It’s not really that you contradict what autism is, it’s that descriptions of autistic people came about like this:
Kanner saw a bunch of people and grouped them together. He observed some things about them. Some of the observations were accurate. Some were more conclusions than true observations. Then he came to conclusions based on both types of observations. Many of his conclusions were false. (Note: Most of Kanner’s patients would today have a high chance of being diagnosed as AS and all but maybe one or two fit at least one definition of high functioning. Several went on to college. There are many modern myths about who these people were.)
The next person came along and put more people into the category of autistic. These people included people who appeared like Kanners patients appeared, people who were like Kanners patients were, people who appeared like Kanners conclusions, and people who were like Kanners conclusions.
This has been going onin many iterations for generations. And since 1980 it’s been happening to Asperger’s patients and conclusions too. (His patients were roughly the same as Kanner’s, but he drew different conclusions.)
This means that people who get called autistic are an incredibly diverse group of people and that virtually nobody matches the conclusions. And yet those who either match the conclusions, think they match the conclusions, pretend they match the conclusions, or may or may not match but other people can force fit them to the conclusions — those people will get called more typical or more autistic. Even though they are neither.
So knowing all that I’m never surprised when people don’t match the conclusions. The conclusions come from generations of faulty observations, faulty logic, and faulty science. And then no matter what the conclusions are, people who match them or who think they match them or can be said to match them by others, suddenly start getting diagnosed more. It’s a disturbingly tangled thing and I wish more people noticed.
Adding on to what I said before: I am extremely disturbed by the amount of people, autistic and otherwise, who actually believe in the various tangled threads of the idea of autism. Why don’t they notice how these things inevitably have to come about? Why do they take people’s word for it that “This is so because someone with authority says it’s so”? Why do they put stock in tangles on top of tangles on top of the flimsiest foundations? Why do they believe whatever the latest thread of the tangle that is descriptions of what autism is, and then privilege those of us who (say we are/think we are/pretend we are/really are/aren’t but don’t have the power to resist being represented as if we are) the same as the ideas in that thread? Why don’t they notice the difference between being that way, thinking we are that way, force fitting ourselves and saying we are that way, pretending we are that way, and having those with more authority insist we are that way? Why are such people considered “more typical” even when they’re a minority? Why is it that people read Kanner or Asperger and believe their conclusions and value judgements as if they are true unbiased observations? Why don’t people see the contradictions between their observations and their conclusions?
It really harms people when people don’t question all these abstractions piled on top of more abstractions piled on top of still more, for generations now until they are steep towers reaching into the clouds, rather than on or near the ground. (Is it my inability to climb that high that makes it easy for me to question these things?) It makes me feel vaguely ill when I see the various consequences of autistic people themselves believing these abstractions so intensely — whether it’s people thinking there’s something wrong when they don’t fit a stereotype, or acquiring more status because they (do/think they do/say they do/pretend they do/have others with more authority convinced they do).
Ballastexistenz 
I was looking at my website from when I was in tenth grade (about five years ago) and the funny thing about it is that there was a whole page of the “about me” part of the website explaining what “Asperger’s” was. I obviously considered it an important part of myself. But my description of Asperger’s was just a list of the diagnostic criteria–not a word-for-word list, but in my own words, because I had obviously so completely absorbed it as being true and could repeat it to people if I was so inclined.
But this list didn’t describe exactly what was going on with me. And there was even one version of my website which said something like, “Sometimes I don’t know if I have Asperger’s anymore because I have gotten a lot better and don’t do these things that much.” But I had a huge amount of things going on then that were really bad and were pretty obviously ASD-related! They just weren’t explicitly listed in the diagnostic criteria.
It’s sort of depressing to think that the Asperger’s/autistic label was important to me but I had, apparently, no belief that I was qualified to actually relate to it on my own terms. I also remember reading The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time, a book I now think is pretty offensive, and believing that I identified with the main character–but in retrospect, I have/had almost nothing in common with him. I was really into autism/disability/neurodiversity stuff for a while at that age, but despite that I somehow didn’t absorb the idea that medical professionals and pop culture shouldn’t have the last word on what people like me were like.
