Autism is now a $468 billion/ year industry. Money like that does the usual. It brings more blur than clarity. The current nonsense is one consequence. A review of what it is and isn't .
Temple Grandin, a famous person on the spectrum, describes a kind of phenomenology of thought that actually resonates with me, an ostensibly neurotypical individual, as I can choose to think linguistically, but find that cumbersome unless the task is to actually produce language. Usually, I think in a manner similar to what she describes, though I'd hesitate to call it "visual." It feels more "formal" in the Piagetian or even Platonic sense, really. In any case, the evidence is pretty strong that genetics plays a role in autism. Not for nothing, my wife reports a similar mental experience, she is also "neurotypical," though her half-brother is what most would describe as "Aspergers-y," and, as I mentioned, both of our children have autism.
She's a stay-at-home mom. We decided that from the get-go, knowing the research on attachment and child development, as I'm a school psychologist. We're engaged, bilingual, and doting/loving, arguably to a fault.
We're just a sample of four people, but our experience is pretty consistent with the current lines of thinking, and I think it suggests that autism is, as Grandin suggests, a kind of personality characteristic that can become pathological if in excess. I also feel that this mental experience might have a connection, and I'm disappointed there isn't more research into this. I'm glad the research has moved beyond "blaming the parents," though I understand this isn't exactly what you suggest. Rather, you're suggesting that specific societal trends fall into line with now-discarded theories that could explain the increase in autism prevalence. Again, we're an N=4, but it's not looking good for resurrecting that line of reasoning based on our tiny sample.
For what it's worth, my daughter is responding well to ABA and is making friends. My son is not yet three, and not presenting with language, though his limited babbling could be argued as a kind of proto-signalling, and he's starting to engage more in shared attention and sharing one's gaze outside of peek-a-boo. Time will tell what his and her ultimate functionality will be.
I appreciate your point. Don’t know if you read the whole article but I am certain genetics play a role in some cases. My chief argument is that biological perspectives have gone way too far in excluding psychological factors particularly because there is practically no research done in this area. I agree that there can be a trait that can express itself in varying degrees. But the other major point I am making is that the spectrum idea is crazy as actually used. Bill Gates fascination with logic and science, and his relative lack of interest in social interaction is certainly a very common quality in a lot of people, and perhaps that is genetic, or the result of his early relationship with his parents But I very much doubt it is related to the real disease in children, autism. If all of the asocial characteristics in so many people are part of one huge disease, or genetic characteristics I very much doubt research will lead anywhere. I could be wrong about this, but I think it is a valid objection. But thanks for taking the time to add your thoughts. That is what is most needed rather than the automatic and settled opinions of “experts”
Temple Grandin, a famous person on the spectrum, describes a kind of phenomenology of thought that actually resonates with me, an ostensibly neurotypical individual, as I can choose to think linguistically, but find that cumbersome unless the task is to actually produce language. Usually, I think in a manner similar to what she describes, though I'd hesitate to call it "visual." It feels more "formal" in the Piagetian or even Platonic sense, really. In any case, the evidence is pretty strong that genetics plays a role in autism. Not for nothing, my wife reports a similar mental experience, she is also "neurotypical," though her half-brother is what most would describe as "Aspergers-y," and, as I mentioned, both of our children have autism.
She's a stay-at-home mom. We decided that from the get-go, knowing the research on attachment and child development, as I'm a school psychologist. We're engaged, bilingual, and doting/loving, arguably to a fault.
We're just a sample of four people, but our experience is pretty consistent with the current lines of thinking, and I think it suggests that autism is, as Grandin suggests, a kind of personality characteristic that can become pathological if in excess. I also feel that this mental experience might have a connection, and I'm disappointed there isn't more research into this. I'm glad the research has moved beyond "blaming the parents," though I understand this isn't exactly what you suggest. Rather, you're suggesting that specific societal trends fall into line with now-discarded theories that could explain the increase in autism prevalence. Again, we're an N=4, but it's not looking good for resurrecting that line of reasoning based on our tiny sample.
For what it's worth, my daughter is responding well to ABA and is making friends. My son is not yet three, and not presenting with language, though his limited babbling could be argued as a kind of proto-signalling, and he's starting to engage more in shared attention and sharing one's gaze outside of peek-a-boo. Time will tell what his and her ultimate functionality will be.
I appreciate your point. Don’t know if you read the whole article but I am certain genetics play a role in some cases. My chief argument is that biological perspectives have gone way too far in excluding psychological factors particularly because there is practically no research done in this area. I agree that there can be a trait that can express itself in varying degrees. But the other major point I am making is that the spectrum idea is crazy as actually used. Bill Gates fascination with logic and science, and his relative lack of interest in social interaction is certainly a very common quality in a lot of people, and perhaps that is genetic, or the result of his early relationship with his parents But I very much doubt it is related to the real disease in children, autism. If all of the asocial characteristics in so many people are part of one huge disease, or genetic characteristics I very much doubt research will lead anywhere. I could be wrong about this, but I think it is a valid objection. But thanks for taking the time to add your thoughts. That is what is most needed rather than the automatic and settled opinions of “experts”