"The Autie Advantage" - autistic brains really are different not worse
Posted by
damo73
on 2nd May 2010
at 22:04
Hello Amber,
I have been telling people for years but they just won't listen!
Anyway - do you know where the research is from? I recently took part in some research for Wisconsin University, they tested me on the rotating shapes thing, maths stuff, word puzzles, psychometric personality tests and all sorts.
Although the findings stated above apply very well to me - I would argue that one can get better at the 'weaknesses', by utilising the strengths. I use my rationality, attention to detail + memory to help me plan, build understandings, understand language etc. - problem is, the parts of my brain doing this, probably were not 'designed' to do this etc. - it seems to take longer in real time, although my brain is working overtime!
My 'classically' autistic son has an acute awareness of shape and feel - he could do puzzles for 3/4 year old's when he was one. Despite his regression, he has held on to this curiousity of shape and texture. His sensory/spatial awareness is quite stunning. He could manipulate shapes in his head probably better than I could - problem is, he wouldn't understand the instructions of a test.
I think all humans are quite incredible creatures - I try and encourage people to use whatever wiring they were given to the best of their ability. People have often called me 'lazy', especially when younger - I assure you that I am not. I have now realised that I probably have had a prejudice against NT's for 'mental laziness' rather than 'productive active laziness' - so we probably antagonise each other in equal amounts!
I think a 'lack of empathy' is a common human problem - differences just highlight it! Problem is, when one is a minority difference, this leads to the greater apperance of 'social skills problems' defined as deficient by those who do not share this difference. One cannot escape one's own perspective - + people tend to highlight the strengths of their 'ingroup' at the expense of the 'outgroup'. Working collaboratively between groups is something I am working out a theory on at the moment...
Like all scientific method - one can only measure what one sets out to measure. There may be skills that they don't define as such.
I think research like this will however go a long way in showing people that autism is not very well defined as a 'disorder'. I am not sure anyone is that ordered and fixed in identity anyway!
Starting to confuse myself now, so probably a good time to stop ranting!
Damian
Posted by
damo73
on 2nd May 2010
at 22:09
Whoops - just had another brainwave!
In history - didn't white men say that black men lacked rationality, civility and social skills? Didn't men say that women lacked the intelligence and fortitude of men (many still do!)? Didn't heterosexuals demean homosexuals as something 'lesser than normal', 'not right', 'mentally ill' etc.
Question to you all:
Define a social skill?
Damian
Posted by
amberlight
on 3rd May 2010
at 08:21
Damian, the article can be found on the New Scientist website at http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627581.500-the-advantages-of-aut... so that might let you track back the research.
I guess "social skill" is defined by big groups of people. And people who don't do what that group wants and behave in ways they expect are said not to have 'social skills'? In any group of autistic individuals, I have excellent social skills - for us. And then it's the neurotypical people who don't. All depends who's got the biggest group at the time, then?
Posted by
damo73
on 3rd May 2010
at 10:51
Thanks for the link - I found it a very interesting article.
The point that it is making is that savant abilities have been found in as many as 1 in 10 autistic people (this is massively higher than the NT population) and that ALL 'auties' - the statistical scientific average - do better than NT's at certain tasks - there are also measures, that on average we do worse. As I have said about the scientific method before - it only measures what someone sets out to measure. Until the autistic community started to raise the point + gain degrees enough (in the the NT system) to gain academic credibility to raise it, few people cared. Interestingly, Hans Asperger's work had several mentions of these abilities - the problem is that we have been defined and controlled and labelled as deficient by the medical model and several psychological models. The so-called weaknesses are not at all clear-cut in terms of evidence either!
As for the comments on social skills - this again shows me that you have a 'sociological imagination' (I will explain no doubt at some point!). I relate to your comments as well - amongst autistic people, I am much more 'socially skilled' - I think there are numerous reasons why this might be the case. I like the article stating that 'theory of mind' theory has its critics (me being one of them!) + Michelle Dawson's work is much needed - yet to get anywhere with these ideas, you have to go through the NT academic route in order for the powers that be to recognise your insights - and then you will be attacked (in academic terms) for it - especially for those who have a vested interest in theories and practices that are already established.
I have learnt very well to play the NT academic game now (after years and years of practice!) and doing a PhD will help me make an minor impact. Yet - if enough people 'upset the apple cart', then we will get more information and knowledge as a result.