I don’t really understand this post. Does the term “Autism” mean something or not? I understand the ethic of respecting the right of the individual to define oneself, but if the individual doesn’t have a clear understanding of available definitions then doesn’t it seem likely that person could make a mistake? What do you mean when you say that “virtually nobody” who is called autistic “matches the conclusion”? To me,that sounds like you’re saying that the term “autistic” doesn’t really describe anyone, and if that’s the case then what are we talking about? How did we get here?
Brava, Amanda! You’ve expressed why I have such a painful and aversive reaction to the very idea of reading books about autism. The “experts” I just cannot stand at all. How they can possibly seek to describe what they’re not experiencing, and why they rarely even ask us what *we’re* experiencing, in all its variety, I do not understand. I can’t even take them seriously.
I don’t read autie-biographies, either–mainly because the first one I read was Temple Grandin’s “Thinking in Pictures,” and after that, I swore off them. Temple has absorbed the larger culture’s idea of “normal” so completely (and even uses the word “normal” so regularly) that it gave me physical pain. I know that not all autie-biographies are alike, but it’s so hard to read things by people who are working hard to “fit in” or who feel that their version of autism is “typical” or “high-functioning” and that other people are further down in some mythical hierarachy. Of course, if someone could suggest some autie-biographies that don’t fit this profile, I’d gladly read them.
At this point, I mainly stick to blogs written by other autistic people. Our expressions of our own experience are all that I’m interested in. I’ll read the occasional mom-blog–if the mom is able *empathize* (hmmm…) with where the child is coming from and completely accepts the child without trying to change the child. But even on those blogs, when I comment, I feel my minority status as the NT parents engage in conversation, largely without me.
I’m talking about things like “lacks empathy and theory of mind, can only see parts and never see the big picture, the ‘lower functioning’ they are said to be the less theory of mind they have, has no interest at all in other people”, stuff like that that is really a description that has been forced on top of autistic people rather than a consistently accurate observation. That’s the sort of thing the guy was assuming that if he didn’t feel like that then he must be extremely unusual. The reality is that description seems to fit only a minority of us, and when people realize that instead of throwing it out they stretch the definitions beyond what they originally meant (for instance when we pass tests that supposedly measure theory of mind, they simply make the test more linguistically complex until we fail it, then say “see that person lacks it after all”).
Like most such words, the word autistic means something and it doesn’t. What it doesn’t mean is “a person who has no interest in anyone and lacks theory of mind and empathy and the ability to see the big picture”. What it does mean is anyone who seems to fit certain ideas whether we really do or not (and quite often we really don’t). Survey people who actually get called autistic and most of us seem to have very atypical perceptions (all the time not just around people) that make us seem certain ways to people with certain biases.
But you can’t expect most terms developed by psychiatry not to be rather fuzzy and contain generations worth of errors. That’s just how that field tends to work.
And further than that you can’t expect words of any kind to be as meaningful as you might expect. Even the most concrete of words is an abstraction. This makes a lot of people uncomfortable. They feel as if the person saying that is doing away with reality. But reality is very stable and doesn’t require words to make it that way.
So really in having such fuzzy boundaries, autism is like most words. If this bothers you you might want a different blogger. As I’ve said many times autism is just an abstraction. All that really exists are autistic people.
Rachel: I collect autiebiographies. But I have the same trouble reading them as you do. But it’s interesting to see how they have changed over the years. The conclusions in the eighties and early nineties are different from now and people’s descriptions of themselves reflect that. There were a lot more psychoanalytic ideas in the early ones and a lot of modern theories in the later ones. And each kind only allows part of the truth to come out (as you can see in the writings of people who have been continually writing books this whole time). But even with all that pressure to conform, many of the books show things that have nothing to do with prevailing views of autism and it’s that stuff I read them for when I do read them at all instead of just collect them.
