorder” is just a word for people who diverge from what society considers typical (or, cynically, acceptable) variation in what people are like. Some of that variation is bad, I won't argue with that. Most of that variation is absolutely fine. I suggest you go read through the DSM. A major criterium for each mental illness is that the personis hampered in their function by it.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    > They don't object. They throw tantrums because they didn't get a 2 week advance warning of something happening. “Something happening”… or “adults deciding things while ignoring the needs and desires of the children”? Most of these situations follow a pattern, in my experience: • Society decides what things may matter and what things may not. • Adult unilaterally changes things that It Is Unreasonable To Care About. • Child is not allowed to care about them. • Child is not allowed to object. • Child is not allowed to be distracted by the change from What The Child Must Pay Attention To. • Child must pay attention, immediately, and cease this ridiculous behaviour. • Child “has a tantrum” (a word that does not distinguish between “deliberate disruption as a protest / spiteful action”, “inability to contain frustration / anger” and “meltdown”). > Mental disorders are bad by definition. Psychologists don't put behaviours in their diagnostic manuals for nothing. I never claimed that they did, and you're not addressing what I've said. > I suggest you go read through the DSM. I suggest you have a little look at DSM II's “302” section. > This category is for individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily toward objects other than people of the opposite sex, “hampered in their function” requires you to define “function”, and that's usually defined as “ability to fit into society's little box”. While we've made the box a bit bigger (when we don't have to put much effort into it), plenty of benign-of-themselves variations in what people are like are still outside that box, and still punished unnecessarily. If cyanide was a regular ingredient in food, people with normal levels of mitochondrial rhodanese would be “hampered in their function” – they wouldn't be able to eat even a tenth of the cyanide-containing food a normal person could eat without straight-up dying! You or I would therefore have a disability that just doesn't exist in our society, without any change having occurred to us.
    - AllegedAlec 5y ago
      > “Something happening”… or “adults deciding things while ignoring the needs and desires of the children”? Most of these situations follow a pattern, in my experience: See my comment towards the other reply. The school thing was an example. Please don't get stuck upon that. You seem to have beef with the entire school system. Fair, maybe, but besides the point. > If cyanide was a regular ingredient in food, people with normal levels of mitochondrial rhodanese would be “hampered in their function” – they wouldn't be able to eat even a tenth of the cyanide-containing food a normal person could eat without straight-up dying! You or I would therefore have a disability that just doesn't exist in our society, without any change having occurred to us. So you're argument is "it's not they who don't fit, it's society who doesn't fit them", which may be true, but it extremely unhelpful and a pipe dream. It's all well and good to say "society should change to include people who don't fit", but we've been a social species with complex social interactions for over 20 kiloyears. Asking to change that because of a very small percentage is both inpractical and quite self-centered.
sidlls 5y ago
As opposed to the juvenile delinquents, impoverished kids who don’t have access to tools for basic hygiene like running water or electricity (that was me at various points during my school years), and various other issues taking up “more than their fair share”? What you’ve identified isn’t the autistic kids’ fault, it’s the miserly taxpayers’, incompetent admins’, and corrupt/spiteful politicians’, who don’t adequately fund or organize our public school systems.
- AllegedAlec 5y ago
  > As opposed to the juvenile delinquents, impoverished kids who don’t have access to tools for basic hygiene like running water or electricity (that was me at various points during my school years), and various other issues taking up “more than their fair share”? No, in addition to. > What you’ve identified isn’t the autistic kids’ fault, it’s the miserly taxpayers’, incompetent admins’, and corrupt/spiteful politicians’, who don’t adequately fund or organize our public school systems. It is though. Their unique blend of disability makes them inherrently unsuitable to any task that involves a group of other children. That's not to say we should blame them for it, but this is not something you can reasonably fix by throwing money at education. I'd like to emphasize though that I meant the schooling issue as one of the many examples you could pick where autistic people are both at a disadvantage and are a detriment to the group. Please don't get stuck on this one example.
  - sidlls 5y ago