The article points out the main problem - if you have advantages how can you be labelled disabled and get benefits and support?
This question is premised on the idea that disability = deficit / this is a socially constructed view which just does not fit. If one wishes to generalise, we can have different skills to NT's. Yet - when society is structured to support the needs of the 99% NT majority, then the strengths of the 1% will undoubtedly be effected by this disjuncture from social expectation. Thus, a structural inequality is built into the equation. Thus, minority difference should be sufficient for some level of social support in a caring society. What is reality though, is that if you have a high IQ etc. and can be seen to be independent, you can't claim disability benefits and are expected to work + no-one will employ you (see Micheal's situation on this forum at the moment). Even at school, the high-functioning often do not receive any real extra support. In order to gain support, you must be significantly disabled by society (also significantly stigmatised for not meeting social expectation by default). Then the high-functioning are accused of not having a 'real disability' - when they are highly socially marginalised for their difference.
The logic in these arguments (medical model vs. social model - generally speaking):
Disability = biological deficit // Asperger's = difference not deficit // Asperger's = not disability // So - if it is a disability - you must be deficient compared to the NT.
Disability = socially constructed disadvantage based on biological difference // Asperger's = highly disadvantaged social group // Asperger's = requires care and support, although it does not mean 'deficient', just 'socially disadvantaged'.
This is the main ideological/political problem between NT power (politicians, medics, many psychologists) and disability activist groups. It seems autism has now entered this fray + with 1 in 100 on the spectrum, this is a serious social issue!
Damian
Posted by
amberlight
on 3rd May 2010
at 11:49
Arguably 1 in 64, on the research in Cambridgeshire where they did the assessment work with the primary school children.
I can't follow your whole argument as my brain can't quite get there, but I agree with what I can understand: I've had huge difficulties with bullying from people who say that because I can talk, there's nothing wrong with me and my difficulties are absolutely nothing compared to (someone or other). They know nothing about me, nothing about my life, nothing about the struggles I have or the support I need or the disasters and violence and assault and defrauding I've been through...but they can still judge me instantly because I can talk.
It's like going up to a blind person and saying "you don't have any problems because you can talk", or going up to a wheelchair user and saying "your life is totally easy because you can talk". It's bizarre.
Social communication equals success. We can't communicate socially with skill, therefore our level of success in life is horribly low just about all the time.
I have many autistic friends with incredible skill levels in particular things - and they are jobless or paid an absolute pittance. What a total utter waste. One, a top programmer, went through interview after interview after interview without success because she couldn't convince them her social skills were enough to get the job. She's a computer programmer - she doesn't need social skills to program a computer. They wouldn't let her show that she can actually do the job. And do it to an incredible standard.
Posted by
bumblebee
on 3rd May 2010
at 18:09
Hi Amber,
This sort of story really saddens me about having autistic people suffering such discrimination that they cant even show that they are more than capable of doing the job asked of them....I worry so much for the childrens future growing up in such an unfeeling and discriminatory society...who was it who said that autism is the latest 'ism?? (racism, ageism, sexism etc...)
Claire - Community Champion
Posted by
amberlight
on 3rd May 2010
at 18:27
Aye, agreed. Compare and contrast to another computer friend of mine who went for the same sort of job with barely a computer qualification to her name, but dressed fantastically and 'blagged' her way through the interview by flattering the people doing the interviews. She got the job.
I've sat in on interview panels where the best candidates on skills are deliberately not chosen - because the interview panel decides to invent new criteria of social skills that the person failed, so they don't have to give them the job. The candidates in each case were disabled. As long as they can point to a criteria on which they failed, no matter how fictitious, it's legal. And horrible. And I left that organisation.
I have been a mentor to an autistic young man, now in his 20s, for some years now. We've had to fight his school excluding him for being autistic, the police arresting him for 'being autistic and acting in an autistic way' (effectively), then him getting a criminal record for acting in an autistic way, two rogue employers taking him on and then refusing to pay him after a month and telling him there was no job and there's nothing he could do about it...and him battling through this and so many other things that could have crushed his confidence - to finally take steps towards becoming a qualified professional. It took a team of us working with him and supporting him and encouraging him and battling the systems and never giving up on him, but it worked. Sometimes it takes all of that to defeat the level of ignorance now out there. But it can be done. I'm SO proud of him. And of his family. We dared to all see his abilities, not his disadvantages.