I’ve been a lurker here for a while, but this post matches what I’ve been thinking for a while. Apart from anything else, a diagnosis that includes 0.5-1% of the population is going to pick up a huge group of people with an enormous range of traits both related and unrelated to ASD.
I wasn’t diagnosed because I believed that my ability to understand humour, metaphor and to write fiction meant I was excluded.
As a doctor myself, I’m curious about how we diagnose this condition, and worry that a lot of stuff is simply because in a group this big, you’re always going to have enough of a population to find commonalities. You have to be really, really careful.
Would like to post more, but I’m at work – may have to come back later!
the word autism derived from the Greek word autós ( meaning self) and I have been thinking that this ” origine “is more a conclusion than an observation ; meaning that it also reinforce the stéréotype : someone-trapped-in-his-world.
The World’s largest DNA scan was recently completed and published Wednesday, June 9, 2010 – 13:19 in Biology & Nature. It reveals rare variants that disrupt gene activity in autistic children. These were described as” a number of disruptions that are new, or de novo. A direct quote is that “The study confirms earlier findings in smaller samples that some children carry private genetic mutations that are unique to them, contributing to their susceptibility to autism. ” What they are finding in research is that there is great diversity in what leads to autism.
Another direct quote from this article:
” Every child showed a different disturbance in a different gene. When we looked at the gene’s function, however, certain categories of genes emerged that were more likely to be influenced by the mutation.
“Three of the disrupted genes, for example, participate in cellular communication,” Nelson explained. “They all cluster at the synapse, the site where brain cells talk to each other. One of these genes has previously been tied to autism and intellectual disabilities.”
Hence science is supporting that there is extreme diversity in autism yet commonality in shared difficulties such as communication. I think this points to the very uniqueness of individuals who are on the spectrum. Anyone who points at someone and says they don’t fit the mold (of defined autism) only confirms the fact that it is the mold that doesn’t fit.
Since there are at least 10 million gene variants in every individual’s genome, diversity is the name of the game. Autism is no different and perhaps has even more unique variations.
We know now that many of the earlier myths of autism just aren’t true. Lack of humor (are you kidding?) or inability to be creative. It speaks more to the lack of earlier observers understanding. The way autistics express themselves sometimes is totally mis-read by NT’s and there has been a fair amt. of misinterpretation as a result.
Here is a link to a summery of this article:
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/06/09/worlds.largest.dna.scan.reveals.rare.variants.disrupt.gene.activity.autistic.children
A personal note here: I cringed a little at some of the scientific terminology in this, but I think the article itself is apt to this post.
Cellular communication and communication difficulties are different things. But definitely when people really look closely at what autistic people experience it’s nearly always about how we think, perceive, and/or respond to the world in general, rather than a specifically social problem the way a lot of “experts” keep trying to make it look.
It is a great shame Derrida is not around to turn his stunning wit on the subject of autism.
Well in his wake, I have been deconstructing it since at least 2005.
Take a word like Artist, we know (or we think we do) what an artist is, but we can look at the works of two artist’s or there lives and see nothing in common whatever bar creativity.
So for me it is with Autist.
I do not like the notion that if you are autistic then you must be x, y or z. Sure there are points of identification or commonality else we wouldn’t have a flourishing culture at all, but it is not all as deterministic as the shifting sands of scientific veridity would have us think. (or is it, maybe I was pre destined to write that)
It’s an old story, you know the one, if you are crippled then you are a bitter malcontent, or all old women are witches. Folk wisdom no more.
I guess with all his daft pre natal testosterone theries SBC is nothing but a folk gynecologist :)
Tomorrow there will be a new headline and the sheeple will be aligning to it, all these hyper logical autistic people too, well I have yet to see much evidence of a truly logical person in practice (self excluded of course)
@ballastexistenz , sorry certainly due to my lack of english, i don’t understand what you mean in your the last sentence ” rather than a specifically social problem the way a lot of “experts” keep trying to make it look. ”
Do you have the time to unpack that ?