    You’re not even wrong.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    > Their unique blend of disability makes them inherrently unsuitable to any task that involves a group of other children. Within the school system, which forces them to do so in the adults' way. Interesting that this “unsuitability to any task that involves a group of other children” tends to show up when the children aren't allowed to self-organise; in environments where children get to choose their own games, most autistic children are perfectly fine playing with their friends. The problem comes when you try to force them to do things the way you want them to, and they find that difficult or don't want to. This is not the children's problem; this is adults on power trips. You know the best teacher I ever had? The Reception and Year One teacher who distinguished between children and adults by whether they went to her school; who made me cross twice (justifiably cross, once); who would have children ask her to resolve disputes when they couldn't resolve them themselves; who gave the Year Sixes a budget and a catalogue and let them order the playground equipment; who talked to me about educational psychology and Game of Thrones when I was ten; whose class always (well, 99%) lined up at the end of playtime within 20 seconds, and patiently waited for an average of several minutes (I counted) for everyone else to line up; who was respected second only to the head teacher (who people were a bit scared of because he was the head teacher); who shouted perhaps four times I'm aware of, and never at her class because they were already paying attention to her; who never had any problems with “disruption” from the autistic kids (only from the biters, and the mute girl who kept hitting people). Pretty sure she was autistic, too (if I remember one of our conversations right). Funny how that works out. > I'd like to emphasize though that I meant the schooling issue as one of the many examples you could pick where autistic people are both at a disadvantage and are a detriment to the group. I'm sorry, I'm not aware of any examples where autistic people are “a detriment to the group”. You'll have to provide them, I'm afraid.
s5300 5y ago
So is psychopathy, sociopathy, and narcissism, something we find in the CEO's of companies who've done essentially unfixable damage to Earth's ecosystem and killed/severely damaged millions of people along the way with zero recourse. Should we eradicate these mental disorders from the gene pool as well? I think many think we would be much better off as a species without them...
- AllegedAlec 5y ago
  > Should we eradicate these mental disorders from the gene pool as well? I'd put it in a slightly less... Hitlery way, maybe.
chownie 5y ago
It's really disheartening to read stuff like this as an autistic person. So let's dispense with some of the mythology: > Yes. It's a mental disorder. More accurately it's a neurodevelopmental disorder. It's not like OCD or depression which can come on with age and be mediated with therapy, it's more like the albinism of the brain. I recall reading studies that point toward autism being characteristic of over-eager neuron connectivity but I don't know if that's actually accurate or not. > You can try sweettalking what it is, but mild versions of autism are already insanely disruptive There is no "mild", "severe" or "low functioning" autism, these labels are not descriptive. Autistic people have a spiky profile, they struggle/excel at different things in the categories of language, perception, executive function, motor control and sensory processing. "Low functioning" is used to deny people agency, "high functioning" is used to deny people support. Neither of these terms tend to be used by autistic people because they aren't at all useful. If you're someone who struggles with sounds and you're in a busy office then people will rate your functioning lower than if you're in a quiet office, environment affects everyone's ability to function it's just more obvious in people who specifically struggle with that stimulus. > both to the parents, but also to all other children and people that are forced to interact with them What do you mean by "forced to interact with them"? I can guarantee you have interacted with autistic people throughout your life without knowing some of them are autistic, and without some of them knowing they're autistic too. The very fact that adults get diagnosed with autism kind of flies in the face of this idea you seem to have that we're all severely disabled people that good ol' normal people are "forced to interact with" What you think of as severe autism is more likely autism in addition to another developmental disability. Autism is diagnosed by behavioural analysis but the conditions for failure arent specific, so any learning disability can potentially be shortcut diagnosed as autism and this is often the case for people who start out incapable of communication.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  > What you think of as severe autism is more likely autism in addition to another developmental disability. A reasonable guess, but if that was the case we would expect low functioning autism to be extremely uncommon compared to either "mild" autism or other developmental issues, since very few kids would happen to fall under both conditions. Unfortunately, low functioning is more common than that, common enough in fact that some people think of it as the typical case of autism itself.

