4 ms·

> social model of disability Scott Alexander convincingly argues against that model and provides a better one: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/contra-the-soci

by NavinF 2y ago

> social model of disability Scott Alexander convincingly argues against that model and provides a better one: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/contra-the-social-model-of-disability https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/contra-the-social-model-of-...

dahauns 2y ago
Not that I disagree with Alexander here, but sometimes it feels like I'm taking crazy pills - this kind of integrated model has been WHO standard for over twenty years.
- NavinF 2y ago
  As he noted, many people claim to use an integrated model. It's a motte and bailey. >I’ve never heard anyone willing to defend the actual Social Model the way it’s taught in every course, written on every website, and defined by every government agency. Everyone says they mean the Interactionist Model. Yet somehow, the official descriptions still say that disability is only social and not related to disease, and that you may only treat it with accommodations and not with medical care. > the topic is taught in a way that only occasionally nods to such a compromise; more often the Medical Model is condemned as outdated and bigoted, and the Social Model introduced as the new, acceptable version that people should use He quotes many sources that take the social model literally even in the 2020s
  - dahauns 2y ago
    Yeah...I actually didn't want to get all, well, "geographical", but I can't help wonder if that's a US thing? At least here in Austria, the biopsychosocial model has been standard in teaching for a long time, and while it will still take some time for the generational shift in practice to conclude, monofactorial models have generally been accepted as being obsolete. And regarding the BPS model: I stand corrected about my agreement - the point he makes about it I very much disagree with: >This isn’t an exact match for a model of disability; the Biopsychosocial Model is most often used to explain the causes of illness, not how it impairs people. Still, I think there is a close enough analogy that it could be easily extended to disability. He really shoud at least have read the Beginners Guide to the WHO ICF (which is deeply rooted in the BPSM) https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/icf-beginner-s-guide-towards-a-common-language-for-functioning-disability-and-health https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/icf-beginner-s-guide... Both the model as a model of disability and a focus on impairment can be found front and center.
    - NavinF 2y ago
      Considering that all of Scott's quoted sources are American, I wouldn't be surprised if your country doesn't have the same issue. I assure you that a lot of American institutions take the Social Model of Disability literally while claiming to use a multifactorial model.

by NavinF 2y ago

dahauns 2y ago

Not that I disagree with Alexander here, but sometimes it feels like I'm taking crazy pills - this kind of integrated model has been WHO standard for over twenty years.

NavinF 2y ago
As he noted, many people claim to use an integrated model. It's a motte and bailey. >I’ve never heard anyone willing to defend the actual Social Model the way it’s taught in every course, written on every website, and defined by every government agency. Everyone says they mean the Interactionist Model. Yet somehow, the official descriptions still say that disability is only social and not related to disease, and that you may only treat it with accommodations and not with medical care. > the topic is taught in a way that only occasionally nods to such a compromise; more often the Medical Model is condemned as outdated and bigoted, and the Social Model introduced as the new, acceptable version that people should use He quotes many sources that take the social model literally even in the 2020s
- dahauns 2y ago
  Yeah...I actually didn't want to get all, well, "geographical", but I can't help wonder if that's a US thing? At least here in Austria, the biopsychosocial model has been standard in teaching for a long time, and while it will still take some time for the generational shift in practice to conclude, monofactorial models have generally been accepted as being obsolete. And regarding the BPS model: I stand corrected about my agreement - the point he makes about it I very much disagree with: >This isn’t an exact match for a model of disability; the Biopsychosocial Model is most often used to explain the causes of illness, not how it impairs people. Still, I think there is a close enough analogy that it could be easily extended to disability. He really shoud at least have read the Beginners Guide to the WHO ICF (which is deeply rooted in the BPSM) https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/icf-beginner-s-guide-towards-a-common-language-for-functioning-disability-and-health https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/icf-beginner-s-guide... Both the model as a model of disability and a focus on impairment can be found front and center.
  - NavinF 2y ago
    Considering that all of Scott's quoted sources are American, I wouldn't be surprised if your country doesn't have the same issue. I assure you that a lot of American institutions take the Social Model of Disability literally while claiming to use a multifactorial model.