I really don’t know how I dare to call myself an autism researcher these days, but really that is just another pigeon hole I can be put into.
The reality of all autism research is the same, in that it depends upon the existance of the category in the first place and does not question that fundemental (well mine does I suppose I’ve already presented two papers on that)
The problem then is if the category changes, which it does, or it if is fuzzy at the borders, which it is.
If a significant number of findings go against the notions of the category, then the category does begin to strain, but then it takes in the change, and so what was proven?
That it is more about category than what causes what.
I have known for a long time that there is such inconsistency in “autism” such that it is unlikely that there is any one common cause.
It’s long been apparant from reading the studies that if there is any neurobiological reality behind the artifice of the condition, it is an aggregate of several processes, even different sets of processes that cause similar reactions or features.
Now I know what causes this, as surely as I know that thunderstorms arise from a variety of different weather patterns.
Trouble is most researchers look only at there own research, get engrossed in it, can’t step back and study the processes and patterns they are following in interpreting it. They don’t actually dissect it with logic as such, just use statistical instruments that can be bidden.
A contradiction is always a contradiction, and a paradox is a paradox, one has to look at a different branch of mathematics than statistics to sort that out.
It’s not a branch I will be using in my own research, I’d need a lot of training in it first, it’s a long time since I have been in any academic area where mathematics is heavily used for modelling, and that was the field of economics. Yes I guess you could even describe in analogical terms an economy of human development, it would be fun as a diversion if one had the time.
Trouble is to tell the truth I couldn’t keep up with the maths in economics I failed my exams :(
Alexandrakis: What I mean is that many so called autism experts do a whole lot of mental gymnastics to show that autistic people’s main difference from the norm is a social skills deficit of some kind. When that’s really far from certain and far from universal. But even when there is much evidence otherwise, they try really hard to make it sound as if they are right rather than adapting their theories.
ok, allright, i get it.
thanks
I really am starting to question some of my ideas about myself that are mostly taught. Or rather, I’m continuing to do so. When I was younger (say 10 or so) I noticed that a lot of my ideas were regurgitating what my parents had said, and a lot of times those ideas had nothing to do with reality. The problem was that I had internalized them so much that I wasn’t even aware of it, so I had to wait for them to pop up and demonstrate their falseness. This is sort of the same kind of situation.
I have never felt my main problem was “social deficits.” This does seem to be the most offensive thing to other people, but annoying for other people is not hard for me. At the same time, I’ve been accused by other autistic people of reinforcing negative stereotypes in regards to not being very interested in socializing and I guess I really am less interested in it than other people. But then so are lots of people. What was that they said about language delay in the dsm 5 autism criteria… Something about how it was neither unique to autism nor necessitated by that. It’s sort of the same thing here. I hear lots of people saying things like “Asperger’s is mainly about social impairment” and I wonder if they really mean that, even in regards to themselves. I’m sure some of them do, but I’m skeptical that it’s realistically true for so many of them. And then am I doing the same kind of thing in regards to other things? I think I am.
On another note, I’ve been watching the first season of the show “Monk,” which was a show I liked as a kid. Most people have probably heard about it, but it’s a sort of cheesy show about a detective (Monk) with a photographic memory and his trusty side kick. The only unusual thing is that Monk has various kinds of psychological problems (his side kick is a nurse who helps take care of him), which had become much more serious after the death of his wife, when he ended up in a catatonic state and was later removed from the police force. At the beginning of the show he has begun working again as a private consultant for the police department. He is supposed to have some problems in common with people who have OCD, and some people with OCD don’t like the show because of his character, but I’ve never seen it claimed that Monk HAS obsessive compulsive disorder. Just that he has some similar problems as them, as well as various kinds of anxiety and phobia related problems, and some social difficulties too. I am realizing that I can actually relate to this character more than autism representations I’ve seen, despite the fact that most of the problems he has are different than mine. Which is funny, because some of the representations I can’t relate to well at all are obviously having similar problems as me. I guess it’s just this guy with various kinds of problems and his own set of priorities trying to get through his life and relate to people. It’s much more organic than the “Oh she’s just from another planet!” that gets thrown at autistic people, along with various forms of psychiatric obfuscation.