Posted by
bumblebee
on 3rd May 2010
at 19:09
HI Amber,
Thank goodness he had you and the team...maybe we should be pushing for more teams like this who can spot discrimination a mile off ....My friend is the queen of blagging! It has got her some really high paid jobs and she has learned the skills she was meant to have but didnt on the job by delegating!! She is a cheeky one but she also has a daughter who has AS but is undiagnosed....we talk often about ways to help her as she doesnt want a diagnosis for her mainly because of the stigma attached.....
My friend said that there was one member of her team at work who no one else could get on with. His social skills were very poor and he insulted and upset his collegues on a daily basis...after learning what she had about helping her daughter, she recognised autistic traits in this man and stopped him loosing his job...he was meant to be making phone calls to customers, but if anyone asked him a question that deviated from his ''script'' he froze and couldnt continue with the call...my friend recognised that he was really good at information presented in numbers and was great at organisation....she gave him the job of inputting the spreadsheets (of sales I think - but involving figures) and as she worked with his strengths, avoided his weaknesses, his job is now secure.....oh to have more bosses like my friend!! Thank goodness for a bit of common sense and a bit of human kindness and understanding.....hence why she is my friend..!!
Claire - Community Champion
Posted by
damo73
on 3rd May 2010
at 21:56
Hello Amber and Claire,
Good examples all of being 'socially disabled'! I'm glad that you have had some successes in helping others Amber - this is important for me also.
Claire - that may have been me - although I wouldn't have said it in that way - as an 'ism' is more like a perspective or collection of theories. Yet - I have argued that disability rights are going to be the next major civil rights issue in the Western world - following in the footsteps of the others.
Disability rights movements have been established for many years - yet the 'autistic group' have historically been the most silent (for a number of reasons) or 'talked for'. What I find interesting is the interface with technological change. Autistics are now a very large disability group - organising over the internet and starting to 'come out' - 'loud and proud' etc. - really for the very first time in any kind of solidarity.
Perhaps the development of a progressive liberal society had to deal with ethnicity, gender etc. first as rights issues due to numbers - yet disability / mental and physical health / ageing population etc. - are becoming increasingly highlighted social issues.
Every movement needs its suffragettes, its Martin Luther King's and so on - leaders, activists, theorists - and as with the others before it, the struggle will continue, potentially indefinately.
Damian
Posted by
michaelz
on 2nd June 2010
at 10:54
Dr. Darold Treffert, a Wisconsin psychiatrist, has been studying Savant Syndrome for over 40 years...
---------------------
hear darold discuss issue on `all in the mind` :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sjmvn
from 8 minutes and 16 seconds onwards.
![SiftGroups.com [opens in a new window]](themes/zen/treehouse/images/siftGroupsLogo.gif)
Posted by
amberlight
on 2nd May 2010
at 16:11
In this week's New Scientist magazine (1 May 2010) available online and in most bigger newsagents) there is a three page article about the latest on autism and our brains.
It shows that most people with autism have strengths as well as weaknesses. David Wolman, who writes the article, says that time after time research has shown that autistic children or adults have very strong skills in some things, but each time the researchers have focused only on the negative side of those skills. One quote I love in it is this:
"The flip side of an inability to 'see the wood for the trees' is being very, very good at seeing trees". In other words, autistic people may be bad at one thing, but only because we're extremely good at something else and the brain is processing that instead of the other stuff.
Things we are generally very good at, they found from the research:
Memory
Musical pitch recognition
Drawing and/or mentally rotating/assembling 3-D shapes and designs
Rational rather than emotional decision-making
Attention to detail
Things we are generally not so good at:
Social skills
Social imagination & understanding what someone else is thinking
Planning complex sequences of events
Seeing the broader strategy for things
Using language in a skilled way to get key things for ourselves
I think the article is available online to the public next week (they like to keep it to subscribers only for a week, from memory)
All of this is a generalisation, of course, since each person is an individual. Some will have stronger skills in many things, some will struggle to show a strong skill in anything at all. But it's very interesting that science is now recognising it as a genuine difference with some definite advantages over other people, rather than just a deficit that has to be gotten rid of. It shows that the challenge is getting society to recognise those differences and possible strengths, and make it possible for us to live good and productive lives in ways we can handle.