wizzwizz4 5y ago

> for example in a classroom setting, where any autistic kid will take more than their fair share of the teacher's attention. Ah yes, the classroom environment, where children are not treated like people. Woe betide somebody objects to that! “Mental disorder” – how is that defined? Saying “mental disorders are bad, autism is a mental disorder, therefore autism is bad” is the non-central fallacy, so obviously you must have a better argument (and I just can't see it). But remember: homosexuality used to be considered a “mental disorder”, as did women wanting the vote (I'm not joking!). I posit: “mental disorder” is just a word for people who diverge from what society considers typical (or, cynically, acceptable) variation in what people are like. Some of that variation is bad, I won't argue with that. Most of that variation is absolutely fine. The way society is means that any atypical variation is bad, because society punishes it. If not for that punishment, much variation would be a non-issue.

AllegedAlec 5y ago
> Ah yes, the classroom environment, where children are not treated like people. Woe betide somebody objects to that! They don't object. They throw tantrums because they didn't get a 2 week advance warning of something happening. > “Mental disorder” – how is that defined? DSM-V: a syndrome characterized by *clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior* that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning. Mental disorders are bad by definition. Psychologists don't put behaviours in their diagnostic manuals for nothing. Autism is in there for a reason. At its mild end it's a hurdle. At its severe end it's absolutely debilitating for the sufferer and their entire network. > I posit: “mental disorder” is just a word for people who diverge from what society considers typical (or, cynically, acceptable) variation in what people are like. Some of that variation is bad, I won't argue with that. Most of that variation is absolutely fine. I suggest you go read through the DSM. A major criterium for each mental illness is that the personis hampered in their function by it.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  > They don't object. They throw tantrums because they didn't get a 2 week advance warning of something happening. “Something happening”… or “adults deciding things while ignoring the needs and desires of the children”? Most of these situations follow a pattern, in my experience: • Society decides what things may matter and what things may not. • Adult unilaterally changes things that It Is Unreasonable To Care About. • Child is not allowed to care about them. • Child is not allowed to object. • Child is not allowed to be distracted by the change from What The Child Must Pay Attention To. • Child must pay attention, immediately, and cease this ridiculous behaviour. • Child “has a tantrum” (a word that does not distinguish between “deliberate disruption as a protest / spiteful action”, “inability to contain frustration / anger” and “meltdown”). > Mental disorders are bad by definition. Psychologists don't put behaviours in their diagnostic manuals for nothing. I never claimed that they did, and you're not addressing what I've said. > I suggest you go read through the DSM. I suggest you have a little look at DSM II's “302” section. > This category is for individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily toward objects other than people of the opposite sex, “hampered in their function” requires you to define “function”, and that's usually defined as “ability to fit into society's little box”. While we've made the box a bit bigger (when we don't have to put much effort into it), plenty of benign-of-themselves variations in what people are like are still outside that box, and still punished unnecessarily. If cyanide was a regular ingredient in food, people with normal levels of mitochondrial rhodanese would be “hampered in their function” – they wouldn't be able to eat even a tenth of the cyanide-containing food a normal person could eat without straight-up dying! You or I would therefore have a disability that just doesn't exist in our society, without any change having occurred to us.
  - AllegedAlec 5y ago
    > “Something happening”… or “adults deciding things while ignoring the needs and desires of the children”? Most of these situations follow a pattern, in my experience: See my comment towards the other reply. The school thing was an example. Please don't get stuck upon that. You seem to have beef with the entire school system. Fair, maybe, but besides the point. > If cyanide was a regular ingredient in food, people with normal levels of mitochondrial rhodanese would be “hampered in their function” – they wouldn't be able to eat even a tenth of the cyanide-containing food a normal person could eat without straight-up dying! You or I would therefore have a disability that just doesn't exist in our society, without any change having occurred to us. So you're argument is "it's not they who don't fit, it's society who doesn't fit them", which may be true, but it extremely unhelpful and a pipe dream. It's all well and good to say "society should change to include people who don't fit", but we've been a social species with complex social interactions for over 20 kiloyears. Asking to change that because of a very small percentage is both inpractical and quite self-centered.

sidlls 5y ago

As opposed to the juvenile delinquents, impoverished kids who don’t have access to tools for basic hygiene like running water or electricity (that was me at various points during my school years), and various other issues taking up “more than their fair share”? What you’ve identified isn’t the autistic kids’ fault, it’s the miserly taxpayers’, incompetent admins’, and corrupt/spiteful politicians’, who don’t adequately fund or organize our public school systems.