Heh, in one episode he got sent to a mental institution for a few days, and it turned out that the head psychiatrist was a murderer who had killed another doctor a several years ago (naturally Monk exposes him). I got a kick out of that even though the episode wasn’t very well done.
Wow telling you you’re reinforcing autism stereotypes because you’re not interested in people is just… wrong. You can’t help whether you’re interested in people or not and your existence doesn’t reinforce a stereotype any more than if someone bangs their head it reinforces a stereotype. Having stereotypical traits shouldn’t be wrong in itself.
Pancho, I am reading the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and I think I have a similar reaction of liking it even though the disability is cheesily portrayed. The main girl is supposed to have ASD and has lots of stereotypical abilities like being brilliant at chess and computers and having a photographic memory. But I can’t help liking the way she’s portrayed because the focus is on her as a unique person (not as an example of an ASD person) and because she’s portrayed as moral and perceptive, instead of selfish and naive, which is how ASD characters are usually portrayed.
Oh, I know and agree. I responded with a story a woman told me that involved her breast size and a group of feminists. She was told that she was setting an unrealistic standard for other women, even though she hadn’t set out to do anything in regards to her breast size. Obviously that’s unreasonable (attributing the active to the passive), but at the same time I think it’s understandable for someone to feel threatened by it on some level. If it progresses to harassment or something like that it would be a problem, but in my case it didn’t; it was just a gut reaction.
I guess my point in mentioning that was mostly just that I really AM stereotypical in some ways. Other people are probably stereotypical in other ways, but not necessarily in the ways I am stereotypical. So then how do you know what’s true and what’s a stereotype if some of the stereotypes are true for you. Then there are also situations where the stereotypes are only partially true or are completely true but only in certain circumstances. It’s hard to figure out what’s going on in that kind of situation.
Unfortunately I confirm certain stereotypes regarding “high funtioning” super aspies, whilst simultaneously denying others.
If it were not for the lable of autism I don’t think anyone would use my postgrad status as a stick to beat me into incompetence to speak on behalf of anybody, after all it’s the same feature that gives scientists artificial authority isn’t it, but the knowing autist is never allowed the same rights in what is essentially a psychological game whose rules do not have anything to do with logic at all.
Laurentius Rex: Just want to say, I can’t believe that in the same comment, you mentioned the two people in the world whose ideas most easily send my Extremely Male Brain into paroxysms of Impaired Empathizing and Attempted Systemizing: Derrida (boo! hiss!) and SBC. I don’t even have the words to adequately describe the latter, although “folk gynecologist” will certainly do very well for now. ;-)
Of course, I say that only because I lack theory of mind. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the mans’s ideas, which I’m sure I would consider quite brilliant if I could only see the big picture. I’d say more, but of course, I don’t really care about relating to people…Then again, why am I talking to you?….Oh my God, maybe I’m not autistic afer all????
Possibly some researchers select their pet Auties by using questionnaires that conform to their predetermined ideas, and the study said Auties to confirm what autism is?
Since my diagnosis about a year ago I’ve met a lot of Aspies and almost without exception they are a kind and empathic bunch. The only commonality I’ve found, apart from the social issues, is prolonged bouts of depression.
However those that I meet are in the 35-55 age range, have grown up in a different society (no internet to connect them as young adults is probably a bigger issue than most of us appreciate) and are beginning to appreciate the reality of growing old in social isolation. It may not change the underlying neurological issues, but it has an enormous effect on how you engage with your environment.
Judging Autie/nonAutie by behaviour is fraught with danger. Personally I do everything I can to ‘pass’ as normal. That may horrify some people, but it is my right to decide how I handle this. My way is my choice; other people can choose their own way. But I practice, and set myself tasks, and although I do certain things like a NT, the underlying reasons and the effort it takes are completely different.
Hi Tassie: You’re absolutely right that the prospect of growing old in social isolation is an enormous hit on us older auties. (I’m 52.) Like you, I passed as NT for most of my life (not knowing that I was autistic till 2 years ago), but I’ve hit burnout and have lost my ability to do a lot of things I once did. And many of the things I *can* do cost me dearly in pain and exhaustion.
Having seemed so “NT” for most of my life makes it really hard to explain things like why using the phone hurts or why I need text-to-text communication for an office visit. After all, if I can talk one day, why not the next? And if I can talk to my husband, why can’t I talk to everyone else? And what’s the big deal with the phone? It’s like they think I’m being perverse. They have no idea that even talking with my husband is very hard work and very depleting neurologically–none of which has anything to do with him, and everything to do with how my system really works.
Until the “professionals” start looking at autism from the inside, rather than as a set of “behaviors,” they’re just never going to understand that they have it all backwards. The question aren’t “Why can’t I do what I’ve always done?” and “Why can’t I be consistent about my abilities from one day to the next?” The questions are “How did I manage to live with so much pain and stress for so many years?” and “How can anyone expect me to continue living like that?”
I found out I was autistic when I was 21; they had
never told me before. I had gone to the shrink for years thinking I was crazy and wondering why I was
thought weird. ( I knew my parents thought I was weird). O.k., so I have executive dysfunction and
sensory disorders. I am a bit of a pattern “freak”. But I get jokes, sarcasm…I can see the bigger picture and I have (too much) imagination.
My problem now has mainly to do with stress
and since I (sort of) fit into the world I am expected to act “normal”. And then they get angry when I don’t act like that because now I
am older and they want me to be “normal”
What my parents saw as autism when I was growing up was (or seems to me now) to be merely acting out against the Establishment. I cannot always say “this was autistic behavior”. One, I
don’t care and two, I get autistic behavior so mixed up with rebellious behavior, exhaustion, and stress-that I don’t know the difference anymore. And I don’t care.
some kind of erratum :
in this video
smelena73 is saying that “aut” in greek means “mind”.
That’s a much more joyfull way of seeing this autism word.
I think, for now, i’ll stick to smelena73 translation.
Kalispera Alexandrakis-
How are autism and autistic people viewed in Greece? Is there a very similar issue with stereotypes over there?
And a bigger question…to anyone….is it like that all over the world?
What is the correlation between socioeconomic status and adherence to known stereotypes of autism/autistic people?
What about first world vs second world vs third world (so to speak……) nations’ attitudes towards autism/autistic people/disabled people in general?
Hi Andrea the integral,
i’m going to disapoint you : i’m french. My parents are greek but they moved to france ( at least my mum (long story)) long time ago. I don’t even speak greek.
So for sterotypes, i can only speak for france, and i would say YES, there is a lot of them there and we are really, really late about autism on many levels, even the scientifique level.
France is actually stuck in a ” polémique ” between hardcore Freudian/lancanian/Whatever psychanalists who have some really old theories and are holding the place.
And there is one thing only done in france : it’s called “packing” and it’s about packing some frozen sheets on an autistic personn ” to calm him down when he has a crisis”. This is total bollocks ( xcuse my french).
But there is also some good science for ex : Monica Zilbovicius seems to do an interesting work.
For social stereotypes, pffff… France is late oh so late.
We used to be good with guys like Fernand Deligny, but it was in the 60’s. Now disable people are almost totaly invisible in the media, except for the annual stupid téléthon.
For economic status, as far as i know, most of the disable people get stuck in shitty jobs ( almost jail jobs , like putting something in a box for all day long).
But i’m not a specialist, i mean some good stuff are happening too… we’re not totaly middle-age ( we are suppose to be first world too).
But we are late on accomodation ( i think Lyon is the worst place in Europe for a guy or girl in a wheelchair), that is for sure.
I envy you a lot, actually, all these blogs and stuff, i really wish there was something like that in France.