AllegedAlec 5y ago
> As opposed to the juvenile delinquents, impoverished kids who don’t have access to tools for basic hygiene like running water or electricity (that was me at various points during my school years), and various other issues taking up “more than their fair share”? No, in addition to. > What you’ve identified isn’t the autistic kids’ fault, it’s the miserly taxpayers’, incompetent admins’, and corrupt/spiteful politicians’, who don’t adequately fund or organize our public school systems. It is though. Their unique blend of disability makes them inherrently unsuitable to any task that involves a group of other children. That's not to say we should blame them for it, but this is not something you can reasonably fix by throwing money at education. I'd like to emphasize though that I meant the schooling issue as one of the many examples you could pick where autistic people are both at a disadvantage and are a detriment to the group. Please don't get stuck on this one example.
- sidlls 5y ago
  You’re not even wrong.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  > Their unique blend of disability makes them inherrently unsuitable to any task that involves a group of other children. Within the school system, which forces them to do so in the adults' way. Interesting that this “unsuitability to any task that involves a group of other children” tends to show up when the children aren't allowed to self-organise; in environments where children get to choose their own games, most autistic children are perfectly fine playing with their friends. The problem comes when you try to force them to do things the way you want them to, and they find that difficult or don't want to. This is not the children's problem; this is adults on power trips. You know the best teacher I ever had? The Reception and Year One teacher who distinguished between children and adults by whether they went to her school; who made me cross twice (justifiably cross, once); who would have children ask her to resolve disputes when they couldn't resolve them themselves; who gave the Year Sixes a budget and a catalogue and let them order the playground equipment; who talked to me about educational psychology and Game of Thrones when I was ten; whose class always (well, 99%) lined up at the end of playtime within 20 seconds, and patiently waited for an average of several minutes (I counted) for everyone else to line up; who was respected second only to the head teacher (who people were a bit scared of because he was the head teacher); who shouted perhaps four times I'm aware of, and never at her class because they were already paying attention to her; who never had any problems with “disruption” from the autistic kids (only from the biters, and the mute girl who kept hitting people). Pretty sure she was autistic, too (if I remember one of our conversations right). Funny how that works out. > I'd like to emphasize though that I meant the schooling issue as one of the many examples you could pick where autistic people are both at a disadvantage and are a detriment to the group. I'm sorry, I'm not aware of any examples where autistic people are “a detriment to the group”. You'll have to provide them, I'm afraid.

s5300 5y ago

So is psychopathy, sociopathy, and narcissism, something we find in the CEO's of companies who've done essentially unfixable damage to Earth's ecosystem and killed/severely damaged millions of people along the way with zero recourse. Should we eradicate these mental disorders from the gene pool as well? I think many think we would be much better off as a species without them...

AllegedAlec 5y ago
> Should we eradicate these mental disorders from the gene pool as well? I'd put it in a slightly less... Hitlery way, maybe.

chownie 5y ago

It's really disheartening to read stuff like this as an autistic person. So let's dispense with some of the mythology: > Yes. It's a mental disorder. More accurately it's a neurodevelopmental disorder. It's not like OCD or depression which can come on with age and be mediated with therapy, it's more like the albinism of the brain. I recall reading studies that point toward autism being characteristic of over-eager neuron connectivity but I don't know if that's actually accurate or not. > You can try sweettalking what it is, but mild versions of autism are already insanely disruptive There is no "mild", "severe" or "low functioning" autism, these labels are not descriptive. Autistic people have a spiky profile, they struggle/excel at different things in the categories of language, perception, executive function, motor control and sensory processing. "Low functioning" is used to deny people agency, "high functioning" is used to deny people support. Neither of these terms tend to be used by autistic people because they aren't at all useful. If you're someone who struggles with sounds and you're in a busy office then people will rate your functioning lower than if you're in a quiet office, environment affects everyone's ability to function it's just more obvious in people who specifically struggle with that stimulus. > both to the parents, but also to all other children and people that are forced to interact with them What do you mean by "forced to interact with them"? I can guarantee you have interacted with autistic people throughout your life without knowing some of them are autistic, and without some of them knowing they're autistic too. The very fact that adults get diagnosed with autism kind of flies in the face of this idea you seem to have that we're all severely disabled people that good ol' normal people are "forced to interact with" What you think of as severe autism is more likely autism in addition to another developmental disability. Autism is diagnosed by behavioural analysis but the conditions for failure arent specific, so any learning disability can potentially be shortcut diagnosed as autism and this is often the case for people who start out incapable of communication.

zozbot234 5y ago
> What you think of as severe autism is more likely autism in addition to another developmental disability. A reasonable guess, but if that was the case we would expect low functioning autism to be extremely uncommon compared to either "mild" autism or other developmental issues, since very few kids would happen to fall under both conditions. Unfortunately, low functioning is more common than that, common enough in fact that some people think of it as the typical case of autism itself.