I don’t even know a disabilty movement there. We have gay movement, black&immigration movement, women movement,unemployed people movement, workers movement ( a lot of strikes ( we love strikes ( i mean : it’s almost a cultural thing ( but i do love strikes, don’t get me wrong))) but, as far as i know, no disable movement ( i mean no movement which is not not an “officialy approved” movement ; no spontaneous movement).
Anyway, it’s would take a book to properly answer these questions.
But, maybe, under the influence of this blog ( for example) french autieaspie&disable will come out of the closet…
I actually have wrote a long article about that, and it’s going to be on line next-week ( but in french). I also have translated In My language
( hope this is okay with you, silentmiaow ( i’m not making a dime out of that)).
Maybe this will make some noise a bit, i don’t know, i mean i hope so…
I’m a little bit connected with Asperensa
http://forum.asperansa.org/index.php
and they know what is going on here ( in north america i mean). And there is this guy olé :
http://humainsvolants.blogspot.com/
who is really passionate about what is going on here and seems to know a lot of stuff…
Maybe things will move a bit ( and also, France is very different from america on a cultural level ( using the medias for example)).
Sorry long answer, but big questions here …
to conclude : let’s say that France is not a total nightmare for disable people, but we do have long way to go on many matters ( i repeat i’m not a specialist and all that i’ve said here was mostly my opinion).
By the way, alexandrakis is my surname, my first name is constantin, but most of my friends calls me Tintin ( and i happen to be known as Gwyneth Bison on the internet ( i actually really like the name Andrea the Integral).
also, behaviourist are not very popular in France, ABA is only starting there…
I just realise that i might have been rude in the way i was saying that i have translated In My Language. If you do not want to have this done, i can remove the french version of the video, asap.
i don’t understand : i’ve posted a long response to Andrea the integral, and it don’t appear here ( all the sentence above are linked to this message )
The comments don’t appear automatically. I have to approve each one. Comments with lots of links often go to the spam folder (so do lots of other comments). I had to go through 83 spam messages to find that one and another one. So I have to be checking the moderation queue as well the spam in order for any comments at all to get through and I don’t always do that every day.
Oh, pardonne moi Constantin…..for thinking you were greek without even asking first. I was the one being rude!
It’s very interesting your response to me….I have been to France many times it’s a beautiful country….my mom was born there and so was her father so I am part french as well. I’m glad you like my name…
Yes I agree that the packing idea is total bollocks. I’d be tres en colere if someone did that to me!
Here in America we give way too much power to the media. I think that’s partly why they feel they can get away with distorting people’s words when they are doing interviews….and insert their own opinions into the pieces.
ok thanks
This is what you get when professionals, with their ontological approach to all of everything, are made the gate-keepers/validators for supports and services. You have to fit the box; presenting a need is secondary. With ASD so much effort has gone into designing the box (diagnostic criteria) that consideration of the construction materials (etiology)has been, by and large, left out.
Okay, this is horribly off topic, but this seems as good a place as any to point out that the “autism clock” from “fighting autism” appears to have been taken down. A small victory…
Rachel: I’m an AC, and I found your June 14 comment (“The questions aren’t…” in the 3rd paragraph) especially poignant and helpful. Thank you.
I am: an Individual, a Human Being, Currently residing in the Universe, Loved
I have: A Mind, A Soul, Opinions and Beliefs, Feelings and Emotions, Made Mistakes
You are: an Individual, a Human Being, Currently residing in the Universe, Loved
You have: A Mind, A Soul, Opinions and Beliefs, Feelings and Emotions, Made Mistakes
We are: Individuals, Human Beings, Currently residing in the Universe, Loved
We have: A Mind, A Soul, Opinions and Beliefs, Feelings and Emotions, Made Mistakes
Pingback: Just the links: Identity Police 06/10/2010 « Urocyon's Meanderings
Hi Rachel,
There’s a teleclass this week on autism you or your audience may be interested in. Dr. Shelby-Lane and Dr. Flynn will be discussing the issue – http://conversationswithdrshelbylane.com/
All the best,
Lisa